England for Obama

Sarah Palin is the political equivalent of Tourette Syndrome. You don’t want to talk about her. You really don’t want to talk about her. And yet she keeps popping up, bursting out of your mouth (or more precisely: blog post) like some sort of unwanted yet uncontrollable expletive. Try as I might, I can’t stop writing about her. Because she keeps, y’know, doin’ stuff.

Mind you, I do think it’s legitimate to raise this new Sarah Palin attack. Because it’s an attack on me. Oh, and you. For reading me.

That’s right: Sarah Palin has attacked blogging. As surely as night follows day (except in Alaska, where night follows night), Palin is now criticising not just the “filter” of the mainstream media but the filter of the blogosphere, too.

According to Sarah, bloggers sit in their parents’ basements (or presumably just the one basement, if their parents aren’t divorced), “wearing their pyjamas and blogging some kind of gossip or lie”:

Well, I’ve got news for you, Sarah: I don’t live with my parents any more. And they never owned a basement in the first place. I will, however, admit to the “pyjamas” part. I regard it as one of the perks of the job (who wouldn’t work in their pyjamas if they could?) - and guess what, Sarah? Sometimes I blog in my pyjamas from my bed. Put that in your moose chilli and smoke it!

Ahem.

But on that point about blogs versus the “real” media: as Rachel Maddow jokingly notes, who’s to say that those who write in their pyjamas are to be taken less seriously than those who write in suits? (And what if you sit at home writing your blog in a suit?) Unsurprisingly for a blogger, I think that while the blogosphere is clearly not exactly equivalent to the mainstream media (any Tom, Dick or Harry can set up a blog. Not any Tom, Dick or Harry can get a job on the New York Times), it should absolutely be considered alongside such media as an important news source.

Indeed, if this year’s election proved anything, it’s how valuable blogging has become in the provision of news and information for an electorate which has previously been forced to rely on the corporate-owned, politically motivated likes of Fox News. The internet and its resulting independent news websites and blogs have shown that the public no longer has to depend on the old media - and the government - for information. Bush and co. only giving you their version of the Iraq war? Don’t worry - you can watch Al Jazeera online. Sarah Palin denying something? No matter - someone, somewhere will have posted the footage proving she said it. Busy British person who hasn’t got the time to sift through all the current news stories about the American election? No problem - England For Obama has done the work for you.

Like I say: if Sarah Palin attacks you, you must be doing something right. And if politicians are begging for mercy, you must be doing something really right. Here’s to Arianna Huffington, Markos Moulitsas, Jed Lewison, AKMuckraker, Andrew Sullivan, Bob Cesca, the blogosphere and all who sail in her. Huzzah!

And now I’m off to get dressed.

Now, I know I said I wasn’t going to give this woman the oxygen of publicity any longer. But somehow, I think I should make an exception for this story. Because I want Sarah Palin to have the oxygen of publicity about this story. Oh, yes.

“The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.”

This revelation came out of the recently released, seven-part Newsweek report (I haven’t made it to that part yet) and has been picked up by a few news outlets, including our own Daily Telegraph above.

Somehow, I think it should have been picked up by a few more.

Sod John McCain’s gracious concession speech. Sod Sarah tryin’ to be all cute, bein’ filmed bakin’ and talkin’ about huntin’ back in her kitchen’ at home in’ Alaska. She and that campaign tried to instill blatent hatred and fear about Barack Obama - and, not suprisingly, The Angry Mob took up that baton and ran with it… to its logical conclusion. To mix my metaphors somewhat.

Oh, and one more thing? Sarah Palin is still giving her stump speech. Still.

I knew when she said she “didn’t blink” that this woman had no self-awareness - because she was just about the only person in the country to think that her lack of experience, intellectual curiosity and gravitas were not a problem when deciding to run for the second highest office in the land (well, her and John McCain and his advisors).

And in that sense, Palin is absolutely a product of the Right (a lack of self-awareness and truth about a situation being their MO).

