The attacks are so familiar, virtually every Republican repeats them with ease.  They are so simple, even the least effective can use them and the best communicators can make them stick.  The basic principle is: those rich, educated people living on the coasts know nothing about you; they want to run your life; they're the reason for your problems.  Of course the attack is not really about regions; it's one of the Republicans' best class warfare weapons, pitting struggling workers against the party that wants to help them.  Simply, it's how you hold together a coalition of business leaders and the workers and consumers they often exploit.  You give the money to the businesses and spurn resentment among the masses.  Resentment, I would argue, is about as effective as fear, which is to say very.

It's important to remember that this attack, once again, is not about region; it plays on the disparities in education level, standard of living and access to health care just as much as it focuses on religion and a fundamentally flawed definition of individual liberties.  The reason I emphasize this point is because the Democratic party has programs that will alleviate many of the reasons for the underlying resentment altogether.  The ability to win elections partly based on this attack has always been a motivation for the Republican party to not focus on the needs of the worst off, and, just as likely, work against those people's best interests.  

My point is the argument does not need to be defended against.  It needs to be defeated.  It needs to be exposed for its ridiculousness so it can never again motivate a politician to work against the best interests of even the voters who put him or her in power.  

The attack becomes even more ironic and tragic when one remembers the third, and often most influential, member of the Republican coalition, which is an intellectual elite whose roots are in Goldwater and Buckley, and who have always forced themselves further and further into an intellectual bubble whenever the Republican party gained enough power to ostensibly implement their inherently contradictory view of government.  Yet, the leadership of the Republican party always has numerous of their disciples for one reason: their work at developing a core philosophy to define conservatism has attracted just enough Ivy Leaguers, just enough government majors and just enough intellectually curious people to add to their ranks.  Enough to fill think tanks, stuff editorial boards, as well as cast votes on legislation.  Bush 41 sent his son George to Yale for a reason; although I would argue they failed to impart the education I would expect of such a prominent institution.  

Try as you might, you will likely never find a 10 second attack to effectively fight the "culture war."  The goal of this Republican tactic is to distract.  Once one engages in the argument, too often, they become an unwilling accomplice towards its effectiveness.  It's not a war that can be fought to victory; it must be ended.  Oh, the metaphors.

You end the culture wars by acting in defiance of its assumptions.  You raise the minimum wage, lower taxes on middle and lower class Americans, provide mothers with day care, give children opportunity from pre-K to college.  You keep religion as much as possible out of government, but equally diminish the derision that too often comes from those who have spent decades in the trenches of this political battle.  You open campaign offices in the reddest states and districts and talk to as many of the people possible who have fallen for this particular ploy.  

In short, this source of division can only be ended through a period of Democratic leadership, during which the policies being proposed now are put into effect; but the roots of that success can be implemented now, which to a large extent they are.  The result is new combinations of states electorally in play, as well as different margins in states that remain easily defined.  

For this reason, tactically, the Republican party really only has one option: double down on every possible culture war attack; find any source of division within the electorate.  This falls perfectly into their grand strategy of tactical decisiveness regardless of changes in the contours of the field of battle.  This is because, simply, their only other strategic option would be to truly run against President Bush, admit their failure, and develop new and innovative policies that meet the reality they have created.  This would be smart for the future of the Republican party, but suicide for their immediate electoral goals.

So we know their plan.  We know pretty much exactly how they're going to implement it.  We know their motivations, as well as their desperation.  We know America's economic and foreign policy position will make fewer voters susceptible to distraction.  

One piece remains to set up inevitable checkmate.  Thankfully, it's filled with enough irony to fit its consequence.  The Democratic political and intellectual leadership, that so called eastern elite that has been a focal point of this particular engagement must stand down in the culture war.  The battle is raging over how to save our economy and end the war in Iraq, where our inherent strengths provide decisive strategic advantages.  Why waste the time fighting what could  become an inconsequential skirmish in our victory.

Amid the absurdity of the past month, I feel like it's time to take a step back and talk about some realities of the politics of this election going forward.  Despite the pace of the day to day news cycle, there is still plenty of time left in this campaign and a number of significant events to come.  Given that, I'm not going to talk about lipstick on a pig or Bridge to Nowhere politics here.  The simple reality is that that type of politics depends solely on the ability to go in front of the American people and defend the exact opposite position you know to be true.  With that ability, you can drive Hardball, the Situation Room and O'Reilly.  Given that fact, it is easy to see why the Republican Party, in its current form, will always be more successful in that environment.

Over a long period, the political structure of this campaign, I would argue, is a completely different story for four reasons: 1) the McCain/Palin ticket has few strengths, 2) the Obama campaign has out-played the McCain campaign in financing, 3) the Obama campaign has steadily muted the McCain campaigns messaging ability, 4) this campaign is no longer defined by the question of whether Obama is ready to be president.  

Here's why I think this:

1: Strengths and Weaknesses

Some days I think I completely understand the Palin choice.  Other days it seems like the most absurd political decision I've ever seen.  In the end, I believe it was made in such a hurry that the McCain campaign didn't really plan for the long-term impact of the choice.  Sound familiar?  So I'm not going to try to read their minds, but there are a few things I do know.  

First off, the McCain campaign has two perceived strengths, ear mark reform and energy policy.  These are the issues the McCain campaign is running on.  There are other Republican strengths, such as gun control, but that is not an issue that the McCain campaign has pushed.  The issue of ear mark reform is, for all his faults, an actual political strength of Senator John McCain.  His Senate record generally upholds that idea.  Senator Sarah Palin is another story, but like I said, who knows whether she will be seen as an ear mark reformer or not by election day.  It really doesn't matter much.  

Energy policy is a more nuanced debate that the American people have tried to ignore at all costs for decades.  The psyche of this country towards energy policy has been driven by the Republican party position for most of this time.  Despite its ridiculous, the phrase drill, baby, drill sounds pretty good to a whole lot of Americans.  Senator Obama has, in my opinion, smartly shown a willingness to concede on the issue of off-shore drilling and accepted the fact that nuclear power is going to have to be a major part of a successful long term energy policy, as it obviously should.  These are two very popular positions in this country.  

OK, so that's pretty much it for McCain campaign strengths domestically.  Let's get one thing straight: ear mark reform is a ridiculous topic to be discussing right now.  Our total ear mark expenditures are minuscule in comparison to the waste by Halliburton, the tax breaks for oil companies, or the cost of fighting two wars while pretending to uphold our NATO responsibilities.  Not to mention the fact that this so-called wasteful spending is the only thing that is barely keeping together an outdated and crumbling infrastructure.  Anyone who thinks ear mark reform is the issue that will decide this election should turn off cable news for a week.  

The Obama campaign's strengths are the economy over-all, health care, equal pay (an issue that smartly will be coming soon), education, and reforming Wall Street.  If any one of these issues is the most important thing to a voter, they will much more than likely vote for Obama.  Senator Obama has consistently laid out plans on each of these issues for the past pretty much 18 months.  After eight years of the Bush administration, they are all now Democratic strengths, despite what some Republican strategist on TV tells you.

The economy over-all is the most important issue to most voters, which is why it is so preciously guarded by the entire Democratic party.  Sometimes it's boring to say some variation of "George Bush is responsible for this problem and John McCain helped him" every single day that bad news about our economy breaks, but it is important and something that Senator Obama has smartly done since basically 2004, although obviously only more recently with respect to Senator McCain.  

I believe that domestic policy will be the main driver of this election.  That being said it is very important to note that Senator McCain has blunted, at least to a certain extent, any ability to take advantage of a timely bin Laden video or, god forbid, worse.  Voters will have two possible questions to ponder: do I trust Senator Obama to deal with this crisis or would Sarah Palin be able to step in during this crisis.  It is no longer clear how the proverbial October surprise would play out.  

2: Financing

One of the Obama campaigns greatest successes has been in out maneuvering the McCain campaign with respect to financing.  First off, if you've read anything about how the Obama campaign planned and executed its primary victory, you know they always make a back up plan for if their assumptions don't hold.  As an example, their original plan was to win this election basically in New Hampshire.  The Obama campaign's decision to forgo public financing and publicly tell the 527s to back off was just this type of forward looking decision making.

