In just a matter of weeks, we have watched the real Republican Party emerge - a cynical, say anything, divisive group of politicians who prey on ignorance, fear, bigotry and the misinformed. They chum the waters with labels, such as "liberal," "socialist," "terrorist," "anti-American," and they drape themselves in righteousness. They deny any wrongdoing, even when lying and promoting baseless attacks on anyone who doesn't agree with them. They call angry, ignorant or ideologically fixated people their "base," but they do their base no service by lying to them, inflaming them to hate their fellow Americans and taking us down low roads we have traveled far too often in this great nation of ours.

One clear message emerges, however, from this disturbing glimpse into the Republican strategy and their willing participants among the electorate. We have work to do!

Abraham Lincoln's famous quote, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," is increasingly relevant today, as no matter who wins the upcoming presidential election, we will have a house divided and intransigent. And we will have one major political party who is invested in keeping it that way.

I always think back with utter disdain to George Bush's statement  "I'm a uniter, not a divider," which he mendaciously uttered during his first presidential campaign. Some people actually believed him, and it helped him get elected. History, if you're paying attention, doesn't lie, and Bush's promise was as empty as that of John McCain when he claims that he'll reach across the aisle. Maybe the McCain of yesteryear, but not version 2008. If he wins, expect partisan politics to dominate, unless political expediency requires him to begrudgingly give an inch to a Democratic Congress to gain whatever war he wants to conduct next.

The problem isn't necessarily if McCain wins, however. It is, in some ways, even worse if Obama wins. With an Obama win, the flames of anger, bigotry, outrage, fear and loathing will grow and almost certainly result in violence. McCain and Palin have fanned those flames, bringing them to the surface, and adding fuel to them. They continue to do so as I write this.

What can we do, under an Obama administration, to bring this country together?

I think the answer is already evident in Obama's campaign strategy. It's on the ground. It's in all 50 states. It's people talking to people.

Barack Obama talks about service. He talks about the hope of the future being us, not him. And he's right. He clearly cannot take this nation forward alone, but he can lead. He can start the ball rolling and continue to encourage us to do our part.

What I am envisioning is another Apollo Project, but it's not getting to the Moon, this time. It's bringing this country together.

What I'm suggesting is the most massive re-education and personal outreach in history.

What I'm suggesting is that Obama's campaign ground game remain intact and begin a new mission - to communicate and to bring people together, to begin a national dialog that heals wounds, promotes truth, and unifies us as one nation again.

There's no doubt that such an undertaking would meet with considerable resistance. It's very difficult to cross the ideological divides that separate people on the more extreme fringes, but I believe that most of the people in this country are not as extreme as the Republicans want them to be, and encourage them to be. I believe that, once they understand that we are all in this together, that some of the policies they have blindly supported actually hurt them, that they have been handed a load of bull from politicians and operatives who do not have their best interests at heart, that, in fact, the very people they have been taught to hate and vilify actually do work for them... I believe it can be done, slowly, patiently and with a consistent message and methodology.

I'm reasonably certain that many people will think I'm wasting my time, or find this idea impractical or even totally crackpot, but I hope there are those who understand that our best hope for the future is a country that heals the wounds that have been intentionally inflicted on our society.

Further, if we can apply this strategy to the United States, we can also apply it around the world. Much of what threatens us worldwide is ideologically based. Certainly, there are huge economic and even environmental factors that threaten world peace, but there is also an acknowledged ideological war that we have sought to fight with bombs and bullets, but not nearly enough with communication - both speaking and listening! How well have we listened to our enemies and understood what motivates them? Is it enough simply to say, "They are the enemy, so we will fight them?" I, for one, think that there are times when even enemies can come together and discover common interests, and even if they can't, the old adage, "Know thy enemy" is one that apparently the Bush Administration and John McCain don't subscribe to. Obama, on the other hand, does.

Speaking as a mediator, I know there are ways to reach people with distinctly opposite viewpoints. I know that there are ways to find common ground and build upon agreement. I know that honesty and sincerity can often counter lies and malicious intent.

To make a difference, however, this cannot be a half-hearted, liberal, bleeding-heart, underfunded and under deployed fringe group. This has to be a national dialog, led from the top down, and implemented from the bottom up.