But her continuation as if she did nothing wrong; the talk among Republicans of her being a candidate in 2012… Both of these things are signs that the GOP just doesn’t get it - still - and continues to be filled with people who think that it’s perfectly acceptable to campaign and talk this way.

GOP: don’t you dare, dare choose this woman to be your candidate in 2012. Keep her in Alaska. And far away from all of us*.

*Except Russians, who she can see from her house

Bob Cesca talks about the sheltered place that the Right inhabits -

“So the far-right needs to remain insulated from unfriendlies, which is why talk radio is a more comfortable format - calls can be screened and reality can be obfuscated. In other words, it’s a lot easier to suggest that the president-elect is a terrorist on a talk radio show where, you know, a tidal wave of facts won’t get in the way of the lies.”

- and he’s right. And this is one of the reasons why, as I told my friend Nick on election night, the Republicans’ choice of Sarah Palin pick went so horribly wrong for them. Why it was such a horrendously, massively, wrong choice.

And I’m not talking about favourability ratings here. Or about one’s own personal take on Palin.

I’m talking about the fact that, throughout the campaign, John McCain and his peeps were trying to attack Barack Obama on, well, anything that came to hand. He’s an elitist! He’s scary! His name sounds funny! He doesn’t know what he’s doing! He’s naive! He’s not like you and me!

And the thing is: all of these attacks simply didn’t marry up with the objective truth. The McCain camp spouted their ‘truths’, endlessly, and yet the American people saw something quite different. They saw a man who wasn’t scary. Who did appear to be just like them. Who was capable and who did seem to know what he was doing.

That’s why the attacks didn’t stick.

And yet: there was one line of attack that, in actual fact, was reasonable. That did have its basis in objective reality and not simply in the narrative that the Republicans wanted to carve out.

That line of attack was that Barack Obama was inexperienced.

And then they went and blew it all on choosing Sarah Palin.

‘Inexperience’ was the one line that McCain et al could have stuck to - and which could have worked withe public. Because it was the only line of attack against Obama that was reasonable and possibly valid.

People have been commenting on how Fox News and the right-wing shock jocks have contributed to the Republicans’ eventual demise because they have, in fact, been a massive sticking plaster over a gaping sore. A gaping sore that the Right have refused to acknowledge… partly because they’ve had the undying devotion of, yes, Fox News and the right-wing shock jocks.

The Right haven’t been living in our world. They’ve been living in theirs. And I don’t even mean that in a partisan way. They’ve been living in the bubble that they created, and not the real world, with all its changes, all its flaws, all its liberalism and all its, erm, reality.

One would like to think that the bubble will, now, finally burst. I’m sure that Fox will do its best to maintain it - and as Bob Cesca points out, post-election day, it doesn’t seem to be showing any signs of bursting - but it really isn’t in the GOP’s interest to remain in their parallel universe, no matter how cosy and safe it feels to them.

Like the Conservatives over here in 1997, they’re back in their cave, defeated, in-fighting, letting blood and licking their wounds (and it’s no mean feat to do all those things at once). But the Republicans will have to emerge from that cave/bubble/insert metaphor here in order to work out where they went wrong, and what they need to do to to regain ground with the average American voter.

And hopefully, like the Conservatives over here, it will take them at least 10 years to do so.

So here it is: the Sunday newspaper column…

The initial emotion that I felt on Tuesday night, when the CNN graphic appeared announcing that the 44th President of the United States would be Barack Obama, may have dissipated somewhat.

Mainly because that emotion was ‘a sudden and overwhelming outflow of joy and relief manifested by spontaneously bursting into tears’.

But I have still shed tears since then, as I’ve seen more footage of President-elect Obama and Vice-president elect Biden (and heard commentators referring to them to as such). As it’s begun to sink in exactly what this means, both for America and for the world.