During the summer, Democratic 527s, almost completely, held off running the ads that drive day to day politics.  But so did the Republican ones.  Senator McCain, rather timidly, withdrew public support for Republican 527s, which are really only now gearing up.  Likely, the Obama campaigns first plan would be to win this election easily without large 527 support, or to even make a deal with McCain to shut them down completely.  But they always knew that if they couldn't do that, the Democrats have just as much money in 527s, ready to go.  As we have seen, the political consequences of reversing your position on campaign finance are, as always, negligible.  

So now the Obama campaign is going to raise who knows how much money and the Democratic 527s are going to flood the airwaves on every issue, likely with a number of over the top smears that some voters, none of whom I've ever met, seem to love.  The Republican party's strength in smearing their opponent through ads has been run almost entirely by the McCain campaign, as their 527s are only now getting act together.  I see this as a pretty outstanding head fake on the part of the Democratic ticket for a number of months.  

3) Messaging

It's funny how now the term Swift Boating is used for just about any smear against a political opponent.  This use of the phrase signifies an ignorance of a major part of the success of that particular political tactic: it was done by a group ostensibly not associated with the Bush campaign.  When the McCain campaign goes out and basically calls Obama a sex offender, there is no question about who is making the claim, John McCain.  The genius of a Swift Boat attack is that you could appeal to those people who love a good smear, while denying your involvement to all those independent voters who hate them.  

So while the McCain campaign has directed day after day of the media cycle, the direction they have taken is as far into the gutter as any political campaign in the life times of pretty much anyone reading this.  Worse smears have been thrown at opponents in the past decades, but none of them have been running every day in Ohio  during a football game with I'm John McCain and I approve this message attached to them.  

At a certain point every lie gets you diminishing returns in politics.  WMDs was a pretty damn successful lie, for all the tragedy involved in that statement.  After revealing the truth so many times, Bush administration lies like, for example, Heck of a job, Brownie were less well received by the public.  The McCain campaign's willingness to say anything to hold on for just one more day has destroyed their credibility with most people whose responsibility it is to cover this campaign, despite what they tell you.  

The Obama campaign has messaged the exact same way for 18 months.  It's a very simple and effective strategy based: 1) I'm Senator Obama and I'm running on change, 2) Here's what I mean by change, 3) Hit me as hard as you want, but know that when you go too far, as you inevitably will, I know how to take advantage.  Everyone who has run against Senator Obama has tried to mitigate his ability to win the change question, but he has been so consistent that it always eventually makes them look pretty absurd.  He has more recently gotten better at telling the American people what change means, but that was always an actual strength for people who saw him in, say Iowa or any primary state, for an entire speech instead of the 10 second clip on TV followed by a commentator saying, where are the specifics.  

Really the only change in Obama's message for his entire campaign has been to add: let me introduce you to Joe Biden.  Biden may not break through too often but he has passed every question that is most important for a VP choice easily.  He's perceived as ready to take over.  And he hasn't hurt Obama.  I would argue that he will be pretty effective, from time to time, when he breaks through the cluster of the media cycle, and definitely on the ground.  That's pretty much all you can ask for from a VP choice.  

So the last part of Obama's messaging ability has been his counter-punch which has often been the most frustrating and exciting to watch.  There are a number of phases that each opponent of Senator Obama has gone through.  First, they under estimate him, then they realize that mistake and over react, then they implode and finally they throw the kitchen sink at him.  Perhaps the McCain campaign imploded before over reacting by promoting Rove disciple Steve Schmidt before they chose Sarah Palin, but the McCain campaign, I would contend, is pretty bad anyways.  

Obama deals with all attacks the same way, he repeats them to you.  He knows in this era you will eventually hear them, so he figure it's better if as many people as possible hear how absurd it is from his own mouth.  Despite the persistent idea that Obama is not funny, I would contend he's pretty good at mocking the ridiculous statements that are said about him.  

4) The Question in the Voting Booth

One of the most unbelievable things about the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate is that it has taken away one of the biggest long-term strengths of the McCain campaign.  For many voters, for a long time, there was a persistent question of whether Senator Obama was ready to be president.  It was talked about day after day after day.  Well, the answer is obviously that Senator McCain thinks so, if he's ready to promote Palin, so who am I to argue.  

For many voters this simple fact frees them up to vote on any number of issues that are more important to them, most of which are Democratic strengths.  I believe that this was probably the only calculated aspect of the McCain campaigns choice, because they likely had polled enough to see it wasn't going to be enough to win.  They were probably right.  

It can't be said enough that there is only one poll that matters, the one in the voting booth.  Sometimes it's hard to remember that each person that enters the booth has an entirely different set of reasons for being there.  Polls like to break people down into the exact opposite of what we are, which is, of course, individuals.  The past month has shown how quickly the questions that seem most important can change from day to day and how often winning a daily media cycle is as likely to be a detriment as it is to be a help in the long run.  

As long as the Obama campaign continues to maintain its dominance in these four key aspects of the political dynamics of this presidential election, he will win.  

My one major take-away from the Republican Convention was simple: the Republican Party hates me.  I know for many of you this seems has seemed obvious for eight to 30 years, but as a former Republican, and a long time McCain supporter (prior to the beginning of this election season), it came as a surprise to me.  It came as a surprise because I expected the Republican Party would be trying to court my vote, rather than piss me off.  

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing they could have said that would have changed my mind during this convention.  Yet, it is surprising how well they know this.  My profile would be an educated white male, whose main issue is foreign policy and doesn't really think either side has it exactly right.  I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't an issue that I'm likely to vote on (although after this convention, you can just add it to the list).  

More importantly though, I'm willing to listen.  I've switched parties in the past four years and am not totally comfortable with all Democratic positions.  I agree with the Republicans on stressing nuclear power, on the idea that teacher's unions are holding back progress in education, on most issues of free trade and am skeptical of both sides' plans to get us out of Iraq.  

And like most voters in the middle, I hate negative campaigning.  I hate seeing my candidate do it, and hate it even more when it comes from the other side.  I think negative campaigning is for dumb people and I don't think I'm dumb.  I've seen where the negative campaigning mindset leads while briefly working for McCain's 2000 campaign, and being stung by what happened in South Carolina.

Yet, at the Republican National Convention, which I watched closely, there was absolutely no effort made to woo my vote.  All I heard was them trying to belittle every reason I support Senator Obama.  They told me I was dumb for following a cult celebrity.  They told me I was dumb for thinking that Obama being a community organizer is an extremely positive indication of his character.  They told me I was dumb for thinking that we need a more reasoned direction in our foreign policy.  They told me I was dumb for thinking that drilling isn't an answer to our energy problems.  They told me I was dumb for wanting some real solutions to our economic crisis.  

It's not only that they told me I am dumb, they obviously genuinely thought so.  They pretended like the media frenzy around Sarah Palin was anything new.  As if I don't remember Rev. Wright, Bitter-gate, "for the first time in my life ..."-gate.  They told me left wing bloggers were trying to destroy an innocent woman by finding facts about her.  As if I haven't spent the past year and half seeing the "Obama is a Muslim" emails or reading right wing blogs that happily pass on any fantasy that might scare one more voter.  

They pretended like I wouldn't notice when they continuously attacked Senator Obama, while laying out no new solutions that might show they've chosen a new direction.  They pretended like there was any logic to the idea of them retaking Washington from themselves.  As if their convention somehow existed in a time vacuum that didn't include the last eight years.  

They lied to me about Senator Obama's tax plan.  They lied to me about Senator Obama's record in the US and Illinois Senate.  They lied to me about Senator Obama's energy plan.  They lied to me about Senator Obama's health care plan.  They lied to me about Senator Obama's views on foreign policy.  They lied to me about the reality in Iraq.  They "forgot" to mention there's a war in Afghanistan.  

They told me I was sexist for wondering who the hell Sarah Palin is.  They lied to me about the "Bridge to Nowhere."  They told me I was unpatriotic for ever questioning America's perfection.  They told me I should love their candidate based on one speech, but that I should dismiss mine because of hundreds of speeches, policy proposals and interviews.  They told me the media doesn't need to talk to the possible future vice president, while unabashedly using the media to spread this message.  