So, call it what you will. The Great Awakening. The Great Healing. American Together! Or, as I like to call it (for my own satisfaction, at any rate), Evolve or Die!

But let's do it. Let's be the change we want to see and let's encourage Obama to support our national human infrastructure in addition to our roads and bridges.

***UPDATE***
I have started a Facebook group. I'm calling it the New National Dialog Project. Please join if you are interested in getting this dialog moving.

(originally posted at Huffington Post)

I've been gone a while, and not keeping up with the blogs on TPM, so forgive me if someone else raised this issue, but I have a question for those of you who watched the latest debate.

When McCain was talking about the town halls (and once again blaming the negativity of his campaign on Obama), he started to talk about the proposed town hall format agreed to by Goldwater and JFK. Then he said something that nobody else has mentioned. What I remember, and it may not be verbatim, but what I remember is that he said, "...before the intervention...uh tragedy." Did anyone else hear him say "intervention"? What does that mean? I found it highly odd, suspicious and disturbing, given that JFK's assassination was, in fact, a right wing intervention. Did McCain really say that? Inquiring minds want to know.

Anybody?

So I just read this appalling statement by McCain's spokesbigot, Brian Rogers.

Barack Obama's attacks on Americans who support John McCain reveal far more about him than they do about John McCain. It is clear that Barack Obama just doesn't understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo. Even worse, he attacks anyone who dares to question his readiness to serve as their commander in chief in chief. Raising legitimate questions about record, character and judgment are a vital part of the Democratic process, and Barack Obama's effort to silence and shame those who seek answers should make everyone wonder exactly what he is hiding.

This is what they think are "regular people" then? Bigots and small minded fools who are whipped up into a hate frenzy - these are McCain's people. People who think Obama is a terrorist because of his name? His name alone? Or is that code for "He's black!" People who respond to lies and insinuations with the rabid enthusiasm of a pack of pirhanna. Their message has nothing to do with hope, with a future. How pathetically easy it is for them to manipulated and turned away from their own self interests. How utterly tragic.

So it's no wonder that McCain is losing. If this is his idea of the "average" American, he's more hateful and self-deluded that even I thought, and I thought he was over-the-top self-deluded. In fact, he is truly a prisoner of his own fear - fear of Obama, fear of losing, fear of his own inadequacies - who knows, perhaps even fear of death. The one he should really fear is Palin, but he hasn't figured that out yet.

To me, the "average" American is decent. He or she is worried about issues like their homes, their retirement, their future and the future of their children. They are worried about war and being safe and putting food on the table and being able to keep the life that America seemed to promise them, a life that has been slowly slipping away under the weight of George Bush's eight years of misrule, and is in danger of collapsing now.

They are decent folks, as Obama would say, and they aren't the misguided, xenophobic and tragically misinformed people McCain has now discoverered. If George Bush's "base" was the "haves and the have mores," then it appears that McCain/Palin have discovered another base of bigots and angry pawns in a much larger, and intensely dangerous game.

What do we do about this?

If these abusers refused to stop abusing, can we somehow start a movement to stop them?

Can we institude a sedition lawsuit on behalf of the American people?

Can we start a letter-writing campaign to every newspaper in America.

Can we flood the talk radio shows?

It's got to be time for us "average" Americans who aren't full of hate, prejudice and disinformation to find our voice and to make it loud and clear. Hate is not the answer.

To me, hate is fear. Hate is pain. To me, only love, hope and knowledge can overcome hate.

Can we spread the word?

Esquire Magazine has just endorsed Barack Obama!

In a scathing indictment of both Bush and McCain, Esquire clearly states that Barack Obama is the only choice, and the only hope for this democracy. I was stunned at the candor and unfettered anger that was expressed in this article, and that echoed my own frustrations and fury over the past eight years.

Go read it. Now!

Recent and past articles have pointed to the fact that this election, like the past two, are likely to be tainted by all kinds of problems related to voter suppression, mistakes in the registration process, fraud and untrustworthy electronic voting machines.

What are we going to do? What CAN we do?

First, I suggest that we begin to point out these problems frequently - in all our favorite blogs and in letters to members of the Congress. We need to make this a story that people notice and that they are thinking about. We need to write letters to newspapers, write to members of the MSM, make phone calls and do whatever we can to make it clear that a stolen vote is unacceptable, and that there's already enough evidence that this election is in trouble to warrant concern.