I have written many posts here giving reasons why I support Barack Obama, and why I felt America (and the world) had so much to gain if he and Joe Biden won, and so much to lose if John McCain and Sarah Palin did. But I’m writing this to sum up why this election result is so important; and why here, over in little ol’ England, I care about it. Why I have sat here writing 10 posts a day for the past few months; why I have lost sleep and drunk too much coffee and been refreshing The Huffington Post’s homepage every 30 minutes. In short: why this has mattered.

Firstly, I should probably make it clear that this election has mattered to me primarily as a citizen of the world, not as a Brit. I wanted this result not because I care so much about America’s effect on my own country’s foreign or economic policy (although I know, of course - especially with a brother in the military - just how strong that effect is), but because of the American government’s effect on its own people; and on the people in the countries that it chooses to go to war with (when it’s not going to war on a noun).

And secondly, I’ve not been sitting up ’til the wee hours simply because I dislike George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, the neocons and everything they have done. Don’t get me wrong: I have watched, slack-jawed, the destruction of so many things by the Bush administration that I have shouted and railed and professed my undying love for Keith Olbermann.

But the reason I made the move from railing about Bush and the Republicans to friends around dinner tables to actually wanting to do something about them (Bush and the Republicans, that is, not my friends)? The reason I wanted to actually show support and help build momentum for a candidate, to spread news and information? The reason I wanted to get involved (to the extent that a young British woman sitting in a flat in south-east London can ‘get involved’ in any American election)?

Well, that reason was singular.

Barack Obama.

Like most people, I’m sure, it was Barack’s speeches and way with words that first captured my attention. I came to him relatively late (during the primary battles with Hillary Clinton), and, like most people, I was unsure as to whether his was simply empty rhetoric. Whether it was, as Clinton claimed, ‘change you can Xerox’. (Although obviously in Britain, we’d say ‘change you can photocopy’ - look out for that one in David Cameron’s next speech.)

But the more I started to learn about Barack Obama - watch him, listen to him, read his books, learn about his life and work so far - the more it became apparent that he isn’t just an exceptional orator. He’s an exceptional man.

And likewise, the more I learned about the Joe Biden, the more I liked him. Although actually: with Joe, it was love pretty much instantly. Watched footage of his primary debate, read about his work in the Senate, read about his family - boom. I was gone.

So there you had it: a double whammy. The double whammy not just of great presidential and vice-presidential candidates; but the double whammy of wanting the Republicans out so badly, and being handed, on a plate, this gift of a man to do it.

This gift of a man who is incredibly smart and incredibly talented. This gift of a man who could have become a rich lawyer, but who spent his adult life helping those less fortunate than himself. This gift of a man who is a realist but also an optimist, with vision and focus. This gift of a man who believes in people’s inherent goodness and their ability to bring about change.

And it’s exactly these characteristics and values - shared to a great extent by Joe Biden - that shape Barack Obama’s world view, and as a result his political priorities and policies.

As a result: we are about to have an American president who believes that we are our brother’s keeper. A president who believes in war as a last resort. A president who understands that global warming is man-made, and wants to do something about it. A president who believes in a woman’s right to choose. A president who values science and intellectualism. A president who thinks that the health care system should be on the side of the people, not the insurance companies. A president who doesn’t think that the economy should primarily reward the rich. A president who doesn’t believe he’s on a mission from God. A president whose relationship with his super-smart wife is openly loving, and a match of (near ) equals. A president who truly seems to have sought office for the right reasons; for whom the presidency is a logical means to an end, and not just an end in itself.

A president who is human, yet brilliant - and who inspires not just because of this brilliance, but also because of how he has chosen to lead his life, which in turns makes the rest of us want to be better and do better. A president who is, at long last, a true role model.

