This election was historic for a number of reasons, but what struck me personally was the double standard in politics and the media's coverage of the male and female candidates.

Back in the day when Geraldine Ferraro was tapped as the first vice presidential running mate, the media stuck like glue, hanging on every comment she made, but there is a clear difference in how it was handled in the media back then compared to the coverage of Hillary Clinton's seemingly audacious run for the Oval Office in the present. 

Rule of thumb

Passion is a necessity for any candidate running for a political seat, whether it be for city council or for the presidency of the United States.  Regardless of the candidates' personal inspiration for throwing their hat into the ring, it requires a great deal of stamina, savvy and charm to run a campaign to sway and win voters to their way of thinking, not to mention deep pocket funding and strong intestinal fortitude.

Politics is a dirty business, anyone who has ever watched a political campaign can attest to that, regardless of the level of government that the candidates seek to attain, but the mud slinging and finger pointing generally pertain to the candidate's position on the issues, past performance in their political or professional careers and so forth, but in this election something else shot up like a poisonous toadstool.

Sex.  Not who was having it and with whom, but gender.

The treatment that Hillary Clinton received while running her campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency was interesting.  It is not unusual to see articles about a candidate's gaffe at a stop on the campaign trail, the proverbial finger pointing and surreptitious giggle at the mistake that will cause the candidate embarrassment, but it was interesting how the media treated Hillary's apparent 'emotional' moment when her voice quivered during a visit with her constituents.

A flurry of articles came out about that moment when Hillary was speaking 'from the heart' to those folks who had come out to see her and hear her talk about her ability to lead.  When she spoke with passion about her determination to continue in the race for the Democratic nomination, her voice audibly wobbled.  The moment that happened, then was replayed over and over to make sure that anyone who hadn't seen it had their chance to view the slip, it suddenly became an emotional breakdown that meant Sen. Clinton was either exhausted, overwhelmed by the task at hand, or she was trying to pull a text book 'chick' move to garner sympathy.

Regardless of what happened in that moment when Sen. Clinton was addressing her audience, the immediate response and conclusion that seemed to be reached was that she was weakening.  Women, by and large, have always been erroneously considered the weaker sex.  In the political arena they need to be able to stand up to the same pressures that the men do without flinching.  That momentary wobble in her voice was enough of a window for the men to ask the question, ' Is she capable of withstanding the pressures of being President?'

Whether for her or against her, that voice quiver heard 'round the world caused a collective wince among the women that I know.  Sen. Clinton was the first woman who was making a serious bid for the nomination for the presidency, and that single slip made her appear weak, breathing new life into that tired but dogged argument of whether or not a woman could be strong enough to be President.

Ye olde double standard

After the parties named their nominees and the race for the White House got underway in earnest, the media was in full swing.  Both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama were being questioned by the media about their positions on the issues that were foremost in the minds of the voters, how they would handle those issues and whether or not they were qualified to be President.

While those hard hitting questions were being lobbed at the male candidates, the media was looking at Gov. Sarah Palin and asking how a woman with a special needs baby could hold office.  It appeared that she had been able to run the state of Alaska while pregnant with her fifth child and mothering four more at home, embarking upon her candidacy as vice president with a 68% approval rating from the people of Alaska.  It seemed that Gov. Palin had been able to do the job she was elected to and kept the majority of her state happy with the job she was doing for them, but clearly that wasn't enough of an endorsement of her ability to lead.

The jaundiced eye of the media then turned on Gov. Palin's ability to adequately mother and 'control' her own daughter.  Piper Palin, seventeen, was pregnant with her longtime boyfriend's child and based upon the tone of the coverage about this turn of events, Piper's pregnancy was a direct result of Gov. Palin's failure as a mother, a conservative Republican mother. 

There were three schools of thought about the issue.  The first was that Gov. Palin had not taught her daughter those good, core Christian values that all conservative Republicans espouse and it had resulted in her daughter becoming an unwed mother at seventeen.  The second was that Gov. Palin had been so focused and busy being the Governor of Alaska that she had completely lost sight of what was going on within her own family.  The third school of thought was that Piper Palin was a teenager in love and she had followed her heart, the result being an unexpected pregnancy.  The way the media was covering the issue it was clear that Piper Palin was the only teenager to become pregnant in the history of our nation.