Second, we need a plan. What are we going to do if Obama is leading strongly in the polls on Nov. 4 and on Nov. 5 McCain is declared the winner? I, for one, favor a national strike, and a national roll-call of everyone who voted for Obama. I am strongly in favor of shutting down the presidency until the situation is resolved, and never, ever again, letting the Supreme Court decide who is to be president.

But those are just my off-the-top ideas. What about you? Let's discuss what we can do to make sure that the legitimate candidate wins, and that our vote is not stolen again.

John McCain and Sarah Palin turned a corner last week, after the Vice Presidential debate. Palin managed not to embarrass herself too badly, and therefore was declared a winner, and apparently ready to be vice president, and possibly president, without having ever held a single news conference or really leveled with the American people. But it is the reality of McCain's campaign that being able to approximate mediocrity is sufficient. With this amazing feat, Ms. Palin was fully vetted. She was ready to go forth and snarl.

Losing ground in the polls and without a real message other than empty rhetoric and the occasional 180 degree turn on this issue or that, McCain unleashed his minion, and away she went, doing what she does best - attacking. She's someone who doesn't do well with "annoying" questions, but she's downright perky while twisting a knife in your innards, whether you are a moose or a presidential candidate, and there are certain people who just love her, love her. There are even some pundits who "sit a little straighter" when she gives you that old Wasilla wink.

Palin is all hopped up on power now. She feels it. It's gotta be God's will, you betcha. And she's going to tell her followers how dangerous and scary and "different" Barack Obama is. How he's "pallin' around with terrorists." How he doesn't have the vision of America that "we" have.

Palin's righteous sounding, but unfounded, attacks on Obama apparently resonate on small minded, bigoted people who are quite likely terrified of something they can't understand - like a highly accomplished and obviously superior man who happens to have a shade of skin a few tones darker than they do. So they'll believe anything. They'll get all hopped up with Palin and start yelling out all kinds of horrible chants, like "terrorist" and "kill him." What Palin is doing, and knows she's doing, is inciting a mob.

Two images come to mind when I think of what she's doing, one funny and one frightening. The funny one is the mob scene in the original version of Frankenstein, with all the villagers storming the castle with their torches. It's funny because it's fiction, and it's campy. (My friends tell me that Jon Stewart used a scene just like that on The Daily Show, but I didn't watch it - yet.)

The other image is much worse. It's of Hitler inciting a crowd to hate Jews, emphasizing their "difference" and making people afraid. Fear turning to hate.

As an aside, I had a friend who was once a member of the Dutch Resistance. He was captured and taken to Berlin, where he was tortured and enslaved by the Nazis. He told only a few stories from those times, but one of them has always remained in my mind. He told of being paraded with a group of Nazi slaves in front of a huge gathering. They were placed at the front of the crowd, while Hitler took the stage. My friend, who spoke German, listened to Hitler speak. What he told me was chilling. He said, "Listening to him, it was clear that he had some kind of power - a charisma. When he spoke, people stood up. They yelled, 'Sig Heil!' And, what was worse, is that I could feel it too, from the front row, and I had to restrain myself from standing up with them."

Palin has something. She has a natural charisma. She hasn't any wisdom or experience to speak of. She has a distorted world view and a vicious streak the size of her famous Alaskan pipeline, but she attracts people and can move people in a way that McCain never could. So, to me, she's dangerous, because she can incite people into a hate state. She is doing it now.

The problem is, whoever wins this presidential election, we are all losers because of what McCain and Palin are doing now. Let me say that again, Joe Biden-like. We are all losers.

McCain and Palin are poisoning the well (an old tactic used in warfare when you were leaving a territory or forced out. You poisoned the well so that your enemy could not use it.) They are inciting hatred and possibly violence, possibly as another desperate strategy to charge up their "base," and possibly simply as a scorched earth policy. But whatever they are doing, we are going to be the losers.

We live in a fractured society with diverse views and beliefs. In fact, the United States has never been free of prejudice and conflict in its entire history. Great strides have been made. We've freed the slaves and enfranchised women. We've fought for civil rights and emerged as a beacon of hope and equality in the world. But we have never entirely eliminated our divisions, nor, perhaps should we - as long as we can carry our different views together for the betterment of all.