And his race? Well, of course that is important, too. Obama’s presidency is healing in way that is unimaginable. After the pain and suffering of slavery, the struggles of the civil rights movement and the attacks of 9/11, the election of a black president with a Muslim name will be healing - both in America and across the world - in an incalculable, unconscious way that could, in fact, probably have been achieved no other way. Just imagine: there may be white people in America who now, when seeing a young black man, instead of subconsciously thinking: “He’s about to rob me” will think: “He looks like my President”.  That shift is phenomenal - and I have no doubt at all that this single act, this single amazing, historical act, will do incredible things for race relations in America.

But regardless of whether he is black or white, this is what remains: Barack Obama is an exceptional man. Barack Obama is a good man.

I know he’s not perfect. I know his presidency won’t be perfect. But above those things, I know this: that I like waking up in a world where a good, exceptional man is President-elect of the United States.

Barack Obama has apologised to Nancy Reagan for the séance quip he made about her in his press conference yesterday.

It should be noted that Nancy Reagan didn’t express outrage at the remark and demand an apology. Sean Hannity, however, did.

Albert Brooks, writing on HuffPo, is annoyed that Obama’s apologised, and told him to just be himself.

Now, I’m all for the latter - and completely agree with Brooks’ sentiment that America should “lighten up”. (Although asking Sean Hannity to “lighten up” is, of course, futile. What with Indignation At Ridiculous Things being Sean Hannity’s modus operandi.)

I also really, really liked Brooks’ work in Broadcast News.

But it strikes me that apologising because he realises he may have upset someone’s feelings is Barack Obama being himself. And failing to apologise for things has, in fact, been one of the hallmarks of the Republican administration (come to think of it, it was also a hallmark of Blair’s administration).

I haven’t heard an apology from George W Bush for the deaths of thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians in Iraq. An apology for the torture of people in his country’s name. An apology for his government tearing up the Constitution, doing away with habeas corpus and spying on its own citizens. An apology for squandering a budget surplus and helping to bring about America’s worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

And I haven’t heard Sean Hannity demand one, either.

Funny, that. Although not quite as funny as a Nancy Reagan séance joke, obviously. That was a doozie!

I like waking up in a world where Barack Obama is president.

I think this is one of the unconscious, yet palpable, differences brought about by the election of Obama. I’ll be writing more about that at the weekend - when, after a few days of letting this sink in and finally getting some rest after months of too much internet surfing and too little sleep, I’ll put fingers to keyboard and write a post about what I think this election really means, and why it has mattered so much. My Sunday newspaper column, if you will.

In the meantime: back to reporting the news…

OR

Now that we’ve found love what are we gonna do with it?

By nature, I’m a positive, upbeat kinda guy. I smile a lot, I see the silver lining, I not only think the glass is half full but I also enjoy the glass itself. Even if it’s a standard tumbler, it gives me inordinate pleasure.

However, when it comes to elections and election nights I’m the angel of death. Thanks to the Labour party throughout my childhood and young adulthood, and messers Gore and Kerry later, I associate election nights with dream-trampling, vomit-inducing pain and suffering.

In preparation for this, I view tomorrow night not with dread but with total resignation. I won’t be surprised or upset if it all goes wrong because I have already lived every horrendous scenario. Like some uber-negative war-gaming computer, I’ve played out every nightmare scenario through a CNN interactive electoral map. If there is carnage among Obama supporters I will be standing calm, quietly muttering “Knew it” to myself as a tear of lost childhood innocence slides down my cheek.

Luckily, Barack Obama is going to win tomorrow. The rational part of my brain knows this to be true. The polling is far too consistent, the early turnout far too high and the electoral college far too favourable for any other outcome. It may be a little closer than it looks right now - but Obama will be President Elect.

Given the near certainty – please baby Jesus – of the outcome, I want to use this last column to do something that doesn’t seem to be happening very much, and that’s look at what an Obama presidency will be like. As I’m sure many of you are aware, I’m a politics junkie and can’t get enough of the polls, elections and speculation - but it’s easy to lose sight of what it’s all for.

