A New Day

The people have spoken; better days filled with hope are ahead. My mind is spinning out of control today. I'm consumed with so many thoughts and emotions. As I stood in line to vote yesterday I was overcome with emotion and a sense of pride in my country. Often during that hour and a half that I stood in line, tears filled my eyes as I thought about what was at stake. The people of America had a duty yesterday, a duty to voice their opinion on what direction they wanted the future of America to go.

While the polls were certainly favoring Sen. Obama, I was fairly nervous as the outcome of elections lay in the hands of the voters and there were so many extraneous variables - all I could do was wait.

It's safe to say that everyone in the world is now aware that Barack Obama is President-elect of the United States of America.

As a democrat, obviously this is good news to me. As I watched the remarkable scene from Chicago last night I, as a minor addict, was browsing the statuses of fellow Facebook users. Several were statements of joy and excitement, many reflected the historic nature of the event and huge step forward that America had taken. We were all waiting for the President-elect to take the stage and set the tone for tomorrow.

My almost euphoric state began to diminish as I continued to read the Facebook statuses. Several were hateful, unfounded, and just unhappy statements about what had just taken place. I was reminded that this isn't a united country and while this election was an incredible step in the right direction, there is still so much work to do - difficult work.

A lot of concern seems to be around this idea that Sen. Obama, I suppose I can now refer to him as President-elect Obama, is this extreme liberal who is going to destroy the country. Without getting into too much policy discussion, I would have to disagree. Research suggests time and time again that democrats are much better in restoring a thriving economy, an economy that works for all Americans. It seems to me that this emphasis that people are placing on taxes is unwarranted. Obama's tax policy will essentially take us back to the tax rates of the Clinton years. I would argue that during that time no one went bankrupt from their tax rate. Do people really think that Obama's goal is to tax people to the point of having nothing? This view seems to be just as extreme as they view Obama to be.

The older I get the more I realize that extremes don't get much accomplished. All extreme views do is divide and I would say that the country doesn't need to be any further divided than it has already become. I would like to live in an America in which all people are taken care of, no one is left behind - an America that embraces people of all walks of life. We aren't there yet - but the day is coming.

Sen. Obama began last night, "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer."

"It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America." This is the America I hope we can all strive for.

The most important passage from Obama's speech is one that I hope is repeated. It reads, "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

We have to join as one, there is perhaps not been a period in my lifetime when unity is more important. Our ideas and philosophies may never be all the same, but it is time that we put aside our personal pride, start a civil discussion, and get things moving in a positive direction for all Americans.

Our country is changing, and I might add changing rapidly. It is up to us to make sure that the change is in the right direction - the direction that was set forth by our found fathers. That all people are created equal and desire the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is our duty, as Americans, to work for a more perfect Union. We aren't there yet, but yesterday proved to me that this a pretty darn cool place.

Do your duty, fellow Americans

In a few short days the election polls will open (for those who haven't voted early) and droves of Americans will stand in line to formally let their individual voices be heard.  Americans get a chance, every four years, to evaluate the present state and course of the country.  To review the performance of the executive and legislative branches of government and decide whether the job performance of the people in these seats meets the needs of the country or not.  

The process is similar to a performance review at one's place of employment.  If one gets a poor review, action is taken to ensure that the needs of the organization are being met and in some cases that action is termination.  If the work is acceptable, the individual will most likely keep his or her position.

Fellow citizens, this is your country.  You get to decide who runs this organization called America.  As Americans, we employ hundreds of representatives to work for us and we should hold these employees to the highest standard.  I'm referring to standards in the sense of those ideals that the founding fathers put forth for us in the Constitution - working to create a more perfect union for all people.

On November 4, perform your duty as a member of the board of directors of America.  Submit your vote for who you think should be running this beautiful organization called America.  Don't leave it up to others to decide for you.  There is too much at stake to not make your voice known.  It's the least we can do.

I think I disagree with the former president

It's no secret really: I love Bill Clinton.  I think he is a brilliant person who has done great things for the United States and continues to do great things for the world through his Foundation.  I think that he is an extremely gifted politician (perhaps the best of my lifetime, so far?) and I'm glad that he is widely recognized as such.