But despite all the gains we have made over more than two centuries, people like McCain and Palin, and their predecessors, Gingrich, Norquist, Reed, Cheney, Bush and others, seek to accentuate and inflame our divisions and set us against each other. Our nation today is more deeply divided, more deeply partisan, and more critically weakened than it was eight years ago. And now we have people stirring the pot for nothing more than political gain. Country first? Give me a break.

So we lose, because our neighbors will hate each other. We lose because our leaders (some of them) show that they have no real values, and as leaders, they are expected to set the standards for our nation. We lose because, as Abraham Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Barack Obama has run a campaign centered around hope, change and healing the divisions. It's clear that his belief in the American people is profound and positive. It's time for McCain and Palin to realize that only by promoting unity and peace among us can they truly put country first.

-Crossposted at Huffington Post

All I can say is that, in all this commotion, fear and turmoil, humor still helps. I ran across this tasty bit of satire from headofstate.blogspot.com that I thought might brighten your day - at least some of you. It's a very nice piece of work and well worth following the link.

Enjoy

All right. There IS a limit to how far it's acceptable to go with negative campaigning, and the McNasty and the Pitbull have exceeded the limit now. They need to tone it down before something really bad happens. I'm having a very bad feeling...

Here's why, from the Washington Post:

"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.

"Boooo!" said the crowd.

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist
and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that
would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

I'm sorry, but these people have crossed the line and they had better watch what they say and what reactions they solicit in their mindless mob followers.

This post is an instant visceral reaction to what I just read, but this is not politics, this is hate crimes in the making. It must stop, and the media must get on top of this now!

I ran across this article from the Pittsburg Tribune-Review by Ralph R. Reiland, who is listed as a columnist. His brief bio states that he is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur.

In his article, Reiland praises Obama for his speech on race during the primaries, and then proceeds to call Obama a hypocrite for not walking the walk with regards to Ayers. His article is a nice indictment of Ayers himself, but fails, in my view, to make a real point about Obama, though he tries to do so by association.

He writes:

Obama served from 1995 to 1999 as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), the brainchild of Ayers, an organization that funneled some $100 million into the hands of community organizers and activists, including ACORN, in order to radicalize Chicago's public schools.

He fails to offer any proof about the CAC's radical agenda, so I guess we're supposed to assume it from other writing by Ayers, such as this third-party quote from Stanley Kurtz, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

"Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression," reports Kurtz. "He believes teacher education programs should serve as 'sites of resistance' to an oppressive system."

This doesn't prove that the board on which Obama served was intent on creating such "sites of resistance," though sometimes that might not be so bad to resist racism and oppression, but in no way does it resemble Obama's current education policy as far as I can tell.

And the whole tenor of the attacks on Obama vis a vis Ayers is that a man who could do the things he did is totally incapable of doing anything good. That's a false premise, and there are plenty of examples of people who did terrible things in their younger days, only grow wiser and to change their ways. Even Lee Atwater had a deathbed conversion, though that was too little, too late. (My favorite story is of Milarepa, the Tibetan who went from murderer to saint, which for me is a great parable for redemption.)

Reiland concludes:

The question: Why do Obama's deeds contradict his words? Is anyone in the mainstream media curious?

Reiland left his email address at the end of the article, so I wrote him. This is what I wrote:

Mr. Reiland,

You have presented a nice indictment of Ayers, but not really a clear indictment of Obama. Does Obama stand for radical terrorism? Does he espouse bombing or endorse Ayer’s actions, which occurred when he was a child?

 

One thing you seem to forget is that there is room, under the First Amendment, for people of different views, including you and I, to express our opinions, and even to teach different points of view. The law is clear, however, on setting bombs and destroying property or injuring people.

 

Your claim that Obama is a hypocrite by serving on the board of a foundation created by Ayers essentially asserts that no person who has ever done bad deeds is capable of doing anything good. You also seem to be asserting that opposing oppression is a bad thing, but it’s truly a pity that the German people didn’t oppose it in the 1930s. Maybe millions of people would not have had to die.