Never has this been more true with Obama. He is by far the best orator of the last 20 years of politics and without doubt one of the two or three most charismatic politicians of this time, period. The problem with this is that it’s easy to forget that it will all amount nothing more than a few uplifting speeches and nice shots of waving barley if the Presidency doesn’t achieve what it’s setting out to do.

So will it?

Of course, it’s completely impossible to predict, and only a blithering moron with an ego problem would try, so… here I go with a few thoughts to stimulate discussion:

Obama will be far more moderate that most of you reading this think or want

This will be partly through necessity and partly through choice. First of all, a clarification: I’m always amazed at how English people even seasoned politics watchers underestimate what left and right wing mean in American politics - so by moderate I mean moderate for America, right wing for here.

All American presidents must be moderate to some degree because they will leave the nation behind if they govern too far from the American centre. Bush has managed it, but only for a brief spell in the heightened circumstances of post 9/11. Obama will make concessions to the right because that’s the reality of the nation he’s seeking to govern (for early indications of this look at his overly hawkish attitude to Afghanistan and his centrist tax plan). He will also do this through choice because he isn’t as liberal as liberals would like to see him. I actually think there’s a good chance that some on the left here and in America will be disappointed by his presidency because it won’t go far enough - but I think that rather than this being a ‘selling out’ it will actually be a reflection of Obama’s attitudes. Ironically, he’s far closer to the Clintons’ centre-left thinking than either of them would admit.

Which leads us on to…

Obama will be a consensus builder

Unlike George W Bush, Obama is unlikely to utter ‘I am the decider’ - his grasp of the English language being far superior. Obama is a consensus builder by nature, education and training. When confronted by a problem his instinct is to consult widely and thoroughly. He has roughly the same number of advisors as most candidates have donors (and interestingly as many donors as most candidates have voters).

This is a good thing and will undoubtedly result in better more pragmatic decisions. I think it will also result in some Republicans in the cabinet and the odd disgruntled liberal.

America will do less wars

Obviously it would be difficult for it to do more but it seems pretty clear Obama’s first instinct is to talk not obliterate. This doesn’t mean he won’t be pulled into an armed conflict – after all he’ll still be duty bound to protect US interests overseas. Also, Biden’s prediction that he’ll be tested may well be on the money; and it will be difficult for Obama and his administration not to overreact to prove themselves. Despite that small danger, we should have a period of not watching America drop bombs.

If he is to change anything he must to it early and quickly

This is the vital aspect to the Obama presidency, and will define whether it can affect change or not. In politics, incoming administrations have a very short window where they can guarantee actually getting anything done. Far too quickly they will be blamed for the problems they inherited, new crises and events will occur and the political re-election cycle will start again.

Obama will inherit a favorable House and Senate and will probably ride a wave of national relief and hope that his election will usher in a new era. He must act quickly to take advantage of this and be bold. The lesson from history is start with the ideas that are least popular and hardest to implement before the general atmosphere of bitterness regains its hold on the populous.

Healthcare will be the legacy

Let’s finish on an upbeat note, as far too much of this has been grim-ish reality: Obama’s best shot at affecting real change in his country is health care. Most Americans are dissatisfied with their health care system and want it to change - even most Republicans agree something has to be done.

Health care is notoriously problematic and full of special interest groups trying to prevent change. It was the rock that Clinton’s first term floundered on. However, the climate for getting something done for all American’s is as favourable as it could be - the new administration will just need to be bold. This more than anything can start to solve the problem of America’s underclass, produce a more civilized country and deliver on Obama’s promise to create real change.

So there we are – you can all now enjoy election night confident in what the next four years will bring.

Being forced to think about the reality of governing is sobering. As an antidote, let’s focus on this: the truly exciting thing about tomorrow night is not the election or the result. It’s that the adventure is just beginning. Obama is an unknown quantity as a president but his potential is almost limitless. At the least we will see the start of a more compassionate, understanding, tolerant age for America and the world at large – and if that is the least we will get, it will be enough.