As with all things in this campaign, the media storm surrounding Piper Palin's pregnancy and the amount of fault that should be placed at her mother's feet quickly died down and the attention then turned to Gov. Palin's 'Look'.  Articles and trends were suddenly fueled by her glasses, her hairstyle, her clothes and instead of asking Gov. Palin about substantive issues, she was being asked about the clothes she was wearing.  At one point, the media's answer to cotton candy and Novocain combined, Entertainment Tonight, aired a segment that revolved around the dress sizes of Sarah Palin, Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

Never in my recollection has anyone ever done a segment about the inseam, drop and neck size of the male candidates running for President or Vice President of the United States.  There have been the puff pieces about the candidate at home with the 'little woman', but now the candidates are showing up to do cutesy Q & A spots on Entertainment Tonight, skits on Saturday Night Live and other late night venues that are apparently designed to appeal to the voters who don't bother to pay attention to the issues but would rather know the diet secrets of Sarah Palin or what moisturizer Michelle Obama uses.  I blame this trend on that infamous stop on the Arsenio Hall Show by then presidential candidate Bill Clinton who donned a pair of Blues Brothers shades and blew a little sax to wow the audience.

What self respecting journalist would ask Sen. Obama what moisturizer he uses?  Would Sam Donaldson or Tom Brokaw feel compelled to seek out Sen. McCain to ask him his diet and exercise secrets?

The answer to that is no. 

Male candidates are questioned about the issues and missteps in public office while the female candidates are marginalized with questions about their emotional state, ability to juggle a public life in office with a young family at home, where they shop and what their dress size is.

Would a male candidate be held up to the same public scrutiny if their teenaged daughter found herself 'in the family way' the way Sarah Palin was vilified in the media?  Not a chance.  It would be implied that the raising of the children was the wife's job which freed him up to be a political leader and it would be come old news as quickly as it became news. 

In this day and age when historic firsts are becoming reality, it is quite obvious that there is still a clear and distinct divide between men and women in politics and until sexism is truly viewed as unacceptable as racism, that divide will never be a thing of the past.  

As is always the case, there are many people who are elated with the results and many who are terribly disappointed. The fact of the matter is that there were a lot of voters who didn't feel comfortable with either of the Presidential candidates, or many of the other men and women who ran for any office this year. Invariably there are voters who simply feel they are voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Perhaps there is a bit of truth to that feeling. It is indeed quite possible that there are many very qualified people who choose not to run because they don't want to face the media scrutiny, the endless questions that really seem to have little to do with a person's qualifications to be a Senator or Governor or President or whatever.

Take the case of a man who probably would have been the perfect candidate for the Presidency. A very beloved humanitarian who truly believes in giving to rich and poor alike. A man who has traveled to the far corners of the world and is always greeted with open arms. In fact, his arrival has caused warring nations to lay down their arms out of respect for him.

I am speaking of Santa Claus, who just happens to be a good friend of mine. Unfortunately, even though he has numerous excellent qualifications, he didn't even consider running for the Presidency. His reasons for staying on the sideline are rather simple. Santa didn't want to deal with those relentless members of the media who evidently see their job as making the news rather than reporting the news. Such reporters enjoy creating controversy far more than simply reporting what a candidate has to say on a given issue.

I must say I perfectly understand Santa's position. Just imagine what a press conference would be like if he had been a candidate…

Santa: "Ho! Ho! Ho! Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's great to see all of you again. As usual, I have a very busy schedule, so let's get right to your questions."

1st Reporter: "It's been reported that you are making a list, checking it twice, trying to find out who is naughty or nice. Santa, are you spying on people? Are you violating their right to privacy? What do you plan to do with this list?"

Santa: "Well, yes, I do have a list, but it's necessary to do my job. It's all perfectly harmless. I don't spy on anyone. The information I use to compile my list is given to me voluntarily. People write me letters telling me the things I need to know."

1sr Reporter: "Yeh, sure, whatever. Are you going to make this list public?"

Santa: "Ho! Ho! Ho! Oh no, I can't do that. I am given the information in strict confidence. It is not for public consumption."

1st Reporter: "Are you going to tell us your sources? If not, what are you hiding?"

Santa: "Ho! Ho! Ho! I'm not hiding anything. What are you hiding when you print information that is attributed to "unnamed sources?""

1st Reporter: "We ask the questions here! You just answer the questions."

2nd Reporter: "Santa, if I might change the subject. I want to ask you about the happiness issue."

Santa: " "The happiness issue?" What are you talking about? I don't understand what you mean.""