They tried to use Sarah Palin's family to make me relate to her character, while crying foul at any mention of her family outside their talking points.  They told me John McCain was a POW every few minutes, while forgetting to tell me about his 26 years in Congress.  They pretended like there is no person named Dick Cheney.  

They blatantly tried to reignite the "culture wars" that were the first thing to push me away from the Republican party.  As if any social issue is going to make me forget that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are about to be taken over by the government, as the Dow and dollar continue to drop.  They blamed the Democrats for high gas prices.  As if I don't remember who held secret meetings with energy companies that led us down this road.  

They told me that experience isn't a big deal.  As if I don't remember the last three months of them screaming at the top of their lungs, "no experience."  They told me judgment mattered most, but wouldn't answer a single question about the judgment of the Bush administration, the judgment of the Iraq war, the judgment of Republican economic policies, the judgment of picking a vice presidential candidate in two days, or the judgment of vetting a potential future president of the United States.  

Finally, they told me that the Republican party of the future is going to be the Republican party of the past by proclaiming Sarah Palin as their future.  As if I don't realize this means a greater focus on social issues, a continuation of neo-con foreign policy and continued disregard for anyone who has need of help from their government.  They passed the torch to a new leader, while bringing in the same handlers who ran their last two hate-filled campaigns.  As if I can't recognize their tactics from South Carolina in 2000.  

So I guess what I'm saying is (and don't take this the wrong way), I always knew they hated most of you.  It came as a bit of a surprise to see how much they truly hate me.  Well, I don't hate.  Their example shows so well how that emotion clouds out reality and common sense.  But man, I'm sure a whole lot more pumped up to beat the the hell out of them on November 4th!

Talking about celebrities and politics, negative ads and the "low road" benefits no one; it seeks to discourage voters confidence in the system and, in the long run, depress voter turn out.  It sparks anger on both sides, perpetuating the partisan divide and helping maintain the status quo.  With that in mind, I got to thinking about the substantive questions that I want John McCain to answer; questions that would force McCain to make policy statements that would redirect the media cycle.  

Although CW wisdom says that McCain is open to all questions and has actually been asked some tough ones, the reality is that his answers to an even marginally well thought question have provided some of the best examples in this entire campaign of the disaster that would be a McCain presidency, and the horrific risk involved in electing him (for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1NweA9662g&feature=related

So I've started a list of questions on a broad range of topics that Senator McCain should be forced to answer.

Foreign Policy

1.  What specifically would you do differently from this administration to capture or kill Osama bin Laden?

1. How do you plan to work with the Pakistani and Afghan governments to secure the border of Afghanistan and decrease tensions between these two important allies?

1.  Beyond adding two brigades, what is your plan for future NATO operations in Afghanistan?  

1.  Define victory in Iraq.

1.  Do you plan to maintain the Bush Defense Department and Department of State or would you make major changes in the leadership?

1.  You've said that troop reductions in Iraq would be predicated on conditions on the ground; on exactly which conditions would this decision be made and what measure would you use to judge satisfactory progress?

1.  How do you plan to pursue peace between Israel and the Palestinians?  

1.  Do you have any non-military plans or ideas to force Iran to end its nuclear weapons program?

1.  How will your administration help Lebanon's tenuous democracy?

1.  Would you be willing to pursue direct diplomacy with Syria?

1.  What, if any, plans do you have in or for Darfur?

1.  What is your vision of future US/Russian relations?

1.  How high a priority is pursuing better and more open relations with the Chinese?

1.  Can you think of any US action that you would at least explore that could help the people of Zimbabwe?

1.  A relatively bright spot in Bush's foreign policy has been its funding of AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa, what would be your policy in this regard?

1.  Which, if any, foreign policy issues do you think you could pursue through diplomacy within the United Nations?

Trade Policy (I don't know know enough about this, unfortunately)

1.  You've said you're for current and further free trade deals with foreign nations; during your presidency, which nations would you pursue such treaties with?

1.  How would your economic policy help stop the decline of the US dollar?  

1.  Would you increase funding to the FDA and other agencies in order to better test imported food and other products for contaminants?  Is this currently included in your budget estimates?

Education

1.  Would you increase, decrease or maintain at current levels funding for the Department of Education?

1.  How do you plan to reverse the increasing education gap between the US and our economic partners and competitors?

1.  Are you in favor of funding increased early childhood education?  Is this currently included in your budget estimates?

1.  What is your policy towards federal research funding of universities?

1.  Regardless of what you think the federal government's role should be in the questions, do you think children should be taught Intelligent Design in school?

Energy

1.  What are your plans to build the necessary energy infrastructure to achieve your goal of decreasing US dependence on foreign oil and promote renewable energy technology?  Is funding for infrastructure development included in your current budget estimates?

1.  Within your renewable energy goals, which technologies do you think show the most promise, and what specifically do you know about how they work and what part they could play in your plan's success?

1.  What are the specific reasons for current or future subsidies to oil companies?

1.  What would be your policy with regard to nuclear waste disposal?

1.  With impending dramatic increases in home heating costs this winter, do you have any plans to provide Americans with economic relief?

Environment

1.  Is it your opinion that the federal government's official policy should be that global warming is real and a threat, and, as such, should be a priority of your government?

1.  Do you have plans to pursue an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  What would you envision the framework of such a treaty would include?

1.  Do you believe that FEMA has been sufficiently reformed since its response to Hurricane Katrina?  How would FEMA work better under your presidency than it has over the past four years?

1.  President Bush has listed the fewest species ever on the endangered species list, while ignoring government scientists in the process; would you continue his policy towards America protecting endangered species?

Social Issues

1.  As president, would you make a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade be prerequisite for consideration as a Supreme Court justice nomination?

1.  What is your policy towards equal pay?  Why do you think women currently get paid less in the work place for the same work?

1.  You've said you don't believe in a quota system of affirmative action; is there any affirmative action policy that you would pursue as president?

1.  Do you believe English should be the official language of the United States?

1.  Regardless of the federal government's role in the matter, is there any gun control that you would support?

Military

1.  How will you work to decrease the number of suicides of US soldiers and veterans?

1.  Do you believe the current Veterans Administration is living up to our nation's duty to support all of our veterans' mental and physical health needs?

1.  You've said that you would have used more troops for the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq; as president, what level of troops would you have sent to Iraq for the past five years?

1.  Prior to 9/11, one of the priorities of the Defense Department was transforming America's military for the 21st century; would this be a goal of your administration's Department of Defense and in what areas do you see substantial changes in the structure, technology, combat readiness, and force projection of our future military?

1.  As president, would you work to close Guantanamo Bay's detention facility?

Economy

1.  How much impact do you believe the federal government has or can have on the US economy?

1.  Do you believe that more regulation is necessary within the credit and banking industry?  If so, which specific regulations would your administration pursue to ensure more transparent and effective business practices?

1.  Do you believe Alan Greenspan was a successful Federal Reserve chairman in his final two years?

1.  If the economy worsens further, would you be in favor of another round of stimulus checks for lower and middle class Americans?

1.  In which sectors of the US economy do you see the potential to bring the economy out recession, real or potential?

1.  Are you in favor of government intervention to save failing banks?  If so, would you differentiate between small banks and large ones when deciding on whether to grant government assistance?

1.  Is there any general economic theory that you guides your policy views?

Health Care (don't know enough here either)

1.  What percentage of income do you believe middle class Americans should pay for health care?

1.  Where do you see potential for decreasing health care costs and increasing the neediest Americans' access to health care?  

The McCain Campaign

1.  Has there been any change in your policy towards employing lobbyists within your campaign?

1.  In what, if any, way is your campaign working to increase turnout in the 2008 election?

1.  Do you believe the management of your campaign provides any indications on how you would run the White House?

Open Government

1.  Are there any aspects of the Bush administration that you would have the Justice Department investigate as president?

1.  As president, would you allow high ranking members of your administration testify before Congress when asked?

1.  Which, if any, specific policies would your administration pursue towards greater transparency within the Executive Branch?