Sorry, sort of an aside - but I can’t let this sentence on The Huffington Post pass without comment. I’d heard about this story, but reading this takes the proverbial:

“Some said fresh polling in North Carolina suggested that incumbent GOP Elizabeth Dole had fallen further behind since airing an ad that tried to tie Democratic rival Kay Hagan to atheists.”

WTF? Tying someone to atheism? So we atheists are up there with terrorists now, are we?

This makes me so angry. Honestly. In terms of all the things that are on their way out after eight years, can we not also make ‘fear and hatred of atheism’ one of them, please? Can we perhaps move to the acceptance that it’s perfectly possible to lead a moral and good life without believing in a supernatural being?

And people wonder why Richard Dawkins gets so fired up. Arrggghh.

(Here’s the background to the story, btw. Apparently, calling someone atheist is also “one hell of a charge”. I give up. No, wait! I don’t. I remain hopeful.)

So, one thing I’m reeeeeeallly happy about is that hopefully, after next Tuesday, we’re not going to see very much of this any more:

Or at least: British people won’t be. Because even if Sarah Palin never runs for office again, you can be sure, dagnammit, that she’ll make it in the world of American television. Doh!

Indeed, it’s impossible not to speculate what Sarah will do next. Here are the thoughts of my close personal journalist chum Jane Murphy:

“Now I’ve never been one to tempt fate, but assuming the Democrats do romp to victory next week, what’s to become of the second biggest celebrity in the world, Sarah Palin?

Andrea and I were discussing this last night - and came up with a few ideas. I’ve got a feeling she’ll ditch full-time politics in favour of a daytime chat-show on Fox, possibly alongside her great mate Elisabeth Hasselbeck. I can see Sarah becoming a kind of ‘anti-Oprah’ - with her whooping audiences shedding tears of joy as she hands out free guns to each of them. (Well, you never know when a pesky moose is gonna come a-knocking do you?)

Alternatively, Sarah could always provide a valuable public service by becoming the world’s top Tina Fey impersonator. Just a thought…”

I think Jane’s onto something with the anti-Oprah thing. In fact, here’s a full list of real - no, really, real - possibilities for Sarah’s next move:

- The GOP throw her under the Straight Talk Express, and she returns to Alaska. Is reduced to being a footnote in history and spends the rest of her days in the wilderness. Literally.

- The GOP throw her under the Straight Talk Express, and she returns to Alaska - where she starts plotting her campaign to run for president in 2012.

- The GOP throw John McCain under the Straight Talk Express, and rally behind Sarah Palin as their presumptive presidential nominee for 2012.

- Sarah quits politics and gets her own daytime TV talk show/reality TV show/talking heads show on Fox. Possibly with the First Dude, Todd. The Palins never leave the limelight. Ever.

The latter option is in many ways the most likely, I think - because while Sarah clearly wants as much power as possible, I don’t think she’s actually that interested in politics (crazy, huh?!) and would much rather have the fame and trappings of vacuous celebdom.

Personally, I’m hoping she runs for president in 2012.

Partly because I don’t want the poor American people to suffer this woman screeching out of their television sets and grinning on the cover of their magazines, day in day out, for the forseeable future.

But mainly because I want the GOP to not get it. I want them to choose Palin and her ilk, because if they do, they will be left in the political wilderness for at least eight years - or as long as it takes for them to realise that the world has become more liberal, goddamit, and that the American people just don’t want nasty, divisive, fearful, hateful, self-serving, right wing governance any more. The Republicans didn’t get it during this election, and you know what? They probably won’t get it in four years’ time, either. And possibly not in eight years…

I’ve written before about the parallels between Obama’s likely victory and Tony Blair’s victory in 1997 - when, overnight, not just an old administration but an old way of thinking, of seeing the world, was swept away. Much blame and pain and bloodletting ensued in the Conservative party as a result, of course - and the Tories had to move to the centre to gain any political force, and real chance of governing, again.

