Also agree 100%... it's like finally there is someone who is making sense. Finally there is someone who doesn't confuse or conflate negotiation and diplomacy with capitulation and coercion. Someone who is willing to bust through the partisanship, us against them mentality to get things done. So I get your feeling of relief, and pride, and -- i'm going to say it -- hope. Instead of thinking that another four or eight years will go by and nothing gets done, I am hopeful, and energized and forward looking.

Great post! Double Highly rec'd.!!!!

Orlando, you've posted a very though provoking piece - thank you. I've certainly been cynical at times, but more often consider myself a realist. With regard to change (which will be a recurring theme in later posts), I think the advice attributed to Ghandi should be followed first:

"be the change you wish to see in the world."

So if you "left the city, moved home, got reacquainted with my family, and started living a life where I made no difference to anyone except those closest to me,"

perhaps this was a better gift to the world than struggling with Sisyphean tasks, particularly if you brought values with you that you shared with your family and community.

As a realist, I think it pays to remember that the key issue is power, and I like to think we would both be equally disgusted with the state of the government in 1968 as 2008. Power is a tremendously corrupting influence; not many have the strength of character like Washington, who chose to stop after two terms. Or did he? Was he afraid of the political ramifications of a new imperial position in America, when the US was fresh from the freedom from England?

Speeches are great, but actions matter more.I think we've already seen what Obama and his campaign was willing to do to defeat Clinton; they did not engage in mudslinging and there was no mention of Bill Clinton's travails. McCain and his campaign, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

Finally, a little pragmatism. The conventional wisdom is that the nation is upset at congress for failing to end the war, amongst other things. But as Pelosi has pointed out, they don't have the votes to do so yet.

In order for Obama to accomplish major changes, the democrats will need 60 votes in the senate, perhaps 61 if Lieberman continues his current course of action. Based on the data I have in www.pollster.com, www.fivethirtyeight.com, and www.electoral-vote.com, it doesn't look likely.

The races that appear within striking distance are Minnesota, Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina (surprise), and there has been talk on TPM about the Oregon senate race as the republican incumbent furiously distances himself from McCain and Bush in a blue state.

To accomplish big changes soon, we'll need help from those states. In the meantime, I'm working on some small changes, including walking to our farmer's market tomorrow for some locally grown and produced fresh food, direct from some of my neighbors. It's a start...

When I hear Barack Obama speak, I often feel like I might start crying. I get that feeling in my chest and my eyes well up. I’ve explained to people that he makes me want to weep with relief that after eight long years, we can have a smart, articulate, president with sound (and sane) policy ideas. But I think it’s more than that. I think he makes me weep because somewhere inside, I’m still my 22-year-old self, that young woman who was ready to take on the world and make a difference. He makes me hope again that I can.

Exactly! Orlando, you've captured precisely why I signed on to support Obama. I wasn't interested until I heard him speak for the first time and I thought, "Wow, this guy is different." I have the same response. He makes me feel hopeful - like maybe, just maybe, we could have a government that I could actually believe in. It's why I love to listen to his speeches with my teenaged son. I make a point of saving the transcripts when I can. And after I get home, we watch them together on the computer. And sometimes we discuss some of the finer points over dinner. Or not. But I always get the sense that we're sharing in a moment that we'll look back on as a turning point in our history. Like it really means something. Hope. Change. They're not just buzzwords this time around.

Thanks for this post - great way to start the weekend. :)

At heart, every cynic is an optimist.

I don't know where I got that idea or who said it, but I think it's true. There's nothing really wrong with cynicism. It's a rational response to a world that lets you down. The goal is to not let go of the optimism. Hope, but don't expect anything.

Your words are descriptive of your chosen avatar, an eclipse; a shadow cast upon the light yet the light is not diminished and the darkness in time is transcended.

I'm still cynical. I spent 20+ years in the construction industry. I developed a fairly well-tuned BS detector. I think I can often recognize when someone is blowing smoke.

I have also sat by and watched for many years as Republicans and Democrats alike have repeatedly, with zeal and with negligence, violated their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution.

I listened to Speaker Pelosi "take impeachment off the table."

Obama wasn't my first choice, because I knew a lot more about other candidates. The one who seems most dedicated to upholding his oath got tagged with the loony label because of some cockamamie UFO story. Lo and behold, the one I then decided to support got caught messing around on his cancer-afflicted wife! (Newt's in the back, going "Damn, that's one stupid Democrat.")

Now here's Obama, saying "have hope." But the problems our nation faces have been so obvious, yet so ignored, that hope isn't getting me very far. I'm still gonna vote for the guy because he is head-and-shoulders above his competition, even if all he brings are empty words. They're at least the rightwords, and that's a start.

Great post, Orlando.

I'm cynical about politicians and hopeful about people who aren't politicians.

Excuse Me!

But the sentimental, self-indulgent, contentless posturing evident on this thread is enough to make anyone reading it "cynical."

I'm a New Yorker, so in kindergarden we learned the ABC's: A is for Apple, B is for Brooklyn, C is for cynicism. But cynical isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it is tempered by other things.

In my case, I am also very much an idealist that believes in core, progressive values like universal healthcare, economic fairness, etc. That for me was why I supported Hillary Clinton. I wanted proof, not words. I wanted excruciating policy detail, not rhetoric. And I wanted evidence that she would be a fighter to champion those progressive ideals once she was president, not water down her principles to compromise with the opposition.

The democratic party chose Obama as the nominee and while I would have made a different choice, I support him despite the lack of firm evidence of his dedication to my core progressive values. This support is not based is not based on a blind trust though. What I know about Obama is that he is infinitely better than McCain for sure. I trust that his core values will guide him when elected. I hope to elect a more progressive Congress that will make us have to compromise much, much less often and push Obama to the left (rather than having him pushed to the right by the GOP). And I am cynical enough to believe that Obama, should he want a second term, will make good on the hope that he has inspired and cater to the progressive, liberal base that put him in office.