2nd Reporter: "You know what I mean, Santa. I'm talking about all of your "ho, ho, ho" stuff. It seems rather strange that a guy who works as long and as hard as you do could always go around being so happy. You are too jolly, Santa. That just isn't natural."

Santa: "I still don't think I get your point."

2nd Reporter: "Okay, Santa, I'll spell it out. Do you use drugs?"

Santa: "Ho! Ho! Ho! Where do you people get these questions?"

2nd Reporter: "Quit stalling. Just answer the question."

Santa: "No, I do not use drugs, although I must admit I've had opportunities. You'd be surprised at the stuff people leave for me by the chimney. It's not always cookies and milk."

2nd Reporter: "So we are to believe that you have access to all of these drugs and yet you always look the other way. Santa, the point is that you visit many, many houses where drugs are available."

Santa: "But I said that…"

3rd Reporter: "We know what you said and we'll determine what you mean. But now I want to ask you about your relationship with the big toy manufacturers. Aren't you a tool for these toy companies?"

Santa: "That is not true. Everyone knows my elves make all of the toys I deliver."

4th Reporter: "Speaking of elves, it's been reported that most of your elves do not have their green cards."

Santa: "Who reported that?"

4th Reporter: "I'm going to report it as soon as I leave this news conference. Is it true or not?"

Santa: "All of the elves are legal, but there are many trolls who are illegal immigrants, but I do not employ any trolls."

5th Reporter: "Isn't it true that you don't employ trolls because they refuse to work in the sweatshop you run? Santa, are you in violation of labor laws?"

Santa: "Wherever did you get that information?"

5th Reporter: "I just thought of it. Is it true or not?"

Santa: "That is absurd. Look, this conference has to end. Mrs. Claus and I…"

6th Reporter: "Are you two still together?"

Santa: "Excuse me? What are you talking about? Is this information you just thought of at this very moment?"

6th Reporter: "Come on, Santa, we all know you stopped at Madonna's house last year."

Santa: "I stop at a lot of houses."

6th Reporter: "Sure, but my sources report you stayed at her house longer than your usual stops. Come on, Santa, are you and Madonna having an affair?"

Santa: "Ho! Ho! Ho! I'm flattered by the insinuation of your question. At my age, it's truly a compliment for you to imply I had a fling with Madonna, although I'm sure it won't do much for her reputation. I'd like to take more questions, but I have to leave."

6th Reporter: "Wait a minute, Santa, you didn't answer my question."

Santa: "I know."

There you go. It's no wonder some of the best and the brightest remain on the sidelines. It doesn't take much of a skeleton in the closet to discourage people from throwing their hat into the ring. Hopefully our new President will do an excellent job. If not, the good news is that it only four years until we elect a new one. The bad news is that the campaign for 2012 starts in a month or two!

But some people are less reserved than I am, and are clearly more desperate for attention, and this has been highlighted quite clearly in a couple of news items that have been running this week. Step forward Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross. I don't really feel the need to recap on the sequence of events here: for those outside the UK or who have spent the last week living in an underground bunker, it's all over the Internet. And that's just the point. Yes, their antics were idiotic, and yes, they were likely to cause offence. But surely the recipient of the phone messages should be the one to determine the level of offence taken, not the public at large. If you don't like something, steer clear.

I think Russell Brand's a tit, and make every effort to avoid him and his work. No-one's forcing me to listen. Analogously, as a vegetarian, you won't find me walking into a butcher's and complaining because I don't like all the meat on display. That the radio show aired with the approval of their bosses is perhaps surprising, but not nearly as surprising as the media frenzy that has dominated the headlines these last few days. You'd think that all wars had ended, that there was no global financial crisis and that the US election was as insignificant as events come. In short, it's been blown out of all proportion.

Make no mistake, the general public love a good moral outcry and attendant which hunt. And the media is always more than happy to precipitate one, and to keep those fires stoked. And now everyone's happy because high-level management have been unseated, Brand's resigned and Woss has been suspended for 12 weeks without pay and his future remains uncertain. But hang on. Ross is on £6M a year. He's not going to starve, is he? He might have to keep warm burning coal instead of twenty quid notes, but even if he dos lose his job, he'll not be unemployed for long. And as for Brand... well, he's made a career out of shrieking for attention, and probably will be seen standing on a table shouting "Jesus is a cunt" if he reads this article and thinks it might get him noticed. Because he's a desperate and sad case, and this is the kind of publicity that few dare to dream of. Really, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

British artist Sarah Maple may disagree. Touted as "the new Tracy Emin," her current exhibition, "This Artist Blows" has incurred the wrath of Muslims angered by her works, which include a painting of a Moslem woman cradling a pig. The gallery has received threatening phone calls and has even had its window put through in protest. And of course, the attention this has brought to Maple's work has been phenomenal. Raised as a Moslem in Britain, and given that she claims to be addressing issues of (multi)cultural identity, this should probably be considered a good thing.