There is a place for radical thought, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t think Obama has a radical thought in his head, and neither do you. What you are trying to do is to link the actions of a terrorist, who has since that time paid his dues and settled into a life that, as far as you and I know, has been free of criminal activity, as a teacher. And the CAC was not, apparently, an attempt to incite rebellion or to commit acts of sabotage, but an effort to provide reform in our education system – something that I think is needed. The Annenberg So whether you or I agree on the CAC’s charter or the direction they took, in no way was it a Weathermen type of organization, and lots of perfectly respectable people were involved in it, including Barack Obama.

 

This kind of spurious guilt by association tactic is hollow and unseemly. Ayers did bad things. Maybe you did a few bad things in your past, too. I doubt that you were an angel sent to earth to rid us of all sin, but a boy who grew up testing authority and possibly even breaking the law sometimes. Certainly, I doubt that you ever did anything as radical or violent as Ayers did, but the fact is, people who have sinned can be saved. People who have committed terrible crimes can sometimes become heroes. The black and white thinking of your argument, however well documented with facts and figures, misses the central issue – that the Ayers that Obama has known is not the man who was setting bombs, and there is absolutely no evidence that he infected Obama with any radical thoughts whatsoever.

 

And while we’re throwing stones, let’s not forget that every person in our congress has had dealings with criminals – John McCain, notably and on the record. Association is a dangerous path to go. As far as I know, Obama never accepted an expense-paid trip to Bermuda.

 

Cheers,

Of course, we expect to see this again and again, complete with dates and figures and facts, but the one fact that's missing is any real link between Obama and anything radical or criminal. The same can't really be said for McKeating or Sara Troopergate (though the latter isn't proven, but she sure has been fighting it tooth and manicured nail).

Over the past two days, my wife and I took time out of our busy lives to walk through the neighborhoods of our traditionally conservative town and go door to door talking to people about Obama. We were roughly following the script given to us by our Obama field operative, but we also encouraged dialog whenever someone had questions, was leaning in one direction or another, or just was willing to engage in discussion. We had a list, street by street, of registered Independents and Democrats who were thought to be undecided. And off we went.

Being a good TPM and general net junkie, I had lots of answers for people, of course, and could relate to people of just about any persuasion, except for the woman who told me she was voting McCain-Palin because Palin was a “mom”. There was no further opening for discussion with this woman, who we had encountered smoking a cigarette on her front stoop. We left with a sinking feeling about this woman, who, thankfully, was not typical of the people we met.

(My wife thinks I should leave out the next few paragraphs, but to set the scene, I am offering you some of the more visceral elements of our experience, with the more human parts to follow. Forgive me if you find this unappealing, but I’m writing this piece to share my experience, including some of the, shall we say, more challenging aspects of the journey.)

In many ways, this was a very enriching experience, though we did smell more dog poop than I ever hope to encounter for the rest of my life, and we were greeted by barks and howls at just about every house. My wife was even bitten by a large, friendly-looking dog, but fortunately her reflexes were quick enough to extract her hand without damage, and we left the dog, and the house, alone. Oh, and I also stubbed my toe while looking up into a tree, but sturdy shoes prevented serious injury. (Insert ironic smiley face here)

I’m not trying to say that canvassing is dangerous or really unpleasant, but there we were traipsing through some downtrodden neighborhoods at times, and, well, the manicured lawns and flower gardens of the more “uptown” neighborhoods gave way to brown grass rubbed raw by the constant passing of canine feet and various types of junk and garbage that had been piled here and there.

Some houses were nicely taken care of, to be sure, but there were many where the people clearly had little time or inclination to worry about what the neighbors thought, and one in particular that actually creeped us out something fierce, with garbage, dog shit and flies everywhere. Though we bravely approached the door, we were thankful that nobody appeared to be home, not even the mysterious resident of a tent hiding under a tarp in the stinky front yard, complete with an orange extension cord running from the house.

The people we did meet, however, were varied and wonderful. We met a few adamant McCain supporters who would not even speak to us, but we also met people like the 93-year-old woman who was gracious and engaging, and praised us for doing what we were doing for Obama, even though she was going to vote for McCain because, “he knows what he’s doing… you’ll see.” Still, she complimented my wife’s sweater and told us stories of growing up in Misery (Missouri) under poorer-than-poor conditions.