1.  Would you use executive signing statements to alter the meaning and impact of legislation?

1.  Would you maintain the majority of Bush administration political appointees within the federal government?

For many Americans Colin Powell's trip to the UN solidified their support for the Iraq war. I needed no such reassurance. John McCain supported the war and so I felt comfortable and confident. In 2002, it seemed unimaginable that John McCain would follow President Bush blindly. Those of us who campaigned for McCain in 2000 fought on the front lines of the first battle to stop the Bush regime.

I don't want to get into the details of the decision to support the war: the influence of September 11th and politics, the capitulation of Democratic critics, or the silencing of dissent by the media. I was a victim of and accomplice to all of that.

What I do want to talk about is the tragedy of post-2000 John McCain. This is not to say that the reality of pre-2000 McCain is as impressive or positive as I felt it was when I supported him, but instead to show how cold heartedly and cynically he betrayed those who eight years ago looked to him for leadership.

What many don't remember is that John McCain was actually the first person to fight against what has become the Bush Machine. Many, if not all, of us in that campaign understood exactly how horrible a president Bush would be, although, to be honest, we couldn't have known the true magnitude. But his lack of imagination and downright stupidity were obvious to us from the start.

The McCain 2000 campaign felt like a political insurgency against a new despot in our party (at the time, needless to say, I was a Republican). Bush was riding to power on the wings of the extremists whose influence most of us McCain folk were working to throw out of not just our party, but the entire political debate. His "agents of intolerance" line was one of the proudest moments of the process, for me at least. His campaign was fun, inspiring, fulfilling, and the most demoralizing experience I have had in politics...until I watched as McCain transformed over the ensuing years into that exact type of politician we had worked so hard against.

By 2002, the irony of McCain's "maverick" title was not apparent to me, especially as he fulfilled a seven year commitment to reform campaign finance laws with McCain-Feingold. Just before the war in 2003, I felt completely confident that McCain was not parroting administration talking points when he said: "There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators" (Hardball, March 24, 2003).

It was at this time, just preceding the Iraq war, really that McCain's transformation truly started. Perhaps to a man who had been in the Senate as long as he, the 2008 election no longer seemed that far away; or perhaps he, like many (and at times myself), was so spooked by the September 11th attacks that he turned blindly away from all that he knew and had learned about foreign policy in favor of the comfort of unthinkingly following a leader not up to the task.

Regardless, it was at this point that he began to lie to the American people and begin a six year campaign to deceive and distract the American people in order to maintain the small hope of achieving his long held dream of becoming president. Supporting the president during the 2004 campaign, McCain sounded nothing like the man whose inspiring and ultimately futile surge in New Hampshire in 2000 had almost transformed the Republican party.

Unbelievably, the history of McCain's capitulation and betrayal is clear on virtually every issue of importance over the past eight years. He has surrendered to the Republican party line, either out of political convenience or ignorance, on the Iraq War, relations with Iran, US torture policy, tax policy, judicial independence, selling out to oil companies, covering up administration lies and law breaking, and, of course, his "greatest legislative achievement," campaign finance.

I cannot put in words how thankful I am that the Democratic Party has finally nominated a man who I am willing to follow, though better informed by my past mistakes, and who, also unbelievably, has the right position on every single one of these issues, FISA notwithstanding (let's just not get into that discussion here). Senator Obama's presidential campaign pulled me out of the political confusion and darkness of being betrayed by the last leader who I believed in.

For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

The inauguration of a new president in January 2009 will provide a singular moment in international relations, a point in time where it is more likely than ever that thoughtful, fair and direct diplomacy can have a dramatic and positive impact throughout the Middle East. Currently, most of the debate in the presidential election surrounds diplomacy with Iran and withdrawing from Iraq. While these issues should be top priority, for progress in either area a larger context must inform policy makers' perspective and a plan must be put in place for the future.

Below I give the central themes of what I think a successful Middle East Peace Plan for the 21st Century would look like.

Goals:
For any plan to be legitimate, it must have clear goals to provide an impartial measurement of success and failure. These goals must provide a basis for moving forward with specific actions. The goals for a 21st Century Middle East Peace Plan are simple:

Short Term Goal: Political stability throughout the Middle East

Medium Term Goals: Diminished Iranian Influence, Increased Egyptian Influence, Diminished Tensions in Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, Political Development in Lebanon, Decreased International Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, Development of Good Governance Throughout the Region

Long Term Goal: Democratization

The short term goal of political stability throughout the region is important because it is also the fundamental goal of every government in the region, ally and enemy. While it will require working with and sometimes supporting governments and political figures who are anathema to many of our political and moral values, it is a necessary first step towards successful diplomacy. If a government feels threatened by instability within or instability in surrounding nations, it will be much less likely to be willing or able to trust, be honest and take educated risks, which are all vitally important for successful diplomacy.

The medium term goals are more specific and center around targeted areas where progress is both possible and a logical progression from the development of increased political stability. Each one independently furthers peaceful prospects in the region; while as a group they represent dramatic positive change.

The long term goal is perhaps the most controversial. Not only is it counter to the desires of numerous governments throughout the region, it could also be seen as a diplomatic extension of neo-con foreign policy. It is not. It is, and has always been, the most effective and constant foreign policy of the United States, to further democracy when possible throughout the world. This goal is furthered by finding the specific instances throughout the plan when political and diplomatic leverage can be used to further openness, good governance and democratic systems within every government of the Middle East. It need never be forced.

Timeline

Initial Actions: Actions taken or begun within the first year of the next presidency.

1)Begin Direct negotiations between the US, Syria, Lebanon and Israel with the short term goal of settling the issue of the Golan Heights and ending Syrian political interference in Lebanon, and the long term goal of normalized relations between Syria and Israel, as well as Lebanon and Israel. While this would require tough choices by all involved, it is a very real possibility that a deal could be struck where Israel agrees to give up the Golan Heights and Syria agrees to stop funding Hezbollah in Lebanon, while allowing a strong UN peacekeeping force to guarantee the security necessary for Lebanese political development.

While Israel giving up the Golan Heights would be a dramatic concession of a strategic asset, 21st century warfare no longer makes the Golan Heights the prize it was throughout the last half of the 20th century. Of much greater value to Israel would be taking away from Hezbollah their base in Lebanon. While the Syrians have shown little reason to be trusted, a UN force with a mandate to protect the political leadership of Lebanon, patrol the Lebanon/Israel border, and train the Lebanese army would provide essential tools for the always burgeoning but constantly undermined Lebanese government to take hold.

The dispute over the Shebaa Farms will have to be decided as well.

2)Dramatically increase engagement with Egypt as a political and diplomatic leader in the Middle East. To not see the potential for Egyptian leadership in the Middle East is simply to never have learned the history of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypt's current independence from much of the Middle East is a consequence of their 1979 peace treaty with Israel and the fact that Egyptian political leadership has found it easier and safer to stay out of Middle Eastern politics whenever possible. While Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was dramatic in 1979, for much of the region, normalization has become a de facto reality, even if not expressed in public by political leadership. This barrier to Egyptian influence has been greatly diminished.

Which means what is stopping the Egyptians from once again becoming prominent actors on the Middle Eastern stage is the fact that it's dangerous and they see little benefits to them. Yet America is able to provide numerous benefits to Egypt, not to mention the billions of dollars we currently give them in aid. A great deal of leverage can be obtained with Egypt through trade negotiations that would be helpful to numerous growing Egyptian business interests.

In the short run, Egyptian leadership could be a partner in Lebanese and perhaps Palestinian political development. In the long run, Egypt would provide a much safer counter weight to Iran than Saudi Arabia and Iraq currently do. This is not to say that Egypt is necessarily an example to the world of good governance, tolerance and respect for human rights; it is not. Yet Egyptian government and especially culture are more educated, in parts progressive and forward looking than any other area of the Middle East.

3)Push Turkey to legislate and enforce the laws necessary to qualify for EU membership, while at the same time convincing EU allies of the benefits and necessity of ratification. Specifically, Turkey needs to guarantee the civil and political rights of all secular and religious groups, as well as individuals of Kurdish ancestry. This would represent a dramatic, but not unpopular or impossible, step forward in Turkish political development, while simultaneously showing their good faith in pursuing EU membership. It would also diminish one source of instability in Iraq, the conflict between the Kurdish north and Turkey.