But assuming there is no such thing as bad publicity, there is such a thing as bad art. And checking out her website, I was struck by just how lacking in artistry her work is. There are a lot of poorly-composed photographic self-portraits. And while many artists turn to themselves as subject for many reasons, there does seem to be a surfeit of me me me-ness about Maple's pictures, as if she wants to be the artist celebrity, instantly recognisable from her own works. There's also an overemphasis on clever knowingness: the picture of Maple wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogan "Have you wanked over me yet?" is not only blatant, but presumptuous in the extreme. The "I Heart Jihad" T-shirt is similarly lacking subtlety, while the "cocks" photo series, which features the artist posing with various objects which range from a coat-hanger ('hanger cock') to a cup ('cup cock') in front of her crotch may be amusing if you're a 16 year old pratting about on MySpace http://www.myspace.com/sarahmapleart or Bebo, but it's hardly big and it's hardly clever and it's hardly art.

The piece of card with its price (£10,000) written in black pen, and the one that states "I am an investment" may be a comment on art as commodity, but Stewart Home was cleverer on that front over a decade ago, just as Duchamp was way back when. And of course, the gag only works if Maple becomes, and remains, collectable. I daresay the controversy over her current exhibition will help achieve that. That Maple describes herself as a "self-confessed media whore" seemingly without any sense that this debases her other objective - namely to draw attention to "issues - only adds credence to the notion that she"s as desperate for attention as Brand, and how she gets that attention isn't really a concern.

I don't mean to sound stuffy or churlish, and I appreciate the power of shock tactics to draw attention to serious issues as well as the next man, and possibly better. But concept only works when substantiated by execution. And the power of shock lies in its unexpectedness. And if it's been done before, and been done better before, then it's hardly unexpected. And then there are the issues that the shock is intended to highlight. It really doesn't have the same potency if you've nothing to say for yourself. It's the artistic equivalent of knocking on the door and then running away. Mildly amusing the first time, perhaps, but vaguely pointless.

So one has to ask if Maple can be surprised by the reaction her exhibition has provoked, particularly in the current climate (fuelled again, at least in part by the media. Let's face it, race relations have been better and paranoia has been better contained and less obviously prone to breaking into hysteria.) Which leaves only one conclusion. The real subject is the ego, and her art is, ultimately, the equivalent of standing on a table and shouting. So maybe I should try it, and when the bar staff try to throw me out for being offensive and causing trouble, I'll tell them it's performance art. Or maybe I'll just shut up and accept the fact that I'll have to wait a bit longer for my pint. Really, I know that drawing attention to myself might help shift a few books, but I'm not that desperate for attention.

               During the campaign the issues of age and race were widely lower key than expected, and once the nominees named their running mates, sexism was added to the mix. The regular routine of running negative ads against the other party ran free, and America has been at odds more than ever before. With so much to talk about, it is no wonder this years election has brought out more voters than any previous presidential race. But the final question will be answered this tuesday; Who will be running the country for the next four years? 

               With so much tension about the projected winner, election news is everywhere. Polls most of us have never heard of give us updated projections on the hour and the final hours of the race have not yet begun. The press coverage is expected to be through the roof, and even those not planning on giving Tuesday's race much attention will have a difficult time ignoring the media frenzy.  With two days of media madness in the countries future, Wednesday's forecast might be prettiest thing to see since the end of summer.

As the polls would have us believe, the Democrat Barack Obama seems to have the majority in his hands. But all these polls do not guarantee him the November 4 victory just yet -- it could simply be the amalgamation of a scoop-obsessed media, of pollsters who haven't sampled enough, and of some poll respondents who just want to be politically correct.

On the other side of the fence, Republican John McCain seems all too poised at the losing end. These past few weeks, attention has gravitated front and center -- not to him, but to his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin. If this was the campaign strategy they hatched two months ago, then it must have backfired with mixed results. Sure, they have our attention, but in the wrong corners -- Palin's wardrobe controversy? The viral web parodies that paint her as charming but ill-equipped? The exclusive news interviews that leave one more baffled about her than before? Palin could have been the fuel to McCain's nearly-doused fire, but aside from the celebrity she has brought, along came the damage that he desperately needs to control.