I generally agree with most things President Clinton says.  Not in a blind-follower sort of way, but I just usually agree with him on economic and social issues (perhaps because both of us are democrats - just a guess).  However, there was a recent occasion in which I took issue with a comment from the former president.  

On an appearance on ABC's "The View," President Clinton said that people have their reasons for voting for a candidate and you can't criticize them for those reasons, no matter how ridiculous you may think the reasons are.  I took this to mean that someone may vote for an individual based on that person's sex, race, hair color, religion, choice of clothing, or prediction of what Punxsutawney Phil will tell us about the length of winter.  I suppose you could call these people single-issue voters.

Obviously President Clinton wasn't suggesting that the latter items in that list are actually good reasons to vote for someone.  However, I think he he did intend to say that sex or race are perfectly justified reasons.  I understand that every voter has the right to vote for whom ever they want for whatever reason they want.  I'm just not convinced that it's responsible.

Don't we have to look at stances on issues and qualifications?  There is perhaps a fairly high chance that if you vote for someone based on their sex alone, you may be voting against your own interests.  I really don't think I would vote for someone who is gay, just because he or she is gay.  I say "I don't think" because the truth is that I suppose we really don't know until we are in that situation.  Perhaps women and African Americans could shed better light on this situation; for the first time they were faced with this very dilemma in this presidential election season.  

So, I've been trying to not question people who fit this mold - voting based on one identifying factor rather than issues - but it's extremely difficult for me.  It just seems irresponsible to put someone in office because they prefer the same brand of toilet paper as you do.  Am I oversimplifying the president's comments?  Certainly, but I do think there is something to my argument.  I guess the bottom line is that I think in an odd twist of reality - I don't agree with Bubba.

What are your thoughts on this?

Withdrawal on the horizon

Can you believe it?  Only one week left.  Most people are anticipating the day when they can wake up and not worry about having to mute political ads.  They can turn on the news and hear stories other than the latest attacks and polls.  They will be less worried about getting annoyed with the constant use of such phrases as, "spreading the wealth," "third term for Bush," "Wall street to main street," "Joe the plumber," or the dreaded "maverick." 

Well, I have to admit that I'm not in this group of people who are counting down the days until this election is over.  I have invested countless hours of my life into this historical election - two years, really!  I feel as though many of the journalists and contributors are like family, I look forward to waking up in the morning and hearing their analyses of yesterday and their predictions for the day ahead.  I get giddy when Chuck Todd or John King has a new poll to share with us at 7:00 p.m. Eastern, complete with data on every minority.  And of course, we all feel better when David Gergen blesses our candidate with a positive assessment of his or her performance.

I know that I don't stand with many when I say that I am going to miss all of this, but it's true - I will certainly go through a bit of withdrawal over the next few weeks.  I'm reminded of the OJ Simpson trial.  People were obsessed with it!  They watched the proceedings and compared their own thoughts with the analyses of the various commentators (i.e. Greta Van Sustren).  I recall going to confirmation class when the trial was over and my pastor saying, "You'll have to bear with me, I'm going through OJ withdrawal."  I now understand, Pastor John.

As the masses rejoice in this final week, anticipating the close of the election HQ's - it will be bitter sweet for me.  Hopefully our country will elect "change we can believe in," and get things back on track.  I will truly rejoice in that, but I will need some time to adjust to my new life, a life without Paul Begala and James Carville.  I know there will be more elections and all of my favorite contributors will certainly be on giving their take on current political climates.  But you have to wonder...will it ever be the same?

So when Wednesday, November 5, rolls around and we are hopefully celebrating a victory for change - you'll have to bear with me, I'll be going through election withdrawal.

I'm more annoyed than you, Gov. Palin

At a campaign rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on Saturday, Sarah Palin told a crowd of supporters that she was "annoyed" with the questions she was asked by Katie Couric in her widely criticized interview on CBS.  If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it if you're in the mood for a dark comedy.  I say dark comedy because it's funny at first, but then you realize that this is actually a real interview with an actual candidate for the vice presidency of the United States - and then you just get scared.

In the voice that Tina Fey has mastered, Palin said, "Last time I was here I got to tell a crowd that I had to give a national interview that didn't go so well."  I would have to agree with Palin's assessment.  Perhaps one of the few times we'll agree.