We met lots of strong Obama supporters, too. Some who came right out and told us; others who sort of played coy, but ultimately admitted that Obama was the way they were going. We always felt a little thrill when we met these people, and would do a little inward happy dance.

We also met a few Hillary supporters, and in one case we were able to point them away from McCain and toward Rolling Stone. In fact, the Rolling Stone article about McCain proved to be an ace in the hole. Nobody, of any age, puckered their lips at the mention of Rolling Stone, and everyone we told about the article expressed sincere interest in reading it. We took that as a victory.

The other Hillary supporter was a guy who told us that when Obama didn’t choose Hillary to be his running mate, he sealed the deal and lost this guy’s vote. He wasn’t interested in hearing that the policy differences between Obama and Hillary were negligible, while the difference between Hillary and McCain was of titanic proportions. He said, “I don’t think this country is ready for a black president.” I asked him, “Are you ready for a black president?” He answered, “Oh, it’s not me. I’m fine with it, but this country isn’t.” Reminding him who was leading in the polls didn’t seem to help, and he showed a clear interest in shutting the door and closing off any further discussion. We wished him a good day and move on.

One woman told us that she really liked Obama, but wasn’t going to vote for him. “Why not,” we both asked. “Because of his position on abortion,” she said earnestly. “We just can’t vote for him because of that. But we really like him, otherwise.” Then there was the young man who answered the door in a “Got Jesus?” T-shirt. We thought we might be in trouble with him, but he surprised us. “I’m disabled, and on assistance from HUD,” he told us. “I know that Obama cares about people like me, so I’m voting for him.”

Overall, we loved meeting young people, because they were almost all for Obama. One man we met watering his sidewalk garden told us that not only was he for Obama, but his son was out canvassing in Montana, where he was going to school.

We met many people who were still undecided, and we had our best moments with them. Besides the Rolling Stone article, we were able to discuss Iraq and how Obama had been right about it all along, how McCain was right out in front for the war, what a disaster it was and how much safer we’d be with the guy who got it right the first time – Obama – than with Mr. “Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran.” We talked about the economy and Republican free market trickle down bullshit and how the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have mores’ versus the rest of us has widened dramatically under Bush, sometimes quoting numbers like one percent or half of one percent having like ninety percent of the wealth. Where’s that at? We were talking to regular people, and they understood exactly what we were saying, because they feel it in their lives. I don’t think any undecided voter we talked to was leaning toward McCain after we left.

The other group we encountered, and this was a large one, consisted of people who simply didn’t think it mattered whether they voted or not. To them, it was all the same. Obama, McCain – no appreciable difference. Even if they liked Obama, they didn’t think electing him would change anything. Having had similar feelings often during the past few decades, I was able to relate to their apathy and feelings of disenfranchisement, but also to encourage them to consider the importance of this election and the remarkable gifts that Obama has already displayed – his temperament, his ability to inspire, his obvious wisdom in matters that matter, and his incredible worldwide popularity. Sometimes we had to explain why it matters that the world likes us, but most people got that with little prodding. Still, I was never sure if we were successful at convincing the disenfranchised and the cynics that it mattered. That it really mattered. And, to be honest, ours is a very conservative area of Oregon, but Oregon will go for Obama. I have no doubt about it, despite the sadly intractable population here. In the truly battleground states, it would have mattered somewhat more, and maybe we would have been able to tell them so.

We always told people, “You will see lots of negative ads and attacks on Obama over the next few weeks. They will probably be lies and distortions.” And people would nod and say, “I know. There’s a lot of that,” as if to say that it doesn’t mean anything to them. They seemed to recognize who was the adult in the race and who was the child. I can’t say that’s true of everyone, but I’m encouraged to think that the negative spin and the lies and attacks are a turn-off, and Obama’s consistency gives them confidence.

We met people on the street and talked to them randomly, and we found more Obama supporters than we had expected. So, even while McCain-Palin signs are springing up all over town, and Obama signs are being stolen regularly, so that you don’t see many around, we know that there are people who feel as we do, and who are going to vote for the change we need.

