We have become so wrapped up in red states and blue states, in the far left and the far right, and in the attacks and the insults, that we have forgotten the reason we have political platforms in the first place. All of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, have the same goal in mind: a better America. It’s bad enough that the men and women we just voted for spent much of their campaigns bashing each other. Shouldn’t we be able to sit down and have reasonable and fair discussions with our friends and family without the worry of being vilified for our beliefs? That’s what our country is supposed to be all about.

There is definitely something special about traveling to the USA. Long before you even set a foot in the country, there is this strange feeling creeping in, reminding you that you are intending to enter a unique and bizarre place where you will lose all references to be swallowed in the blurred identity of a security bound monster which probably doesn't know anymore who it really is. I have traveled my good share of the world and passed successfully security and custom desks of some nations considered at best as dodgy, as worse as evil depending on the fluctuation of international diplomacy. But out of all my experiences this one was the first time I felt uncomfortable and unwelcome, suspected of some horrible plans before even boarding the aircraft. Now, I know about security, terrorism scare, I remember the confusion and the chaos, the loss and the grief, and how dark the future looked like a few years ago. I remember the planes on TV, the crumbling buildings and the dusty cloud swallowing New York and a big part of the world's genuine optimism. But it still didn't help me to understand why the security officer at Heathrow needed me to recite the address of my contact in New Orleans. It was the first time in a long time I even knew where I would go next once the doors of Louis Armstrong Airport would open in front of me. I was being picked up so I didn't know the address I would stay at for the next two weeks. And even if I gave them an address, what would it prove? Would it prove these people were good American citizens? Just because they had an address? Well I am pretty sure most criminals on Earth do have an address, even a family, a pet, and what the hell, maybe even hobbies and a favorite place they like to go on holiday. The last two lunatics who recently planned to kill Barack Obama did. So how in the world knowing the address of these people would help keep their country a “safe” place? A maybe it was just me being a bit too much on the defensive side.

I had traveled to America twice before but without any civic conscience of where I was. The first time I was a 15 year-old teenager on a school trip -yes, those where the days! My parents had the choice to send me to Florida (party!!! Woohoo!) or to Green Bay, Wisconsin… And on the ground that they were paying for me to learn the language and not for getting a tan and promiscuous, I ended up not going to Florida-party-woohoo but spending three weeks between the Packers museum which I visited twice, the running track my new Yankee friend would use religiously before and after class, and a school where students were sent to learn absolutely nothing at all. I was young, I looked around with naïve eyes and teenager's criticism in my mouth, not knowing anything about this country but nevertheless being stubbornly opinionated about it. After all, I am French. My second time in the United States was in 2002, at the end of my year-long first backpacking trip. I was 23 when I landed in Los Angeles. I probably had more of a conscience at that age, especially a year after 09/11, but I didn't come there to watch America. I still had my strong opinions but didn't really want to discuss or confront them in any way. All I wanted was to party-woohoo, like I should have done eight years before. I wanted to catch up with time and that is exactly what I did. I didn't learn anything apart from my own boundaries and left the country hangover, with my back tattooed and my head full of stereotypes. So this time felt like my first one all over again. And as the plane flew over the infinite landscape it suddenly hit me. I was going to experience America. This place so commonly discussed and criticized, this land of extremes that supposedly brought the best and the worst in human kind. Here it was underneath the vibrating wings of the aircraft, and it looked massive. The flat land stretched to the horizon, scarred by roads the size of my arm even if we were still a few miles away in the air. This was the country that would elect a new president in a few days, the country I had been reading and hearing so much about for the past year. The country of morbidly obese people who don't see the problem in carrying around a body weight of a baby elephant. This was the country I had booed watching Michael Moore documentaries. This was the country that had bombed Afghanistan and lead war in Iraq. This, was the country that chose George W. Bush as president. Twice. Oh. My. God. I was suddenly so not ready for that! What in heaven sake was I doing here? The thought of spending the next fortnight in New Orleans suddenly felt overwhelming and I wanted badly out. But then the wheels connected in a roar with the tarmac. And I was in America.