She continued, "And it was because I was kind of annoyed with the questions that I was being asked because I thought they were kind of irrelevant to, you know, national security issues and getting our economy back on track, so I kind of showed some of the annoyance."

You go girl!  Wait, what?!  What is she talking about?  Is she trying to spin the constant look of confusion and "oh crap" that she wore in that interview into just being "annoyed?"  But the more confusing part of her statement is that she suggests the questions she was being asked were "irrelevant" to national security and the economy.  Well, let's take a look at some of the questions, in no particular order, that Couric asked.

-  "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience, what did you mean by that...explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials."

-  "What do you see as the role of the United States in the world?"

-  "Governor Palin, you've had a very busy week and you're meeting with many world leaders.  You met with President Karzai of Afghanistan, I know the McCain campaign has called for a surge in Afghanistan, but that country is, as you know, dramatically different than Iraq.  Why do you believe additional troops will solve the problem there?"

-"The United States is deeply unpopular within Pakistan.  Do you think the Pakistani government is protecting al qaeda within its borders?"

-  "What specifically, in your view, could be done to convince the new government in Pakistan to take a harder, tougher line against terrorists in that country?"

-  "...if the bailout doesn't pass, what's the alternative?"

-  "You're talking about greater oversight, not necessarily giving Treasury Secretary Paulson the keys to the castle.  What will that oversight look like in your view?"

-  "Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend 700 billion dollars helping middle class families that are struggling with healthcare, housing, gas, and groceries,  allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?"

-  "If this doesn't pass, do you think there's a risk of another great depression?"

-  "Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?"

So, if these questions aren't relevant to national security or the economy, what might relevant questions look like?

It remains completely incomprehensible to me how anyone in this country could think that this person is prepared to be in the executive branch of our nation's government.  Yes, she may be a "regular" person, like so many of us.  But do all of you "regular" people think that YOU are prepared to the president or vice president of the United States?  I don't want my president or vice president, or senator for that matter, to be a "regular" person.  I want him or her to be extremely well-informed and thoughtful.  To have a depth of knowledge about the world.  But also an understanding that he or she does not have every answer and thus has a willingness to seek the best advice from the best advisers available. 

So, yes, Gov. Palin is annoyed with Katie Couric.  That's fine, she has that right to be annoyed.

But guess what, Gov. Palin.  I'm annoyed as well.  I'm annoyed that you think you have the depth of understanding of national and world issues to be the vice president of the United States.  I'm not saying you are not intelligent, I'm not saying that with more years of experience, with struggling through the issues and coming to a point of forming your own views, you could never be prepared.  That's not it - I am saying that you are not ready today.  If you and and you're running mate put your "country first," as you always say, then why would you put your country in such a position as possibly having you in one of the most powerful offices in the world?

It's truly frightening, and yes...annoying.

Photo from cnn.com

But they aren't funny, Bay.

Last night on CNN's Larry King Live, Republican strategist Bay Buchanan said that SNL is biased and that they need to take a look at the other side and make fun of the Obama campaign.

Ms. Buchanan, there isn't anything funny about the Obama campaign.  They don't make stupid mistakes.  They don't pick ridiculously ill-prepared running mates.  They don't change their platform on the hour.  They don't say they are going to run a campaign free of nasty tactics, and then do it anyway.  They don't have to distance themselves from the tragedy that is the Bush presidency.                                             

So, Bay, perhaps SNL has tried to come up with something to parody in the Obama campaign, but they just don't provide as much material for comedians as the Republican ticket does.

Stuck

I love this country. That's right, Michele Bachmann, I'm a democrat and I love this country. This country affords anyone who is willing to face circumstantial barriers, an opportunity to live up to their God-given potential. In this country we are allowed to freely voice our opinion, even at the expense of others (which is often the case). Because this country allows me the right to speak freely, I'm going to do so.

I'm stuck today. I can usually let the ridiculous things people say roll off my back and I go about my day getting done what I need to. My thoughts are generally not consumed with the words of those who choose to speak so ill of gay people. I hear things from time to time, pause to convince myself that the majority of the people in the world may not agree with such hateful comments, and then get on with my day.