4)Establish an elite Middle East Peace Corps. Currently, the Middle East is likely the most dangerous region in the world to work, which has led to a brain drain the likes of which perhaps only the nations of sub-Saharan Africa truly understand. In order to balance against this emigration, it is necessary to provide strong incentives for people, humanitarian groups and good government experts to flock to the areas most in need.

Through a Middle East Peace Corps, the United States could train people in the specific tasks necessary for targeted projects of humanitarian aid, infrastructure development, political development, good governance workshops at all levels of government, and education. While safety would be a top priority, these will be dangerous jobs that require substantial compensation. Even still, a call of service to further US foreign policy goals through humanitarian efforts is one that many Americans will answer, and which would in the long run help reestablish US standing throughout the world.

5)Negotiate and Enact a strong and ambitious treaty on climate change. In the long run, America and our allies will never truly have any real leverage in the Middle East unless we begin to end the world's dependence on Middle East nations as a source of oil. While this goal will likely not be achieved for generations, a climate change treaty with dramatic emissions reductions and penalties for missing periodic target emission levels will send a strong signal to the nations that depend on oil for power that their future does and will depend on them acting in good faith with their neighbors and the community of nations.

Future Actions: Actions taken within the last three years of the next president's first term.

1)Begin direct negotiations with the Iranians over a broad range of issues, including the development of nuclear power and weapons, interference in Iraq, funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, and belligerency towards Israel. Negotiations with Iran can only be successful if a number of necessary steps are taken to begin to diminish Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.

Yet Iran is not a natural leader of the Arab nations in the Middle East, nor has it ever been. The current Iranian rise in influence can be derived almost directly from their defiance of the United States since the revolution in 1979. By working towards all of the initial actions in this plan, this defiance of the US will begin to diminish in key areas of Iranian influence, including Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. With Egypt as a once again emerging player in Middle Eastern politics, Arab nations and people will begin to have a choice of strong leadership in defiance of the radical tendencies of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A more isolated Iran will likely be more dangerous in the short term, as it has long worked to emerge as a regional superpower. Yet, if incentives, support and guarantees of political stability can be used as the proverbial carrot of diplomacy, it is very possible that Iran can be, at minimum, stopped from engaging in any overt acts of aggression throughout the next four years, and, in the best case, begin on a track towards normalizing their relations with the world.

Any plan for peace in the Middle East will surely have diplomacy with Iran as the linchpin, upon which success will ultimately be decided.

2)Withdraw the vast majority of US troops from Iraq. There are not words enough to describe the danger, difficulty and absolute necessity of withdrawing US Troops from Iraq. In short, Iraq diminishes our military readiness, costs billions of dollars needed at home and in other areas of the region, is a source of resentment for millions of people throughout the Middle East and constant propaganda for our worst enemies.

Iraq is not a stable nation at this point, but has reached a level of security not seen in many years. This provides the best opportunity of the past five years to begin phased withdrawal, likely over a two year period. The goals of this withdrawal policy should be to get the most US troops out as fast as possible, while guaranteeing the security of the Iraqi government, reacting to terrorist threats and attacks, and, most importantly, ensuring as best possible that our withdrawal is not seen in Iraq and throughout the region as abandonment that equals our initial invasion in hubris and devastation.

Second Term Actions

1)Convene a regional peace conference with the goal of normalized political and trade relations between all Middle Eastern nations, most importantly Israel. In the long run, this is likely the toughest challenge in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as well as the most important to maintain as a goal. To some day strike this deal would be a coup for peace and progress throughout the world. While it is only one of many sources of instability, anger and violence in the region, it has proven the most sustaining and intractable.

2)Elimination of OPEC's ability to act as a cartel through bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. With peace comes trade; and with trade comes the desire to talk and the ability to listen. While eliminating OPEC may be impossible, diminishing its influence and securing concessions for free trade from OPEC nations may, in the long run, be very possible. Creating and maintaining a stable, secure and fair market for oil should always be a priority for US foreign policy.

3)Pursue direct and multilateral diplomacy to enact treaties that reward good governance and democratization with strong trade and political incentives. This effort should focus initially on creating democratic systems within individual communities in an effort to build the political infrastructure necessary to enact successful, sustainable and, most importantly, peaceful democratic political reform.

Cross Posted at Fitz on Politics

If you're like me and you watch and read the "news" every day, it's quite possible to lose all perspective on what issues, statements and 'controversies' matter in this presidential election cycle. One of the main reasons for this is that while many may try to compare this election to those of the past, in reality, our current campaign and its coverage resemble very little anything from previous American elections. We have a longer campaign, more coverage, more sources of information, more polls, more pundits, more money and more partisan media sources. To make this system work, there needs to be continuous 'news' to cover, even when there is little in day to day politics that is important to a voter looking to make a truly informed choice.

For this reason, it is easy to see one comment or position by Senators McCain or Obama that will make or break the election. It is easy to be disheartened or overly confident by one or a series of polls. It is easy to think that the "corporate media" is controlling the ability of voters to see the truth about each candidate. And it is easy to be constantly outraged by the day to day actions of the candidate you oppose (and sometimes the candidate you support).

All of this works to diminish the impact of the statements and policies that actually do matter to the voter and to the future of our country. The culprit here is what I call 'faux outrage.' Faux outrage drives the cable news cycle and has led the media to spend more and more time talking 'politics,' and less talking about what's actually happening in the world. Probably the best recent example of faux outrage was the response to General Wesley Clark's comments about how John McCain's POW experience doesn't necessarily make him ready to be president. The cable news beast pounced because it was an easy story to cover, lacking any need for thought, while simultaneously, in theory, touching on some of the most important issues of the election. In reality, it was a contrived story that just gave pundits a reason to keep talking, which is all they're looking for. Make no mistake about it though, the left is just as quick as the right to jump on a story like this, if it looks like it will give them a few hours, days or even a week of decent coverage.

Yet, this approach to news has left most of us lost in the forest of electoral politics. These stories are acorns. There have been hundreds of them in this election cycle and will be hundreds more. From a perspective on the ground, an acorn looks vastly important. It could dramatically affect the area around it, growing larger and blocking the sun from everything in its vicinity. The reality is that the vast majority of acorns don't grow, as they are blocked out by the branches of the trees who both grew them and simultaneously ensured they would get no sun.

For example, our situation in Iraq is a large grove in the woods of this electoral season. It is a story that virtually every voter has followed to some extent for years and recognizes as a valid and important part of deciding the next president. It's a grove that has grown and developed long enough that a few acorns here and there will have little affect on its overall condition. This is why even with reports of violence down in Iraq and the "success" of the surge, public opinion has changed very little as a result. From the perspective of a group of trees, an acorn rightly seems insignificant.

Yet there are areas of the woods that are younger, less developed and more influenced by the individual acorn. These are the politics and policies in which voters are less informed and therefore lacking the larger perspective. For example, Senator Obama's faith is something that the American voter has just recently (relatively) learned about and formed an opinion on. Most voters are just beginning to form their own map of how this fits into his personal and political narrative. Their perspective has not yet grown from ground level and can, therefore, be dramatically affected by an acorn here or there; ie stories about his pastor, slander about his religious background, or, conversely, stories about how he found religion and has reconciled it with his life and background. Eventually, if the right acorns are cultivated in the right way in this younger area of our political forest, this grove will gain the same continuity and definition as the oldest areas of the wilderness.

It is also important to remember that trees fall down, and large areas of forest can be virtually destroyed by numerous causes. The insurgency in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 completely changed most Americans' perspective on the war, altering an entire portion of the political landscape. The housing and credit crisis dramatically transformed people's views on the direction of our economy. And, of course, when trees are knocked down, there is an opportunity for an acorn to grow.

This metaphor is commonly used to describe politics, and yet the conclusion is usually: get some perspective and see the whole forest. While I agree with that in part, what I take away is that we should work to find this larger perspective so that we can see with greater clarity which acorns may grow, and which are destined for a short life in the shade. The more we maintain faux outrage over an inconsequential story, the less likely we are to be heard when that acorn falls that can change the entire landscape.