While in transit in Atlanta, going through customs turned out to be another hurdle and it seemed like I was not the only one growing anxious for no apparent reason. A British woman queuing behind me whispered to her friend she would probably admit any crime if one of the officer was to interrogate her. “They just make me feel guilty” the poor thing kept muttering. On the plane I had filled with an ironic smile on my face the regular questionnaire about being an ex Nazi or not, but after standing straight in front of them trying to answer their quiz the best I could, after giving them my finger tips and getting my eye scanned, I had to admit they knew how to make us sweat. I was shaking like a leaf finally passing the finish line, the big banner winking at me above my head “Welcome to the United States of America”. Really?

Inside the beast…

Jefferson Parish is a quiet suburb with an overwhelming white majority, which was mostly spared three years ago by hurricane Katrina. The streets are wide and planted, everybody knows their neighbors and children run free from garden to garden. Bill and Maggie B. have been married for 41 years. She came from Honduras as a child and got married at 19 years old to a man not much older than her, the son of an Alabaman farmer back in the country after two years of service in South Germany. At that time, he says, Americans were loved all around Europe. Together they raised four children and never left New Orleans. Bill has retired from his building company and they have been enjoying a quiet life in their lovely bungalow. They say they especially learnt to appreciate what they have after Bill's heart surgery ten years ago, which cost them at the time around $25000. “There are clearly some big problems to deal with in our health system, concedes Miss Maggie. We have always paid for private insurance but were left with the bill of the surgery, it doesn't make any sense.” But despite this tragic state of things, the public national health plan proposed by Sen. Obama doesn't receive their enthusiastic response. As they explain, Americans don't want the government to stick its nose in their private affairs by imposing on everyone the same basic health system that seems to them like an invasion of their personal freedom. They want to choose, they want to decide for themselves. They are after all the country based on self-reliance and individual liberty.

Bill and Maggie have worked their whole life and are proud of their achievement. They both started with nothing and are understandably grateful to their country to have given them the opportunity to raise a family and keep a business going for over 30 years. Even if they have recently lost a considerable amount of money in the ongoing financial crisis, they keep their chin up, happy to own their home and sure of their strength as a family and as a people. Whatever happens on 4th November, they strongly believe the World will keep on spinning and Americans will stand together as they have always done through history. Although we differ on many points their life experience allows them to have an open mind on the future of their nation and more widely on what Europe might think of America. In a bizarre twist the same cannot be said about their children: Ted, Billy, Pam and Amanda. Their age ranks between 38 and 26, they all have children of their own and feel strongly against Obama whom they see as a “socialist”, a “Marxist”, and in the heat of the discussion, a “terrorist”. According to them - and as it will turn out, to 42% of the population -nothing good will come out of an Obama state. “An Obamination” as everyone choruses around. Obama is not an option in that part of the city as you could guess from the little boards hanging on car windows alongside the “I love Jesus” sticker. They don't know him, they don't trust him, they fear him. And more than his ideas of a fairer world, I ultimately do have the feeling they are scared by his difference: different background, different experience, different way to address the public, and in a way a different color of skin. It is not said and they might not be aware of it but many of their statements start with expressions like “I am not a racist but…” or “ I have many Black friends but…” or again “There are many wonderful Black people but…” which are usually good reverse indicators of the person's state of mind on the matter. Racism hasn't unfortunately only one face and it can take many shapes among a society. And the most dangerous one is probably not the violent obvious side of it represented by a short percentage of very small-minded people that can be easily contained. The real threat stands in the Sunday racism, people who don't even realize they make a difference between skin colors. But if they tell you an anecdote they will automatically specify when a character involved is black. They would prefer to walk to the next carriage if the one they're in has a majority of Black people. They will tighten their grip on their handbag in certain neighborhoods. They don't do it consciously, but they still do it. It is not obvious and instantly damageable but it undermines most western societies.

What is terrorism?