Finally, we stopped at a house early in the day and a young man answered. The name on our list was for a woman, so we asked him first about his voting decisions. “I can’t vote,” he told us, with a bit of sadness. “I’m a felon.” He was actually the second person we met in the two days who could not vote for that reason. They didn’t seem like career criminals, and we both felt somewhat sad for them, because they clearly wanted to vote. But the young man told us that the lady of the house was at work and would be back later. We told him we’d try to return.

At the end of the day, our feet getting tired from walking and standing, we decided to return to that house and see if the young lady was back from work. She was. She was undecided, but leaning a little toward Obama. Rolling Stone. Obama is great. Check it out.

The woman smiled and said, “I think it’s really cool that you came by here to talk to me and tell me about this. I’m really glad you did. I’ll read the article in Rolling Stone, and I think I’ll be voting for Obama.”

Mission Accomplished.

And a rewarding experience for both of us – highly recommended.

Last thoughts: I found that our best connection with people was understanding what was important to them. Sometimes it started with petting their dog or admiring their garden, but in the end, we asked them what mattered to them, and we could generally empathize. We found common ground with almost everyone, of every age. The economy and Iraq were clearly the two major issues, but there were others. Is Obama patriotic? Yes, he is. Is he too inexperienced? Not as we see it. (I always talk about the wisdom and clarity of The Audacity of Hope, Obama’s clear understanding of Iraq when, apparently, his opponent was clueless and eager to go to war.) I found it surprisingly easy to connect with people, to listen to them, to care about their issues, and to tell them how and why I supported Barak Obama. Nothing else was required. Just honesty and a little mutual recognition that we’re all in this together.

I haven't seen anyone pick this up yet, so I decided to share it and hope you'll check it out. This is the president of the AFL/CIO giving an amazing speech against racism and in absolute, passionate support of Barack Obama at the  United Steel Workers Union. Um... That seems to be blue collar working class folks cheering for Obama. Works for me. Works real good...

Ms. Parker dared to call out Sarah Palin, and now she has been demonized by the mindless Right. She wrote a column today that spoke of the kinds of emails she has received from the rabid idiots that think only in the most narrow terms of partisanship - if they think at all. But Kathleen Parker dared to say something that, while patently true, was against the party line. For that, she deserves support. The truth is not a partisan issue, and in this election, there are just too many lies and a serious deficiency of truth.

So, in answer to this column, here is what I wrote to her.

Dear Ms. Parker,

It takes courage to tell the truth, in particular when surrounded by immature and potentially violent fools. Partisanship is absurd when the real issues are so very profound. We may differ on methods, but I hope that some of us, at least, want to support this country’s ideals.

For speaking out against Palin’s qualifications, you deserve great credit. Moreover, I think it’s obvious that the woman is not qualified to be our vice president, and more to the point, our president. She began her campaign with a series of lies that she repeated, mantra like, as if no amount of factual oversight could possibly refute her steadfast position. She proceeded to attempt to block an investigation plaguing her position as governor – an investigation that she had previously welcomed. If innocent, she has a strange way of convincing us of the fact. Her whole resume, as told by the McCain campaign, is an insult to our intelligence, and a well-stacked packet of lies that have been thoroughly refuted – yet they continue to pound away in defiance of fact and reason. And you can’t cram wisdom and understanding of complex issues into someone’s head in a fortnight. (And, for the record, Obama has shown a remarkable grasp of political realities and has written thoroughly about the politics of the last 50 years in The Audacity of Hope. His insight and experience far belies his years of service – a fact that people seem unable to grasp. It isn’t true that years alone grant wisdom, but it probably is true that the incurious or overly rigid mind is less likely to achieve wisdom than the one that thinks, studies, explores, ponders and questions.)

I disagree with Ms. Palin’s policies and distrust her ability to keep church and state separated. I would oppose her even if she were ostensibly qualified, because I am not a conservative. I suppose, by default, that makes me a liberal or some other dirty word, but in reality I’m someone who truly believes in our Constitution and who would like to see that concept of “equality” be more seriously evaluated. I would like to see a world at peace and a country in harmony. I would like to see people prosper under our flag instead of suffering – instead of seeing the division of wealth expand and the “haves and have mores” of Bush’s base having, well.. more… and the rest of us having – you guessed it – less.