Cross posted at Fitz on Politics

For those who find themselves turned off or "deceived" by Senator Obama's faith-based initiatives proposal today, I would direct you, once again, to his second book, "The Audacity of Hope," page 221 in the hard copy version:

And one can envision certain faith based programs -- targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers -- that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and hence merit carefully tailored support

Perhaps Senator Obama's view of the separation of church and state is different from yours, but make no mistake about it, he has a very clear and thought out position from which he has never strayed: government can work with religious organizations on targeted secular programs; government can not discriminate between religious and non-religious organizations in administering these programs; and any money allocated to religious organizations can not be used to proselytize or fund religious activities.

Not surprisingly, Senator Obama did not focus much on his faith based initiatives during the primary campaign.  If you need me to explain why, I think there may be some other lessons about politics we'll have to start with first.  Regardless, this has been an issue that he has spent a lot of time thinking and writing about throughout his public life.  I would urge you to read through his chapter on Faith in "The Audacity of Hope," because in there he talks about how he has waded and stumbled through many of the most difficult issues in our church and state debate.  

The conclusion that Senator Obama has come to is that religion informs the positions of a vast amount of voters and to not recognize this is both unfair to them and not politically viable.  He understands that there are certain points in all debates that are informed by religious belief where compromise is impossible, which is why he writes (page 222):

Still, between those who believe that life begins at conception and those who consider a fetus an extension of the woman's body until birth, a point is rapidly reached where compromise is not possible.  At that point, the best we can do is ensure that persuasion rather than violence or intimidation determines the political outcome -- and that we focus at least some of our energies on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through education (including about abstinence), contraception, adoption, or any other strategies that have broad support and have been proven to work.

Rarely have I found a politician who understands the debate about religion in this country better than Senator Obama, and who genuinely wants to do what he can, where he can, to ease the tensions between the two sides.  He knows there will never be a time where pro-choice activists and pro-life activists agree with each other on the issue of abortion, but he also knows that beneath those strongly held opinions are a number of issues where general consensus is easily reached and progress is possible.  

Too often the debate about separation of church and state in this country seems to be a debate between engaging the most religious voters and engaging the most secular.  Whether that is the intention of the politicians is besides the point, because the way they have framed their arguments fits them all too easily into one of these two categories.  Senator Obama seeks to disarm this fallacious dichotomy by engaging a convergent set of moral principles that are informed by the set of values of both those most stridently secular and religious.  

And for those who want to go to the extreme and call Senator Obama someone who seeks to impose any religious idea or set of values upon all of us, I would point you to one more quote (page 226):

I thought of Sasha asking me once what happened when we die -- "I don't want to die, Daddy," she had added matter of factly -- and I had hugged her and said, "you've got a long, long way before you have to worry about that," which had seemed to satisfy her.  I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang.  Walking up the stairs, I knew what I hoped for -- that my mother was together in some way with those four little girls (he's talking about the girls killed by the bomb in the Birmingham church in '63), capable in some fashion of embracing them, of finding joy in their spirits.  

I know that tucking in my daughters that night, I grasped a little bit of heaven.  

This is a man who is constantly seeking to find ways to bridge the gaps between between secular and religious views in the American experience, both in his personal and public life.  If we're ever going to get beyond the demoralizing debates between the James Dobsons and Christopher Hitchens of this country, we need more politicians like Senator Obama, who are willing to put the thought and energy into their policies to find room for us all.  

By the way, for those who question how important an issue faith is for him, I would point you to the fact that his chapter on faith in "The Audacity of Hope" is two pages longer than his chapter on the constitution :)

For many, this past week was likely just like any other during the 2008 campaign, full of useless political stories, media bias, lack of attention to actual news events in our country and around the world, campaigns pandering, and horse race stories backed up by misleading polls.  Yet, beneath all of this, I have found a number of personal lessons that I believe will help me in better understanding politics, discussing this election and becoming a more informed voter.  Often, it's hard to step outside of the day to day back and forth of this campaign and reflect on one's over all feelings about politics, the media, politicians and our fellow voters.  Yet, in order to craft a successful campaign, this is a necessary perspective.  

Below, I run through a number of lessons I've learned this week.

Lesson One: My view of a political speech or position is too often blurred by my personal feelings towards a particular candidate.  

Watching Hillary Clinton give her speech in Unity on Friday I found my views of her and even of her campaign completely transformed.  I've read many comments and posts from people who had similar reactions.  Now that she is no longer a threat to my candidate, she seems like a great political role model in many ways, with strong positions on issues I care about, and an engaging political demeanor.  Now, I'm not saying she didn't do things that were unacceptable and reprehensible during her campaign, but I have a better understanding of what led her in that direction, a genuine desire to win because she believes(believed) she would be the most effective president.  I found that I hate this winning at all cost mentality...unless it's my candidate, when, of course, it's OK, because we need to win.  This is something I must be aware of and try to keep in check.  

In the same vein, I've long believed that energy policy should be the top issue in this country's political debate.  Yet, when John McCain -- the candidate I will do virtually anything to stop -- started agreeing with some of my views on energy, I found myself hating him for it, rather than celebrating the fact that some of my views are now accepted wisdom by both candidates.  Yes, he's "flip flopped," or changed positions, on some of these issues.  But what's wrong with that?  If he was wrong before and is right now, isn't that a good thing?  Note: I find numerous flaws in his energy policy, but fewer flaws than virtually any energy policy I've seen from a Republican in my lifetime.  I think Obama's energy policy is much stronger, but also filled with a number of flaws.

Lesson Two: In my desire to elect the president I want, I too often hold Senator Obama to a much higher standard than any other candidate or politician I support

I found myself genuinely surprised, and initially hurt, by the idea that Senator Obama is actually a politician trying to get elected and not one who speaks the truth at all times.  I'm not being facetious here.  His positions on FISA, gun control and the death penalty left me, for a moment, questioning whether this was the person I really wanted to support.  This despite the fact that I've been personally inspired to take a more active part in government by him; read both his books and found his life story compelling and views on politics exactly in line with mine; agree with him on probably 80 percent of his policy positions; and think he's our only hope to start rebuilding our politics, foreign policy, infrastructure and economy.  

I need to get over the fact that Senator Obama will genuinely disagree with me on a number of issues and will likely take positions entirely for political gain when necessary.  This isn't to say I shouldn't attempt to push policy in the direction I want, or that I should just keep my mouth shut when I disagree with his statements or policies.  But I do need to keep a better perspective of what's at stake here, and why I can't let all of the issues that matter to me be drowned out by one position where I find him wanting.  

Lesson Three: While I say I want an informed debate, too often I get happy and excited by the mindless political stories I rail against, as long as they're aimed at the opponent.  

When I read the diary last night about John McCain owing taxes on his house in California, I was pumped.  Nice, a story against McCain that is easy to fit into a one sentence sound bite and use to demonize him.  Yes, it's ridiculous that he has seven houses and that the media calls Obama the elitist.  But I don't want any stories out there that take us down the road of debating which candidate is the elitist and which candidate is the "regular guy."  Just because it's against McCain, doesn't mean it's a legitimate story within the campaign that I have been trying to pressure the media to cover.  By hounding McCain on small stories like this, I think it only gives cover for the media to continue their baseless generalizations about Obama.  

Lesson Four: I have let this election stop me from following, talking about and trying to solve the problems that in a non-election cycle would be most important to me

The Mississippi River is still breaking levees and destroying homes, crops, and the hopes and dreams of thousands of Americans.  While the media doesn't follow this closely, I find it to be a personal scandal that I have not stayed on top of this story and done more to organize my friends, family and others to help out.  Instead, I have allowed the media to dictate to me when this story was "over," even as the levees continued to break.  This is personally unacceptable and something I hope to change about myself.  Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund

Lesson Five: Too often I think I'm an "expert" on things I don't know enough about.

There are really only two topics that I could call myself something of an expert on, the media, owing to my job, and the Middle East, owing to seven years of concerted study on the region.  Otherwise, I'm a novice trying to learn.  Yet, when a discussion of economic policy starts, I find myself acting like I know it all and disagreeing, without much though on my part, with people who have a much better understanding of our economic system.  Or, when a discussion of religion occurs, I find myself plowing in and often times judging other people's views that I really don't understand at all, owing to my lack of a religious background.  One thing I took away from Senator Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" is the need to empathize with those who disagree with you and try to learn from their perspective.  Too often, I find myself miserably failing at this.  