As Obama appears to be such an outsiders with so many mysterious corners, the only way he could reach such a stage in the campaign according to the B. family is the unconditional support of the national media in a general agreement protecting some dark secrets from the general public: is he actually American? Didn't he mention his Muslim faith in an interview? What about his illegal aunt in Boston he had no idea about? What other explanation for the worldwide support he has received since defeating Hillary Clinton? More generally they don't trust this new comer whose promise to change America doesn't inspire them as much as the medals painfully earned on John McCain's uniform. Every morning the local newspapers are full of editorials developing Obama's questionable associations with ex terrorist Bill Ayers. As a last resort to push up the polls, John McCain reunites with a fight he refused to take on back in spring when Obama's relations with ex Weatherman Bill Ayers and his eccentric Reverend Jeremiah Wright were brought up. In April John McCain declared these accusations had nothing to do in the campaign, but once desperate for voters a few days away from the actual election he seemed not to be so picky anymore on his angles of attack. Well of course these relations are not without raising questions and bringing nuances to Obama's character. But first of all actions and words have to be put back in their historical, social and political context. Yes, Bill Ayers took part in the bombing of several public buildings in a protest against the Vietnam War and fighting in favor of the civil rights. These were and still are good causes. This was probably not the best way of protesting as it could have turned really nasty but after all who are we to judge? What else could have been done? Facing an apathetic world that was more likely to turn a blind eye on these issues out of personal comfort, a minority decided to wake up the public by taking explosive measures. Bill Ayers never killed anyone, unlike the American government that was slaughtering civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia while he was just blowing up an empty police station. He never apologized or felt sorry for what he did in the 70s. But why should he repent about ideas and ideals he had at that time of great turmoil? So on this ground, why should Obama be feared for his relations with a man who fought hard for an ideal that was considered at the time as terrorist? The means were indeed questionable, not his believes. Lets just remember people fighting in the Resistance underground movements during WWII were presented on the news of an occupied Europe as terrorists: killing people, bombing bridges and railways, people you should have been fearing according to the mainstream. But a few years later and up to nowadays they are considered as heroes. No one would even think of reproaching them their crimes, their kills and their tortures because it was for a cause recognized afterwards as “good” by the society. As for Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his words have been well manipulated by the same medias Republicans accuse to be running for the Democrats. All this “God damn America” controversy has been completely amputated from its context and if you listen carefully to the whole sermon it does actually make good sense. It might offend lots of American patriots, but it does make good sense: his whole point was that after two centuries of aggressive behavior - eradication of Native Americans, slavery, invasive worldwide politics, economical and financial bullying, illegal wars… - the tragic events of Sept.11 didn't come across as a big surprise. After the primary shock of these attacks many analysts alongside Rev. Jeremiah Wright concluded that after putting as it seemed all their efforts into becoming the most hated country in the world, the United States of America were just harvesting the fruits of their previous mistakes. Violence calls violence. Hate calls hate. And following this thought Wright addresses the audience calling for peace and understanding. He is of course not the best politically correct acquaintance you wish for your candidate and more than once his words seem to take him to the extremity of the political spectrum but he is however far from the evil character portrayed by the medias.

Religion, UFOs and prejudices…

Back in the shade of their living-room, after Ted stated confidently that health should be a privilege and not a right, the discussion drifts lazily from one subject to another, leaving me on the side of the road as I prefer to back off and let them talk, listening in bafflement. On global warming: another conspiracy to bring America on its knees. The idea of changing attitude towards the daily use of gas, petrol and electricity is a big no-go: they are paying for it and this is enough to entitle them to waste as much energy as they wish. No step backwards should be considered by this nation of consumerists ready to defend their individual rights at gunpoint. On religion: still a huge part of their life even if they prove to be very much confused about the whole thing. They wouldn't mind voting for an atheist candidate - or so they say - but raise their eyebrows when I announce I am not even baptized. They believe in God but include in the same conversation their thoughts on UFOs and Little Greys living among us. They revere Jesus' teachings but don't really want their minuscule Presbyterian congregation to merge into its next-door neighbor, Hispanic in majority. And by the way do I really believe that my ancestors were monkeys in a tree? Because they are not so sure about it anymore. I was taught at school about the Unites States of America as a melting pot where a flag and a same idealism had built bridges between individuals. But all I seemed to witness a few days before the election - once again in a small suburb of a very peculiar Southern state - was just a sum of communities looking at each other over a fence of stereotypes and prejudices. The Whites, the Blacks, the Chinese, the Hispanics, the Presbyterian, the Baptists, the Catholics, the Evangelists, the Southern States, the Northern States, the Blue Democrats and the Red Republicans.