Free market? Regulation? Bush Doctrine? Diplomacy? These are questions we should be able to discuss with civility and with an attempt at compromise – to take the best of what we all have to offer and come up with a plan for our country that works for as many of us as possible. Sure, we have differences, but the fierceness and divisiveness and closed-mindedness that has grown in this country since Reagan is tearing us apart. The outright lies push us further apart. Bush promised to be a uniter, not a divider, but he and the Republican Congress have done nothing of the sort. They have run amok over their opponents and, in doing so, have run this country into the ground. They should all be ashamed, but apparently they think they were serving a bigger and more important cause. What was it? Neo-conservatism? Is that worth the lives, dollars and the destruction of our position in the world? I think not.

Voices of reason, rationality and honesty must be heard. I like Obama because he is that kind of person. At least that is what I believe. Even if you don’t see his positions as those of the Republican Party, in temperament, in intelligence and in consistency, he is presidential. Meanwhile, McCain, who I once thought was a maverick and a straight shooter, has proven to be a win-at-any-cost-gambling-hypocrite. He is erratic and transparently opportunistic. His antics are embarrassing. Sorry, but I do not take well to out-and-out liars and poseurs. Which also includes Palin.

So, perhaps you would see me as the enemy, and therefore feel some need to distance yourself from my praise and gratitude, but nonetheless, you have my appreciation for saying what is painfully true. There were women whom McCain could have chosen who I might not like, but who were clearly qualified to take the position for which Palin is running. Palin, however, is not among them.

Peace,

Raider

Here's another 24 hours of aggregate posting for those who want to highlight posts and other things that might slip off the list without being seen.

Remember, if you don't Rec this, it will disappear, too. But if you do, we can all share our collective ideas.

TITLE
LINK
DESCRIPTION/RECOMMENDATION

And if anyone wants to take this over, that would be good. Just post once a day. I will be traveling for 10 days, leaving Saturday. So if this works for you, step up and take it over.

Thanks

My friends,

I call you “my friends,” because it sounds folksy and friendly. Like I’m just one of you, except I have a few more houses and my shoes are more expensive than John Edwards’ haircut. But nevermind that.

Shut up, Cindy. You c**t. I’m talkin’ to my friends here.

Where was I? Iraq? Czechoslovakia? Oh… no I remember now.

My friends,

I am John McCain, and I drive around the country in my bus. I call it the “Straight Talk Express,” because, you know, I used to be a straight-talkin’ politician.

Lately, I’ve been thinkin’, you know, that I want to paint somethin’ knew on the side of my bus. Somethin’ that reflects my real positions, so that people will see right away what a great guy I am. Because, you see, I want to be president. I want it real bad. So I’ve had to change a few things. You know, there’s nothing wrong with change. I mean, even if that black guy said it, I can say it too, right?

So, my friends, I’m asking you to help me name the bus. What should I call it?

VOICE FROM THE CROWD: Call it the “Bus to Loserville.”

No, my friends. I don’t think that’s quite what I’m looking for.

ANOTHER VOICE: How about the “I Didn’t Say That Express”.

Well, that’s not bad, but I’m lookin’ for something that really represents my views.

FIRST VOICE AGAIN: I got it. I got it. Call it the “Lying to Get Elected Express”.

I, uh. No. If you read the bill… er… I mean, we keep lists. I never said that… She’s the world’s top energy expert. I support regulation… er.. deregulation… well, whatever Obama said, I’m better.

SUDDENLY A CHORUS OF SUGGESTONS ECHOES THROUGH THE NEARLY EMPTY HALL
 “The Flip-Flop Express”
“I Know It All Express”
“The Old White Man Express”
Call it “The Keating 5”
“Palin’s Bitch”?

THE ROOM WENT SILENT, AND THEN A LONE VOICE CALLED OUT:

Call it the “Bus to Nowhere”.

No. No, my friends. I didn’t support that. It was the pig… er, the pitbull.

(SIGH)

My friends… my friends at TPM, can you help me? Help me rename my bus, because the Straight Talk Express just isn’t cutting it anymore.

I found Obama's speech here:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/heading-in-the-right-direction.html

This is someone who knows what he's talking about, and has known  when the buffoons around McCain keep spouting the same old nonsense that has never worked, but has fooled to many people for too long.

Listen to Obama.

He is someone who can lead, how can think, and who can inspire.