Just to note, I'm not saying that I'm going to defer to people who know more facts than me about issues, but I am going to try to listen to them more and learn from their perspectives, in order to better inform my own opinions.  I should already be able to do this from my own experience anyways.  My political views have changed dramatically during my lifetime, which have proven to me that often times I am not right and that I do need to learn more.  Yet, in the moment, I too often find myself thinking, of course I'm right; this is what I believe.  That's a weak argument, even if I only use it with myself.  

Lesson Six: I need to understand the perspective of the vast majority of voters who don't follow the news and politics as closely as I do.

Many of my friends are not very political at all.  Almost all of them are Democrats, but they don't really care much about day to day politics.  For example, a friend of mine is very much an Obama supporter, so I asked her to come to a small picnic fund raiser for Obama yard signs that was literally three blocks from her house (and we're in the middle of upstate New York, so that's a pretty incredible coincidence).  She says to me, hell no, I'd rather do just about anything than talk politics for a couple hours on a Sunday afternoon.  At first this surprised the hell out of me.  How could you support Obama and not want to meet others who do and talk about how we can help him win.  But of course, that's how most people feel and there's nothing wrong with it.  She's a smart woman, who has specific issues that matter to her, but she has her own problems to worry about and deal with.  She's still going to make an educated choice with her vote in this election, it's just not going to consume the next 4 months of her life.  If I can't easily empathize with her perspective, it's going to be hard to convince people to support my candidate. 

Undoubtedly, some of these views will get me in trouble.  I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.  As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.
-"The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama

There is no clearer insight into Senator Obama's political and personal views than his two books.  While "The Audacity of Hope" is most definitely a political book, it also has a level of honesty that speaks to the reader.  The question is, did people listen?  

Obama's not a left winger, centrist, liberal Democrat, conservative Democrat, progressive or any of the other generalizations that we try to use to group us together in defiance of "them."  He has always rejected such ideological rigidity in favor of a more pragmatic politics.  This is just reality.

For me, that's exactly what I want in a leader.  I don't want a president who tries to do everything and does nothing, nor one who appeals only to my views, for I know there are few others out there who would agree with all of them.  Instead, I want a leader who I think is smart enough to know what he can do and what he can't.  Often times this will mean he goes against my views, perhaps even some of my more fundamental precepts, in which case I will tell him.  

But that doesn't mean I'll stop doing what I can to help him get elected, and then to be a successful president, because it's not about me or him.  It's about getting our country moving forward again in a variety of areas.  If I see him treading water on FISA or even pushing us further into the depths of constitutional crisis, I will tell him, but I will still help him move us forward on a whole host of other issues that are equally important to our country.  

To listen to the commentary recently on Obama's position on FISA and even his position on capital punishment, you would think Benedict Arnold had just tried to surrender West Point.  I believe this level of fervor betrays a lack of perspective towards our problems and what he can do to fix them.  Here's a news flash: the Bush administration has screwed up our government in countless ways; even as president, Obama won't be able to fix them all, and he surely can't as a candidate and junior senator from Illinois.  

In addition though, he's also a politician who has to work within the political climate created by the Bush administration's politics of fear.  While many here may see through the lies and innuendo this administration has lived by, the majority of Americans have a less informed view, mostly owing to a media that does nothing to help broaden citizens' perspectives.  

Politics sucks; that's just a reality.  No one likes to see our leaders sacrifice principles in favor of political expediency, but that's what politics brings out in all but the few who either don't care about reelection or are so safe in their positions they don't need to worry about "pandering."  Running for president never gives you that opportunity.  For every great president or even legitimate presidential candidate you come up with, we can find numerous times they have acted this way.  

What has surprised me is not that Obama has acted against my views, but how rarely he has.  He stood up to the pressure to take a hard line on negotiating with "rogue" regimes.  He stood up against gas tax pandering.  He has continuously been called naive, inexperienced, an unknown quantity, different and on and on.  And yet, on the whole, he has trusted that if he explained his position to the American people, they will either agree with him or trust his judgment.  To be frank, on some issues, he has not felt that the nuances of his perspective could be adequately presented to the public at large, especially given the current mediums available to talk to the people, ie cable news, talking heads, self important newspaper columnists and editorial boards.  I think the FISA issue is an example of this.  

This is going to happen again.  Sometimes it will happen because he genuinely disagrees with you or me, and other times, like now, because he believe political expediency is necessary for short, medium and long term gain.  That's how politics works, always has, likely always will.  Obama isn't going to change how politics works in this country in one election, nor should he try.  He should try to win, because right now that's what matters most.  

In closing, I'll leave you with one other quote from his book that I think is relevant at this moment:

I am angry about policies that consistently favor the wealthy and powerful over average Americans, and insist that government has an important role in opening up opportunity to all.  I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody's religious beliefs -- including my own -- on non-believers...But that is not all that I am.  I also think my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times.  

I think to understand the Obama campaign, one must truly see and hear the foundations upon which it is built.  This campaign, its message and its success are not new; they died 40 years ago at the Ambassador Hotel.  It's a bleak statement and rash generalization, but take a half hour and listen to Bobby Kennedy speak and I think you'll see better why America is so ready for this movement.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
Bobby Kennedy, University of Cape Town, South Africa (1966)

To think that race would not be a part of this campaign is to think that the civil rights movement was won and is over, that the millions of people who lived through that divisiveness have moved on and past.  But of course the civil rights movement never ended but expanded to represent the true diversity of this country, which in many ways drowned out its fundamental message, hope and understanding.  Many of those who lived through the 1960s find that experience to be fundamental to how they define themselves and how they view the world.  

In short, this country remains divided, but less so.  One of the big reasons for that was Bobby Kennedy, a man who, like Archimedes, lived by the words "Give me a place to stand and I will move the world." (BK Cape Town, 1966).  The message then, as it is now, was that empowered individuals who hope for a better future and are willing to work for it through learning and understanding and teaching can build that future that they dream of.  

For a brief campaign in a now idealized time, Bobby Kennedy brought this message to America.  If you want a snapshot of this time, take a look at this video from his California campaign: Bobby Kennedy - Fearless

Bobby Kennedy was a giant, a one in a million intellect, a man of honesty, and a man who devoted himself to the betterment of others.  I believe he developed from his brother the foundation of all great politicians, courage.  He was a man who could quote Aeschylus from memory to a large crowd, black and white, after telling them that Dr. King had been assassinated: "And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God."  He was a man who traveled to South Africa in 1966, spoke with the people and spoke out against Apartheid and oppression.  

But his message was always about hope.  That was what he told the black South Africans under the oppression of Apartheid; hope and understanding. Bobby Kennedy's hope was the exact opposite of how hope often gets characterized; it was active.  He defined it; "these men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in isolated villages and city slums in dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped." (BK, Cape Town 1966)

If you want to hear the entire Cape Town Speech, it's available on this website: http://www.rfksa.org/

Bobby Kennedy understood race in America better than any politician before or since.  He was able to speak about it directly, confronting injustice while promoting understanding.  He was able to get people of all walks of life to listen and think, something politicians ask us to do less and less.  

With Senator Obama's campaign, Bobby Kennedy's movement continues and grows.  But with that momentum and empowerment comes responsibility; responsibility to understand our past and our roots, responsibility to listen to each other and think for ourselves, and responsibility to ask more of ourselves than we ask of others.  

It is a lot to live up to, but it is and has always been that core idealistic premise behind our entire nation, that a group of us can get together, work hard, learn, teach, struggle and change the world.  It comes down to that; that's why we hope.  It's why our hope is not naive.  

Finally, we must also remember that while many people came away from the 1960s fearful and divided, others learned and built upon that time.  There are many voices out there who can speak about race and division and overcoming the hurdles that confront us; chief among them is Sen. Ted Kennedy.  I know because I've heard him do it in one of the most beautiful speeches of all time, his Eulogy of Bobby Kennedy.  I hope we hear from him soon.  