I'm unable to do that today. I'm not really sure why, but I'm just not able to accept it today. I sit back and stay pretty quiet on this topic as I don't want to create waves and offend others. I try to stay cool and allow people to have their views and not let those views affect me. I'm tired of accepting it. I'm tired of not letting my voice be heard. I'm tired of walking on eggshells around people who don't think about how their hateful words affect others and that maybe, just maybe they are really doing much more harm than anyone.

There are so many questions I have, specifically for people who are so adamantly opposed to allowing equal rights to same-sex couples. I would like to speak directly to those people for a moment: Why do you care? What is it you are so afraid of? How is your life affected by two strangers living their life peacefully together? How does the marriage of two people threaten your marriage? Why do you think you have the right to generalize the ideologies of your religious beliefs to the entire country?

The fact that a lot of the arguments are based on Biblical context is fairly disturbing to me. Since this country is based on the separation of church and state, how are Biblical texts relevant in making an argument for legislation? The simple fact that everyone in the United States doesn't believe in the Bible and doesn't have to believe in the Bible, makes it an irrelevant document in terms of legislating. It can certainly inform the values of its believers, many who happen to be lawmakers, but it cannot be used specifically as an argument.

I think I'm stuck today because of Michele Bachmann, U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota. In an interview on Hardball with Chris Matthews last Friday, she suggested that Barack Obama has "anti-American values" and that the media should investigate how many democrats in congress are actually anti-American. In what way are these comments helpful in forming a more perfect union? How does further dividing the country with these divisive comments make this a better place to live? It is irresponsible and dangerous.

Her comment was denounced by Colin Powell as "nonsense" in an October 19, 2008 interview. Powell said, “This business of... a congresswoman from Minnesota who’s going around saying, ‘Let’s examine all congressmen to see who’s pro-America and who’s not pro-America. We have got to stop this kind of nonsense and pull ourselves together and remember that our great strength is in our unity and our diversity." Thank you, Mr. Powell.

In support of a constitutional amendment she proposed to ban same-sex marriage, Bachmann said that the gay community was specifically "targeting children." Bachmann believes that people who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender suffer from "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual identity disorders." I assume these latter comments are inspired by her husband who operates a Christian counseling center.

This kind of language is hurtful. It cuts right to the center of who I am. I'm gay and there is nothing I can do about it. I have accepted that fact and frankly, it's just not a big deal. I live my life day-to-day trying to make the world a little better place to live. As much as I try to wrap my mind around it (and trust me, I try very hard to understand the opposite view) - I just can't seem to understand why people like Michele Bachmann wake up each day and work hard to ensure that I cannot enjoy the same things in life that she can. I don't understand why she thinks it's ok to pass such extreme judgment on people that she does not know or understand.

I'm stuck at the moment, but I won't be for much longer. I will be able to go about my daily business and try to make the world a better place for all. But people like Congresswoman Bachmann will be stuck in a world in which they feel the need to pass judgment and hatred and in doing so make the world a much less desirable place for a lot of people. When we are all looking back on our lives, who will feel better about what they have contributed to the world?

I suppose that's not for us to decide.

Photo from minnesotamonitor.com

Enough is right!

How incredible would it be to be in Denver, CO right now? There are so many thoughts going through my mind - this will most likely be one of those entries in which I ramble on and on in disorganized fashion.

As you will have noticed from my earlier posts in the week, I have been fairly disappointed with the DNC. I felt there was a lot of wasted time each night and I wanted a more focused message. With each night things got better, and after tonight I say: What a convention!

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of the Clintons. I thought they both gave remarkable speeches at the convention that, if the Democrats win, will have played a very important role. There's a huge part of me that will always wish that Hillary would have been the nominee.

That being said, this convention was a major turning point for me and I can now say, without reservation, that I am prepared to fully support Barack Obama.

One thing that I have noticed, throughout this campaign, is how truly impressive the Obama campaign has been run. They don't screw up. Sure, there have been a few miss steps here and there, but I get the impression that everything is so well thought out and planned. Obama's speech this evening was certainly the most impressive political event that I've seen. I had fear that it was going to be a bit too much, perhaps crossing the line of being tasteful. I was wrong - class all the way.

Tonight was a great night for Democrats, but more, it was a great night for America. Barack Obama laid out his vision for this nation. A nation that just ten years ago was thriving and experiencing some of its best moments. Most of that now - destroyed. Tonight, Obama answered those who asked what change meant and he proved to me that he is ready to throw down with John McCain.