During the past two years of an exhaustive and extensive race to the presidency, these two men have been subjected to the most intense scrutiny that is albeit needed in order to elect the leader of the free world. Politics has always been a popularity contest, more so in this age of instant's and 24-hour news. Every sound bite and every gesture has been magnified for pundits and the masses to blog and talk about.McCain, the maverick senator from Arizona, has been a steady, dependable hand at the Republican arena since the 2000 election.

He then seemed to be the more liberal, more likeable candidate than George W. Bush was. He had the gallant experience in important policy issues, having held public office for more than 20 years, including championing a campaign finance reform act; an impressive stint at the Vietnam War; and he projected himself to be an outsider of the Grand Old Party establishment and showed to be open to bipartisanship -- which somehow led to the dissolution of his run in the 2000 GOP primaries. This year though, McCain is finally in the limelight, having overpowered pre-primary favorites such as Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. He could've pushed his agenda further and steamrolled his way to a favorable win, but what happened?

George W. Bush.

The Iraq war.

The financial crisis.

Sarah Palin.

McCain's own undoing.

Barack Obama.

It was a fatal combination of these that contributes to McCain's potential electorate demise.

W's Infamous Legacy

George W. Bush, who meekly endorsed McCain through video at the Republican National Convention, has silently relegated to the back seat in this campaign; the standard-bearer McCain salvaging in vain whatever was left of the GOP's credibility amidst its leader's failed presidency, amplified by the severe lashing it endured at the 2006 Congressional Elections. McCain has obviously distanced himself from W., seeking out voters who still believe in the conservative credo. This strategy may work well for others, but it comes across as an undiplomatic approach when viewed in a global sense -- that even if John McCain is your ally, you will be left to fend for yourself when he doesn't need you -- now, what does that present for international relations?

The war in Iraq has been a most unkind legacy the Bush presidency will bequeath to its predecessor. Borne out of greed, warmongering, sheer brashness -- and using the September 11, 2001 attacks as leverage to justify their cause, it has veered the attention of national security away to what should have been a winsome vanquishing to the real insurgents in Afghanistan. (How Al-Qaida came to be, is another matter.) Iraq, post-Saddam Hussein, is still and even more dangerous than before. The damage has been irreparable, thousands of lives have been lost, and there is still no end in sight.

McCain has only echoed Bush's foolhardy declaration that "We are winning the war" and will continue to keep the troops there, when in truth Americans have only been thrust into a quagmire that has risked them financially -- stretched taxpayers' hard-earned dollars in funding a war chest readily disposable and siphoned by Bush's defense-contractor compadres, but with no concrete results -- and internationally. Does this solidify the neoconservatives' cultivated image of the US as a Big Bully and The Only Rightful Superpower, notwithstanding Guantanamo Bay, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the subversive intent of the Patriot Act, the rampant disregard of moral and ethical standards?

More than that, the 44th president will be saddled with fixing an all-but-fallen economy. The US economy is at its most fragile stage today. The bourses have fallen sharply one week after the other, teetering into a depression to rival that of the post-1930's market crash, leaving ordinary citizens anxious whether this setback can be lifted at all. Every nation has felt its crippling effects, and governments have been struggling to soften the blows that the US crisis has consequentially deferred. This whole mess could have been avoided if the government wasn't too lax on big business -- like the levees that could've been strengthened before Hurricane Katrina blew New Orleans into a deluge.

Eight years of George W. Bush does not bide well for the United States. Its image within itself and across the world has only deteriorated since because of its pierced invincibility, complacency and resistance to yield to the nation's best and true interests.

A Campaign of Division

Since the official campaign for the presidency began, McCain has widely veered from his original positions on issues such as reproductive rights, the environment and immigration, to cater to narrow right-wing ideologues. He has only been too willing to risk his reputation to scour out votes, using antagonizing tactics and almost delusional self-aggrandizements. We know that elections are an avenue for all sorts of appealing platitudes and promises that may never happen at all, but can it bring out the worst in a man?

Returning to McCain's selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- this has been a provocative move. McCain surely have thought that since Obama has already chosen a man in the form of veteran Sen. Joseph Biden a week ago, he could take this opportunity to woo the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters and pick a female to reignite the playing field. Before Palin, his campaign was almost going belly up. Since that proclamation, curiosity over the woman of the hour was but natural -- but upon closer inspection, the succeeding revelations suggest that Palin is a mismatch.