The Republican party in America will have to do the same - plain and simple. But the good news, of course, is that the Republican party’s starting point is far to the right of the Tory’s. Its base - Sarah’s Army, the gun totin’, god lovin’, evangelical conservatives - simply will not move to the centre under any circumstance. Not even to gain power.

The result? Like Sarah herself, that base will have to be left in the wilderness in order for the GOP to win again (barring an all-mighty Obama screw-up). And quite how many years it will take for the Republican party to rip itself apart like this before being able to make itself electable… well, your guess is a good as mine.

But here’s the other piece of good news: it isn’t going to happen any time soon, folks. So in the meantime: just kick back and enjoy The Barack Obama And Joe Biden Show (’So real, it’s like they’re running the country!’) - and spare a thought for our poor American cousins. Because even if she doesn’t get elected Vice President, they’re probably going to have to put up with Sarah Palin on TV every day. If they watch Fox News, at least.

Watching the Obama infomercial - especially the part about the 72-year-old man forced to return to work so that his wife can continue her medical treatment - I was struck again by how much a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for compassion.

Of course, politicians on both sides always talk to the electorate about their most direct concerns; about their plans to help you. Tax cuts, and so on. But the thing is: this election it isn’t just about what’s best for oneself.

It’s about what’s best for the sick. The elderly. Those who are poorer than you. Those who are hit by disaster. They may be your loved ones, your neighbours, your co-workers, or just the people you pass by in the street. They are, in this case, your fellow Americans - a phrase which is overused but which actually has resonance when it comes to the policies and idealism of Barack Obama.

Because a vote for Obama/Biden isn’t just a self-interest vote. It is a vote for a President and a Vice President who have worked throughout their adult lives to help others, to help those in need, to look out for the disenfranchised. A vote for two men who would never have gone to a birthday party (John McCain’s, remember) as people were left stranded and dying after a hurricane hit their city. It is a vote for community, for compassion, for the idea that we are - as Obama has said himself - our brother’s keeper, our sister’s keeper.

To put it even more simply: it is a vote for love.

I’ve been meaning to write about this thought - and yesterday I came across this story from a reader on Daily Kos, which… well, just read it. Because this is what it’s all about:

“Due to the recent discovery of having an aggressive form of cancer, I’ll never vote again.  But thankfully I cast my last vote for whom I sincerely believe to the best and most consequential presidential candidate to ever appear on the ballot in all of my 53 years, Barack Obama.

Like many of members of this community, I’ve got decades worth of political experience in terms of volunteer work and more formal elective roles within the county and state Democratic parties - along with consulting and managing campaigns and even an eleven year stint in promoting our side on talk radio.

But this election year and the candidate we are championing simply seems to dwarf anything I’ve been involved with in the past.  Obviously a large part of that is due to the extraordinary abuse that the current regime has inflicted upon our country in the last eight years - but it’s also much larger than that.

Back in early 2006 when I was mentally constructing the attributes that our next presidential should bring to the table - one unusual need kept re-occurring to me.  Our next candidate needed to find a way in inject some Love into the process.  Not the typical “love of country” but the ability to project a genuine love for our fellow citizens into the mix.

Much to my surprise and despite all of the traditional concerns that this political veteran initially had - Barack Obama emerged as the precise type of candidate that these extraordinary times called for.  And that makes me happy beyond belief and provides me with the will and determination to live to election day and even a ways beyond.

So YES WE CAN emerge from the presidential political wilderness that we’ve been struggling with in the 40 years since 1968.  And YES WE CAN roll back the damage we’ve sustained during the last 8 - 28 years.

I know that this remarkable community is going to play a key role in not only getting us back to even - but through the genuine love contained in “Our Vision for America” that lies at the heart of the Daily Kos - you’ll be playing a major role in laying the foundation for the U.S. becoming a far better place to live and work than it ever was before.

Stay active and keep pushing those winning ideals.  I’ll be with you in spirit all the way!”