"Tonight, tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land: Enough." This was one of my favorite lines in the speech. Enough is right! This is our country, not Bush and Cheney's. It is time we take it back and restore the dignity and integrity America once stood for.

Another favorite, " Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn't know." So true.

I think that Republicans are going to have a difficult time answering the Democrats next week. We ended our convention on such a high note. I realize that the election is basically at a dead heat, but I have to think tonight changed that.

"So I've got news for you, John McCain: We all put our country first." This was another section in the speech that I really liked. Republicans have horrible policies for middle class Americans, so they ALWAYS attack their opponents patriotism; it gets really old. Why would someone run for the presidency of the United States if he or she didn't love this country?? It's a ridiculous accusation to make and I'm very glad Obama called them out on it.

Well, as I said, this was going to be one of those rambley posts. I'm very anxious to see what the next days bring. Will Obama get a bounce from tonight? How will the Republicans respond next week? Will we wake up to a different America tomorrow? It feels like it at the moment.

In the words of Tim Russert, "What a country."

Way to go, Hill!

Well, I've said it all along and I'll continue to say it, Hillary Clinton is amazing.  She did what she was asked to do and then some tonight.  I've been waiting for the Democratic National Convention to get focused with a message - Hillary delivered it.

Of course you have to credit some brilliant speech writers, but the skill with which that speech was delivered was at the top of the league.

I watched with pride for a person I strongly believe in.  I watched with sadness a person whom I wanted to be my president and may never be able to be.  I watched with hope as a democrat and more importantly as an American.  Better days are on the horizon.

I'm inspired.  

In the words of Hillary, "No way.  No how.  No McCain."

Photo: cnn.com

The Clock is Ticking...

We're a few hours into Day 2 of the Democratic National Convention.  This morning I reflected on the events of Day 1 of the convention, saying that the Democrats need to offer more of a message and perhaps launch an attack. 

I'm still waiting for this.

The theme of today is supposed to be economics - I haven't heard an economic message yet.  My fear is that this convention will be done and Democrats will come away with nothing more than "Yes we can."  Where's the platform narrative?  Where's the message to undecided voters?  

I hope Hillary saves this thing tonight.

DNC - Day 1

The Democrats have gathered in Denver and the 2008 convention has officially been called to order by Chairman Dean. I flipped between CNN, MSNBC, Fox (only to see what ridiculous things they were saying) NBC, and CSPAN. I honestly can't get enough of the talking heads (I can only dream of joining their ranks one day) spewing forth endless commentary on the smallest of details; all of them claiming to have the key to each candidates success or predicting the next move - when in fact no one really ever knows what's going to happen. This is exactly what makes it so exciting: the experts can guess, but only the voters decide.

I was indeed glued to the television last night, but it wasn't because of brilliant programming on behalf of the DNC. I must say that I agree with two of my favorite political analysts, David Gergen and James Carville, in their assessment of the first night of the convention. It seems that a lot of time was wasted and little to no substance was offered.

Of course, Senator Kennedy's appearance was one that most won't forget and Michelle Obama gave a beautiful, eloquent speech that perhaps allowed more Americans some insight into the Obama family. But did the Democrats plead their case to the voters of America or for that matter, did they even deliver an opening statement? Let me just say that I don't think people woke up this morning energized by the Democratic platform - because it wasn't discussed.

I look forward to Day 2 of the convention (Hillary is speaking!). I hope that this evening the Democrats offer a little more "red meat" as Carville would say. We all know that next week in St. Paul the Republicans will come out swinging and swing harder with each passing day. If you recall in 2004 Senator Kerry's convention didn't attack President Bush at all, while at their convention the Republicans went after Kerry and the Democrats, and well, we all know how that story ended.

My point is that perhaps the Democrats need to toughen up a bit. We have tried to "take the high road" while the Republicans attack us at every level they can. The result has been them having the White House for the past 8 years and driving the country into the ground. I'm not suggesting that we make personal attacks, but can we get down and dirty about the issues, please? Can we plead our case with some strength and conviction that not only inspires but also educates voters about what Democrats will do to get the country back on track.

Well, I'm starting to ramble a bit, and while I could go on forever about this - I will stop for now.

Be sure to tune in tonight to see Senator Hillary Clinton show the Democrats how to do it!