-- UPDATE --

After Sen. Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union," he told ABC:

And so, hopefully this is something that we have talked about, we've lifted up, it will spur discussion, like Robert Kennedy's wonderful metaphor, "ripples of hope." You know, you throw a rock into a pond and those ripples will go out. We don't know where those ripples will go. I have no idea how this plays out politically. But I think it was important to do.

Merriam-Websters Online Dictionary:

Patriotism

Main Entry:
   pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation:
   \ˈpā-trē-ə-ˌti-zəm, chiefly British ˈpa-\
Function:
   noun
Date:
   circa 1726

: love for or devotion to one's country

Love for or devotion to one's country; a simple definition within which lies all the greatness and ignorance that has defined this country's short history.  Since September 11th, 2001, many voters in this country have come to look for patriotism as the defining quality of their leaders.  So, whether it's a comfortable topic or not, we must engage in the debate over the definition of patriotism and how our leaders should express it.  

I offer here my brief history of the idea of patriotism in this country and the definition I have come to after searching through my own past ignorance on the topic. 

First, I must offer a warning that most of us already know; questioning patriotism is a judgment on a fundamental part of a person's character.  We should err on the side of prudence and understanding, lest we find ourselves judged against in the future.  

Perhaps those of us that don't revisit our nation's history sometimes lose perspective on the power and influence of the the term 'patriot.'  The United States has a singular history with the term; we were founded by Patriots.  You will note I say Patriots and not patriots, because the Patriots were a political party, opposed by the Loyalists, in the mid and late 18th century.  Paul Revere, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, John Adams, Nathanael Greene, George Washington, Hancock, Franklin, Hamilton and on and on, all Patriots.  

For a Patriot of the 18th century, the idea of patriotism was very clear and simple.  They were founding a new nation and people were either for that idea or against it; one question that everyone must answer for themselves and perhaps stake their life on.  There were good men that became Patriots and that became Loyalists, bad men too.  

The Revolutionary War was in many ways a testament to the power of patriotism to inspire greater sacrifice in men and women then virtually any other motivation, money, power or privilege.  Yet we must also remember that there were horrible acts of barbarism committed on both sides against innocent civilians, soldiers who tried to surrender and those that ended up in prison camps.  It is an important reminder that even an honest sense of patriotism, when at its most righteous fervor, can lead men to act against their own standards of conduct and the best interests of their country.  

Our nation's next great test of patriotism came in the mid-19th century with the question of slavery and states' rights, culminating in the Civil War.  Here, for the first time, the question of patriotism did not revolve solely around the idea of loyalty to the country in general; it expanded to include a question of a person's understanding of equality and individual liberty.  While history rightly judges them wrong and ignorant on this issue, the Confederacy saw themselves as the more patriotic of the two sides, which fed their indignation and sense of injustice.  

The Civil War is our best example of the danger of letting the definition of patriotism become ambiguous.  Its example proves again the power of patriotism as a personal motivation on both sides of the battlefield, as well as our first taste of how easily politicians can equivocate and distort the meaning of the term.  

When our nation faced the First World War, the Great War, we saw how powerfully fear and propaganda can drive patriotism, even in a just cause.  In bringing the United States to war, President Wilson's administration often played on the worst aspects of Americans' prejudices and stereotypes to convince the people that helping to save Europe was a righteous cause.  Almost all impartial, if that perspective is possible, readers of history judge America's involvement in that war as a great achievement for a better world, as it was.  In addition, many of President Wilson's ideals as a leader and his vision for the world continue to influence and inspire those who pay attention to his example.  

Still, the U.S. government's use of propaganda and fear remind us again that politicians will often depend on the ignorance of citizens to achieve their goals, and that for those with power, influence and the ability to speak to the American people, this is often not difficult, especially compared to those who seek to educate against that exact ignorance.  

Our Second World War sets a much different example.  It was one of the few times in history where a war broke down directly to that fundamental dichotomy of good and evil.  It was a conflict that for the first time justified total war, if necessary to defeat an alliance whose goals, principles and morality were contrary to everything much of the world had aspired to since the Renaissance.  Patriotism was a relatively simple matter in this time, and it led young men to recruiting stations, women to the nursing corps and the factories, as well as Japanese to the camps out west.  

We must also remember that the Second World War was filled with horrors beyond anything our history documents before or since.  It was both a triumph and tragedy of mankind; our nation's expressions and use of patriotism during this time represent both.  

Next, our nation was confronted with the awesome power of fear to distort and drive the definition of patriotism, as well as motivate actions among the American people that run counter to our long-held principles.  McCarthyism or the Red Scare during the late 1940's and early 1950's was a time when our government used fear of communism to divide us and turn us against one another.  

Yet the most inspiring aspect of patriotism is that during the darkest hours of the term's history, its greatest defenders come to its aid.  This same period was when Murrow stood up and set the example for patriotism in journalism that has continued to inform and inspire those who listen.  

The Civil Rights Movement confronted this nation with a fundamental question about patriotism: if the nation's laws do not reflect the fundamental principles upon which we were founded and have grown, is it patriotic to defy those laws, and in what ways?  We found ourselves debating between violence and non-violence, legislative action and civil disobedience.  We saw best that, while powerful, ignorant patriotism cannot defy justice if enough people learn and educate and strive.  

Finally, the attacks of September 11th, 2001 showed this nation how universally United States' citizens feel patriotism as a defining aspect of their public belief structure.  We saw how strong our nation can be when we come together behind an idea, and the dangers of that unity, if based on an uninformed definition of patriotism.  We saw how easily even people of good intentions get caught up in patriotic righteousness and judge those who disagree unpatriotic, as well as how powerful that stigma can be.  

So with this long and varied history of the power and influence of patriotism in the United States, I would like to offer my own personal story of defining the term for myself.  I believe my first definition was a strong one.  When I was a senior in high school around 1998, I felt that patriotism was defined by service to one's country.  I was a history buff, especially interested in the great speeches, many of which speak of the need for citizens to take active part in their democracy.  

I joined NROTC and spent a year and a half doing pretty much exactly what I thought was right and patriotic.  I did not really think it was important to judge anyone else's patriotism, unless perhaps they questioned mine.  Unfortunately, I was medically disqualified from the Navy after that year and a half (for a history of asthma), which ended this relatively straight forward journey.  

Of course, soon after this came September 11th, a day which inspired every American to think about and define their idea of patriotism, as well as to express it in millions of different ways.  I was in a fraternity at the time and we put American flags all around our beautiful house on campus, including the Navy and Marine Corps flags, representing our numerous fraternity brothers who were serving and have served in those two branches of the Armed Services.  

We watched the news non-stop for months and then more months.  We watched us go into Afghanistan and topple the Taliban.  We celebrated with the world.  We bought into the run up to the war with Iraq and watched with shock and awe as we saw the full power of our nation's military.  We followed the reporters on the front lines and watched the "highlights" of the most dangerous moments or the biggest bangs.  We felt incredibly patriotic.  

We thought freedom fries were hilarious and protesters were kind of ridiculous.  It was a group of about eight or nine of us and we spent much of this time together, in a Groupthink for the text books.  But, to be honest, we were also pretty smart and young, and we began to think more about what was going on, motivated partly by the stark reality that we had been duped.  

And so many of my good friends found themselves completely reformed and saw dissent as the sole definition of patriotism given our pressing problems.  For me, it could not be so simple.  I thought about how simple it was to define patriotism as merely supporting the troops or being for the war.  My definition couldn't possibly be as simple as being against that.  

Patriotism is too personal and important an emotion for me to let it be defined as against anything; my patriotism is for all of us.  And so after this long road, I find myself close to where I started, but more informed.  My definition of patriotism is service to one's country, which I let everyone do in their own way.  

I have no problem with people talking about and expressing their patriotism.  In fact, I love it because I feel the same emotions.  In many ways, our emotion of patriotism is the easiest way for the citizens of this country to empathize with each other and it's a very strong bond.  

But then I remember what I said before: I don't judge other people's patriotism unless they first judge mine.  I've thought about that a lot and decided that, in fact, this situation is the only time when it is justified to judge another person's patriotism.  

For, in my opinion, questioning a loyal citizen's patriotism is the least patriotic thing a person can do.  I will stand up to those who would judge my patriotism until they either learn and change their ways or fall victim to my example, in this life or the next.