Reports that the VP selection process was recklessly dealt; the allegations and accusations that hound Palin's leadership record; her overwhelmingly conservative stance on her own gender's issues, science, religion and education; her short-sighted background on the issues that beset the country as witnessed through her uneasy responses in the nightly news interviews. Celebrity doesn't cut it, substance does. Watching her speak at campaign rallies, Palin exudes an appalling variety of close-minded thinking and adviser-coached applause prompts. A Vice President should be able to equal him/her capability to that of a President, in case the need arises for a succession -- but upon what we have seen, Palin doesn't seem to measure up. If she is unqualified, then it certainly reflects on the judgment of McCain.

Together with McCain, they have campaigned on a ticket of spite and estrangement, stirring up crowds with quasi-Bush "Either you're with us or against us" rhetoric. They have divided the nation into "the pro-America" / "real America" states, and the "others" with "that man". To call a state that votes for you as "pro-America", what would make of a state that doesn't? It conjures up insinuations that if you don't vote McCain-Palin, you're branded as unpatriotic and not putting your "Country First", which has been their campaign tag -- as if nobody thinks of their country's sake. They have taken the citizens as intellectually void -- using blatant discrimination, character assassination, antagonism, and shades of racism to fuel their last desperate stretch.

A Change Will Come

Barack Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois, is the one of the best that the Democratic Party has produced in a long time. His meteoric rise to the top can only be attributed to the fact that he is the living embodiment of the American Dream.

The 2004 Democratic National Convention introduced him to mainstream America and the whole world, and it brought much excitement about this new guy who's taken everyone's attention because of his identity, eloquence, intelligence, charisma and his stirring message of a unified America.

That obviously wasn't the last we've seen of Obama... the guy's got mission and ambition. Who would've known that in a span of four years that he would able to utilize his senate orientation to gear up on the biggest political stage, trumping the once shoo-in, Sen. Hillary Clinton and other more experienced colleagues?

The answer is hope. He was a fresh voice in the decrepit, dreary Washington landscape. Riding on a platform of change, he inspired sentiments of idealism and a renewed hope in the government not just among his supporters but also to the youth, the working-class people, the professionals, his fellow politicians, ordinary citizens within and outside of the country. His message is simple, powerful, and enduring.

Others may argue that Obama's all talk and no action, that he is too inexperienced to lead. Through the course of this campaign, he has showed incredible maturity in making his point without distorting it. He is willing to learn. He knows his subjects clearly and is wont to express his plans, which shone through in the three presidential debates. He acknowledges his limitations and ably compensates for them -- one major case would be the selection of Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, an expert on the area of foreign affairs. That itself is an example of how he makes important decisions -- well-thought out and for the long run, in contrast to McCain's Palin.

His stand on issues generally reflects what the United States needs in order to reform the government and the economy, and restore a common purpose -- the greater good of its citizens. He evinces an ability to repair frayed diplomatic relations and effect a more benevolent global opinion. And most especially, as what he has been doing, redeem optimism from apathy. Sometimes, all you really need is a dream, a vision, to get things going. No amount of credentials or experience can prepare a president, or predict what his term will be like. But Obama has the qualities, the confidence and the tenacity to become President. His victory can spell a real difference.

Well anyway, Sarah missed her chance during the debate. She should have asked Joe to spell potato.

Because the stakes are so high, this election has seemed more heated and contentious than ever. As I've more closely followed the election, I've been struck by the amount of hate and vitriol launched at the candidates and their running mates this election season. And it's made me wonder, exactly when did the cultural shift happen that made such cruelty and hate so acceptable in our mass culture?

Sometimes the hate takes a more subtle form, like school kids forming cliques, singling someone out for juvenile reasons, and ganging up on them. For example, making fun of a candidate's hair, dress, age or demeanor is a childish way of debasing them that seems all in good fun...but is it? Think of the onslaught of lampooning Sarah Palin has received in the media, especially Saturday Night Live. Are her detractors who attack her at such a personal level trying to have some good clean fun at her expense, or is the intent to spread hate? It's almost as if some people think Sarah Palin doesn't have any basic human rights at all.

A good example of this is the columnist who wrote that Sarah Palin's baby has Down syndrome because she didn't give her child the proper prenatal care. That's as detestable as the rumors that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is actually the biological mother of the baby. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to rumors and hateful remarks about Sarah Palin and her family.