We're stuck

In a few weeks the city of St. Paul will be taken over by the GOP.  As a mild political junkie and one who loves huge events, I'm excited to see the spectacle that is a political party convention (although it would be MUCH more exciting were it the Democrats coming to town).  It will certainly be a great thing for the Twin Cities of Minnesota to take the national stage for a few days (albeit for Republicans).  

My hope is that, in this fairly blue state, we are respectful and rational hosts to the less-than-perfect party.  In a time when this country's government seems to be dead locked and unable to get anything accomplished, even though overwhelming majorities are begging for a different course, it is time that all parties have civil conversations with one another.

I watch, daily, the back and forth between political adversaries.  Both pointing fingers, none better than the other.  Each proclaiming the faults of the dissenting party, while not proposing ideas to cure or offering an invitation to dialogue.  I say this with utmost seriousness:  it's like watching 9 year olds go back and forth on the playground.  Nothing gets accomplished and no one is willing to admit they are wrong.

We were told that this presidential election was going to be different (by both presumptive party nominees).  So far, I haven't seen how anything has been different.  Both candidates are continuing the pathetic tradition of 'point finger and triangulate.'  I can admit that I am not as excited about the democratic candidate as the rest of the party.  I will vote for him, because his platform certainly aligns more with my values than the alternative - but passion does not accompany my vote.

So, in the thick of this election season, let us hope that when the Republicans come to town, Minnesotans will show them that we are serious about getting this country back on track and are ready to have civil, rational conversations about how to do so.  There is no point in continuing this fruitless 'he said-she said' back and forth.

I guess this is my charge, to all Americans, rather than widening the gap that divides us - let us come together as one.  Not as a nation with unified beliefs (that is not America's intent), but as a nation with a unified goal to prosper and and not leave its own behind.

Patriotism = love of country

Second perhaps only to the Fourth of July, presidential elections seem to stir up the patriotic roots in the souls of Americans. Candidates, in order to convince the American voter of their allegiance, stand in front of massive American flags, use an ample amount of red, white, and blue, and end most speeches with the phrase, “God bless America.” But to these candidates and more importantly, to people of America, what is patriotism? What does it mean to be patriotic?

One might think that a basic definition of patriotism would be universal across the States. Perhaps it is, and perhaps that basic definition is simply love of country. But are the means in which that love is expressed universal? Is one person’s patriotic act another’s? This is certainly a fairly complex question that I don’t have the answer to; however, I do have some thoughts.

Let’s look at this question through two lenses: Liberal and Conservative. I understand that these two labels can be fairly limiting and there is a much wider range of views on the political spectrum, but for this discussion let’s limit it to these two.

One might say that for Conservatives, patriotism is rooted in the past. It is a concept that is rich in traditions and imagery. Almost something tangible that you can hold in your hand, or rather, should hold in your hand. It is based on the belief that the history of America is close to perfect. Peter Beinart refers to this idea in a recent article in TIME magazine. Beinart suggests that the Conservative viewpoint of patriotism is one that only endorses behavior supporting the notion that America’s past is without sin. Essentially, dissent in any form is unpatriotic.

The other side of the patriotism issue is the Liberal view. Unlike the Conservative patriot, Liberal patriotism isn’t focused around imagery and blind loyalty. Patriotic liberals cling to the ideals of freedom and equality, the ideals that, at least according to the Declaration of Independence, are the driving force behind America. Liberals feel it their civic duty to question government and ensure it stays on a consistent track to form a more perfect union.

I’m obviously not an expert on this subject – these are simply my humble observations, more to come on this subject. In the meantime, can anyone guess which side I might subscribe to?????

Because is actually not an answer

As you surely know by now, my mind has been largely dominated over the past year by the presidential race.  I have always been a bit of a political junkie, but perhaps now more than ever.  I have supported Senator Hillary Clinton essentially the entire time.  I hadn't made up my mind immediately, but by the time the race was in full swing - I knew she was the best person for the job - and I still think she is, and always will be regardless of what happens.

In talking to various people about the election and the candidates, I have come across people that say, "I wouldn't vote for Hillary, I don't like her."  Oh, ok - that's fair enough, I guess.  I would/will then generally follow up with, "Why don't you like her?"  A common response is, "I don't trust her."  Alright, and once again I say, "why?"  Only to be followed with something like, "I don't know, just because." 

Am I supposed to be satisfied with that answer?  Some might say that I should be.  They would say that If you don't trust or like a candidate then you shouldn't vote for him or her.  I understand that point.  But when we look at what it truly means to be an informed voter in the United States of America, to me, that means to know where the candidates stand on the issues and support the one that aligns best with your views.

When someone asks me why I don't support Senator Obama, I can answer with concrete factual statements about the issues.  Would you like to hear some?  Alright.  1) I don't think his health care plan is good enough.  It doesn't guarantee coverage for all Americans - not even close actually.  To me, this is not acceptable.  The country is ready to move towards universal health care, we have to have a president who has a plan to do so.   2) His foreign policy or lack their of is something I find a little frightening.  He is willing to have unilateral talks with anyone.  This is not smart - it is careless and any respected foreign policy scholar will say the same.  3) He has voted "present" hundreds of time.  This is a huge red flag to me.  Is he not able to take a stand on an issue?  Is he so focused on getting to the White House that rather than risking losing the support of voters over a decision he made, he just decides not to take a stance?  This is very disconcerting to me. 

I could go on, but that's not the point of this article.  My point is that I don't care if people aren't going to support Hillary (well that's not entirely true), that is certainly their choice.  I have a problem though when they don't have facts to back up their decision.  

"Because" just isn't good enough.

To the people of Ohio and Texas,

You have a very important responsibility on March 4.  You have a choice to either vote as a truly informed voter who has taken time to look at the issues or a voter who is influenced by unfounded momentum and the media.  

I watched the MSNBC debate this evening between Senators Clinton and Obama.  To me, it is striking how much more she understands every single issue from every single angle.  I know that Senator Clinton isn't able to go as in depth as she would like on certain issues, such as foreign policy, mostly because of party unity.  I wish she would.  If Senator Obama is the nominee you know that John McCain certainly will.

I don't think Senator Obama's stance of never supporting the Iraq war is going to hold up against the republicans.  Senator Clinton touched on the reason a bit tonight, but didn't go too far into it - most likely out of fear of looking too much like a bitch.  She's either too weak or too cold hearted; the poor thing is attacked for whatever she says or does.  Anyway, she stated that when it was time to vote to authorize the Iraq war, Senator Obama was not a sitting senator.  He did not have the responsibility to vote (not that he would have as his record shows).  And as David Gregory points out - McCain is going to focus on this.  Senator Obama did not have access to intelligence, albeit corrupt by the Bush administration.  I wish that people would think back to 2002.  It is safe to say that sadly the majority of the American people thought that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9-11.  The Bush administration used its normal tactics of deception to scare the crap out of Americans, and sold the idea that we had to go into Iraq.  

It is easy for Senator Obama to say years later that he never supported the war.  Well, I would suggest that were he a sitting senator in 2002, he most likely would have voted for the war - as most did.  

Is this really his stance on foreign policy?  His judgement that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq?  You have a candidate in Hillary Clinton who has traveled the world and gained the respect of its leaders.  She understands, on every level, what needs to be done and how to get it done.  She understands how dangerous the eastern region is, while Senator Obama's plans seem to only make it more dangerous.

This is no time to vote for another candidate that is not prepared to be president of the most powerful nation in the world.  We've tried that - we've been down this road for 8 years, and I do not want to go down it again.

Well, I could ramble on and on and on and on for literally ever about this.  I will however stop and hope that tomorrow brings better news.  

I will leave you with this quote from Gerald Corey. "Although hope can be a therapeutic factor that leads to change, unrealistic hope can pave the way for a pattern of failures." 

This is my point.

Watch this, please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

Super Tuesday

Vote.  There is no other option for American's during this primary season.  I've run into people these last few days who have said they aren't planning on voting and probably never will.  Not only do I find this shocking, I also find it embarrassing and it actually makes me fairly upset.  

How many people around the world would love the opportunity to vote?  How long did women in our own country fight for the right to vote?  And now people take this privilege for granted and almost treat it as a chore.  This isn't right.

These are the same people who complain about the workings of government.  These are the people who often are unhappy with how their tax money is being spent.  This makes me furious.  You don't vote, but you think you have the right to complain about anything?  Ridiculous.