To me, such attacks seem to go far beyond political differences, and can often be dehumanizing. I get the impression that disagreeing with a candidate's views isn't enough anymore for some people; there's a desire to destroy or denigrate that person as well. It's as if a standard is starting to emerge in America: if you disagree with a politician, then anything goes, as far as degrading, hateful personal attacks.

I recently saw a news story about “when mean girls grow up.”And I listened to a story about how “mean girls” in high school (and in particular the ring leaders called “queen bees”) often grow up to persecute and inflict cruelty on other women. This can happen in a lot of different situations, like daycare, an office, where there are power structures and cliques of women. I felt pretty disheartened listening to that, hearing the stories of how women inflict cruelty on other women.

I'm sad to say, it's really become culturally acceptable to do that. It happens when people are angry or insecure or ignorant, or want to feel especially powerful, for lots of reasons. It's not just the women; men behave badly in these ways, too. It feels like it's everywhere right now, a mass intolerance that alarms me. It seems these days that simple disagreement, with boundaries, isn't enough.

So inflicting hate and abuse is happening at all levels in society. It occurs on a private level in the day to day interactions that spread fear and hate. And it can be seen on a national level like we are witnessing with the hate mongering during this year's presidential elections. Have we become a kinder, gentler, more evolved society, or are we going in the other direction?

I've noticed how some people in our society have to destroy or humiliate the object of their dislike, like they don't even have a right to personally exist if they are somehow different, or present an opposing view. It seems to me like it wasn't always this way, and that this condoned hate is an emerging cultural phenomenon of our times.

This was really brought home to me by Sandra Bernhard, who, in my opinion made a shocking and inexcusable statement. She said that Sarah Palin should be gang raped. I was stunned when I heard that statement; I'd always liked Sandra Bernhard as an actor and comedian. But not anymore: I'll never watch Sandra Bernhard's work again. It's the only way I have of saying this kind of hate is scary and not acceptable to me. (I have to give kudos to the women's shelter that dropped Bernhard as a headliner at their benefit because she made these hateful remarks about Sarah Palin.)

If you don't like a candidate or their running mate, vote for the other candidate and their VP pick. It's as simple as that. You can disagree or even dislike them, but they are human beings. It's a political race, and a contest. But as citizens, we are taking things way too far into degrading, dehumanizing personal attacks and things like threats against the well being of our political candidates.

How did we devolve so as a people? That's the question I frequently ask myself during election season. I for one will remember election 2008 for its extreme quality and all the negativity. I'm sickened by Sandra Bernhard's mean spirited personal attack against Sarah Palin. I hope if other people are sickened also they will wake up and want something better. Then we may see a shift away from this emerging culture of hate, towards something more positive for our great country.

"No, that's okay," he said, "I'll just go inside the store and get one."

I knew he wouldn't be able to do that. "'I'm afraid they don't sell this newspaper inside. Here, take this one. I'll go buy another paper. They're all about the same."

He rebuffed my offer. "No, you keep the paper. It really doesn't make any difference to me either. I'll probably be mentioned in any newspaper anyway."

My curiosity was suddenly piqued by this strange response. "What if there aren't any newspapers left inside?" My question was asked in an attempt to buy time while I quickly tried to think of a way to discover the identity of this now intriguing stranger.

"I really don't need a newspaper," he said. "I'll just get some coffee at the lunch counter and listen to what people are saying about me."

My piqued curiosity was now peaking. I gazed intently at the man, trying so very hard to place his face. Obviously he had to be someone important, or at the very least, famous. I didn't know anyone from either category. My first thought was to ask him if he was SOMEBODY, but I realized that question would be a bit tacky. I opted for a more subtle approach, one which would continue my buying-more-time ploy.

"Well, I've got a few minutes," I said. "Let's both go get some coffee and we can share the paper. You can have whatever section you think you will be mentioned in and I'll just read another one." "Oh, I imagine there is something about me in all of the sections.'

Now my curiosity was being pushed to the limit. I had to know this guy's identity. Why would so many people be talking and writing about him? Was he an actor who I just didn't recognize because he was disguised as the nondescript little man wearing thick glasses who now stood before me? Maybe he was a powerful politician who I didn't recognize because he preferred working behind the scenes instead of appearing on Sunday morning talk shows? Perhaps he was a former guest on one of those afternoon programs that feature ex-lovers, potential lovers, or multiple lovers, all of whom are related in some way. Anyway, I decided to ditch the subtle approach.