We have an extremely important duty today and the remainder of this election season.  Get involved, get informed, look at and compare stances on issues, and do your duty as an American - it's never been more important in my lifetime.

I'm inspired!

I just spent the afternoon at a Hillary Clinton rally at Augsburg College in Minneapolis.  I have been supporting Hillary all along, but after seeing and hearing her speak, there is so doubt in my mind that she is the person I want to see in the White House.  The energy in the room was incredible and Senator Clinton inspired me to tears.  I will now work tirelessly to do what I can to make sure that Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States.  

And so I begin...

Top Ten Reasons to Support Hillary Clinton for President

1. To end the war in Iraq.

2. To achieve universal, affordable healthcare.

3. To create good jobs for Americans by investing in modern infrastructure and in clean, energy-efficient technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming.

4. To provide world-class education, from universal pre-K to affordable college for all.

5.  To promote 21st century scientific innovation, including stem cell research.

6.  To return fiscal responsibility, move back toward a balanced budget, and safeguard Social   Security and Medicare.

7. To restore competence and end cronyism in government.

8. To combat terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans.

9. To restore America's standing in the world and repair our alliances.

10. To build a more tolerant, united America, working to achieve big goals again.

This is a time in our country's history in which it is not time to play games.  We desperately need a president who is prepared to immediately start whipping this country back into shape.  Someone who knows what it takes to get things done - this person is Hillary Clinton.

The Dream Team

The democratic presidential debate in South Carolina was depressing, to say the least. It was extremely negative with each candidate attacking the other on pointless issues. It resembled an elementary schoolyard squabble more than a presidential debate. It made me so uncomfortable at times I had to look away as I witnessed my beloved party falling apart being my eyes. I had visions of 2004; an election the democrats should have won, but didn't because the party couldn't get its act together and the campaign was a joke at best.

Thursday evening's debate was polar opposite of that South Carolina debate. As I watched the Senators Clinton and Obama discuss the issues like grown, intellectual adults, I began to get that feeling in my stomach. That feeling when you know you have something firm to stand beside. I've always been an idealist at heart - the debate in California stoked that idealism that was barely hanging on by embers within me. I could feel the excitement around the country from my couch in my living room - change in the right direction is on the horizon.

So are these two Senators going to run together? Who knows. I would say though that it certainly doesn't seem to be as impossible as it might have a week ago. CNN's Wolf Blizter asked them if it was a possibility. They didn't say it was, but the important thing is that they didn't say it wasn't.

I think the best way to get this country back on track is with Senator Clinton as the president and Senator Obama as the vice president. They each bring to the table a multitude of talents. In the most simple analysis: Clinton with the knowledge; Obama with the inspiration.

In a few short days we may see if this dream team comes together.

Photo from CNN.com

...and the pursuit of happiness?

The older I get the more interested I become in politics.  Perhaps it's because the issues become more real.  Maybe it's because I watch more news.  It could be that my friends and colleagues talk more about politics than my peers of 10 years ago.  Or maybe it's just that our country seems to be in such a horrible state that it's a feeling of urgency and extreme concern to do something to fix it.

In recent years there has been this movement of Evangelical Christians in America.  I first became aware of this groups magnitude in the 2004 presidential election in which these people came out of the wood work to vote for George W. Bush.  Several of these people make sweeping statements that have no truth or validity at all.  

Some examples:  "God created marriage."  "The founding fathers were all Christians."  

Anyone who knows anything about the history of our country knows that these are ridiculous statements.  However, anyone who doesn't agree with these statements and the ideas of the Evangelicals is immediately called anti-American and perhaps even deemed to hell (a topic for another day).  

Let me see if I have this correct.  So, if one is aware of the history of America,  if a person understands the events and people that led to the development of this great country and accepts these facts as truth...this person is a bad American?  But if someone manipulates the facts to fit into his or her ideology and throws any sense of true American and world history out the window....then that person is a true American?

This seems to be the logic that is being applied by many people in our country today.  I must say that I find it quite disturbing.

I know that there are a multitude of problems facing the United States.  I hope that in November the country will make a collective choice to begin the difficult task of getting back on a course in a better direction.  I was certain it was going to happen in November of 2004 - I should think that I don't have to say - we failed.