"Excuse me. I'm rather embarrassed to ask this question, and I don't mean to be nosy, but should I know you? What is your name?"

He just smiled. "I don't exactly have a name."

That clearly was not a satisfactory answer. It just added to the mystery and my frustration. I wasn't sure if he was being evasive, or whether he was being a wise guy because he felt I was prying, which I was. In either case, I wasn't about to let it drop now. My curiosity was turning to annoyance.

"No name, huh? Well, I guess you don't have any problem with junk mail." I was making a weak attempt at humor to keep myself from grabbing this guy by his neck and choking him until he told me who in the hell he was! He just smiled again. I didn't want smiles, I wanted a name. I decided to become bolder in my questioning, but grabbing him by his neck was still a viable option.

"What is on your paychecks, since you don't have a name?"

'Paychecks? Oh, I don't work. Well, I suppose that's not exactly true. I do have a job of sorts, but I don't get paid."

"Yeah, well maybe you don't get paid because no one knows who you are! Why would you work at a job that doesn't pay anyway? You rich?" "No, I'm not rich. The fact of the matter is that I don't get paid because what I do is really quite easy. You see, my job is simply to go around saying things."

I suspected he could tell by the expression on my face that I was terribly confused by his answer. In fact, I was dumbfounded.

He confirmed my suspicion. "I can tell by the expression on your face that you are terribly confused, perhaps even dumbfounded. Actually, everyone reacts that way. Maybe I should clear things up by introducing myself. I am one of "they.""

That bit of information did nothing to clear up anything. I had wanted an introduction a long time ago, but now that I had it, it made absolutely no sense. I eyed his neck and took one step closer. " "They," huh? Well, I'm sorry, but I still don't understand."

He seemed a bit hurt by my lack of understanding. And for one brief moment, as I stared at this little man who now had a sad expression on his face, I felt a bit guilty about wanting to get physical with him. I stepped back, willing to hear more explanation, but I still kept his neck within my line of sight.

He gave me a quizzical look as he continued. "Surely you've heard of "they"? Think about it. Haven't you heard someone comment as to how "they" said this, or "they" said that'? Well, I'm one of the "they.""

Well, you could have knocked me over with a helium balloon.. At last, he was actually beginning to make some sense. "Wait a minute, let me get this straight. Yesterday some guy told me "they" say if you rub garlic on your head, hair will grow. And last week someone told me that "they" say the economy will rebound soon. That's rather good news. Anyway, are you telling me you are one of the people who go around saying those things?”

"Exactly. In fact, I'm the one who made that comment about the economy."

"You know about economics, do you?"

"Oh, heck no. I can't even balance my checkbook. But that' s the beauty about being one of "they". I can say anything I want, despite what I may or may not know about the subject in question. Knowledge isn't important. My job is simply to give the media something to use for their stories and people gathered around the water cooler at work something to talk about. Shucks, because of me, folks can argue, discuss, debate, or whatever, without being burdened by facts. Instead, people can just attribute their information to some unknown source. It keeps a free flow of discussion going, which really is quite essential to our democracy. It's a tremendous responsibility, you know."

I was stunned, but somewhat satisfied. "Well I'll be a son-of-a-gun. I've always wondered who "they" were. It's truly an honor to meet you. Are there a lot of other "they" out there, or do you have to do it all?"

"Actually, there are legions of us at several different levels. I'm at a lower level right now, but I certainly aspire to move up to the top some day."

My puzzlement was starting to return. "Different levels? Move up?"

"Well, at present I am just one of "they." There's not much prestige with simply being one of "they." Ah, but someday I plan on being an "unnamed source," or "someone unauthorized to speak on this subject." If I work hard, I might even be able to become "a senior administration official." These labels would allow me to make statements that would be quoted in the NewYork Times or The Washington Post , instead of The Star or The Enquirer . I can dare to dream."

It was truly an amazing encounter, but it had to come to an end. We both had some place to go, so we parted company. I headed off to work and he went inside the drugstore, no doubt to spread more information. In fact, when I was leaving, I heard him tell someone as they walked inside together, "Hey, did you know that they say a person's IQ is determined by how much asparagus they eat during the first week after their second birthday?"

I smiled and rushed off to work. I couldn't wait to tell everyone what "they" say about the connection between asparagus and intelligence.