People here seem afraid of change. Obama frightens them because he is way over his time for the country. And he is done with the image of an over-powerful flawless America. He recognized its weaknesses, its mistakes, and that seems unacceptable for the people who still consider their country as the best in the world. A country built as a challenge, a country where everything was supposed to be possible. A country of opportunity, unity, freedom. A country that would set an example to the world that banished the early settlers. “Without the USA the whole world would be communist”, Bill reminds to me. Now it is clear: these Americans surely live deep in the past, in a black and white world where Manichaeism was such an easy option. You were good or evil, American or Red, with them or against them. I want to tell them that even back in the 60s the facts were not so obvious and the USA sweated their own kind of fascism by hunting down Communists of their own in a terrorizing witch hunt. Are they even aware their country offered asylum to Nazi scientists to benefit from their horrific knowledge. Not so black and white anymore…

Going to vote then buying a gun

Deep in the heart of Republican America, I still feel strong on my belief Barack Obama will bring something new, something fresh and above all that his eventual election will send a huge message to the world. However traveling to America made me realize the national issues raised by a new presidential crew, issues we have no clue nor interest about on the other side of the Atlantic. Health, national security, taxes, education, employment… these are no centre of interests for us as all we care about relates to international politics: two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, development of renewable energies, diplomatic relations with new threatening powers such as Iran, North Korea or even China. We are looking for a strong international message, they are awaiting for internal reassurance. And what not so many people know on our side of the world is that on election day not only will they vote for their next president but they will as well cast polls regarding their local community and their own State's politics. So there is definitely much more to them as just changing the top guy. In a way it is true that our medias tend to have supported forever, if not Obama, the Democrats. Maybe we have been as well misled and turned a blind eye on some more nuanced sides of Obama's personality, his aspirations, his motivations, his past, his acquaintances. But the same could be said from this fringe of the population who is ready to bite on any bad-mouthed rumors and turn it into a fundamental truth to get their way into the debate. The American people can't be taken as well out of its context, outside its history which is generally badly understood outside their borders. They can't think the way we do, and vice versa however we expect them to see the world through our own eyes…and so do they.

On 4th November the local stadium's club-house has been turned into a polling office and a small line of neighbors slowly sign up for the big day. They don't want to admit an early defeat but most people around shake their head in disbelief. “Of course I voted McCain but I think thanks to the medias we might well have to deal with the other one for the next four years”, mumbles one of the voters. A broody young man with wide tattooed arms discusses with an elder the age of voting that should be brought up to 25 instead of 18. According to him if this election turns out to be an Obama victory this will be the fault of the horde of new young voters, the students under the influence of university preachers turning their heads towards the wrong direction, not knowing anything about the world surrounding them. It will be as well the fault of the Black community voting for a color instead of ideas. It will be the fault of all these Americans not living in their country and perverted by international press. The young man is fuming and leaves shortly, announcing he is going to purchase a new gun to “face the music”. Many people actually predict riots in case of a Democrat success. No wonder I feel a bit tensed as I join Bill and Maggie in their living-room for the evening of truth. Of course our eyes are riveted to Fox News, the “only decent channel” as they precise, i.e. clearly Republican. The wait was long but the wait was worth it. Obama took the lead quickly and kept it until he reached 297 electoral votes and there was no possible turning back. There was a long and heavy silence and I felt terribly alone, unable to hug anyone on this historical moment. Then Bill stood up, mumbled a vague “Good night” and disappeared into the corridor. I stayed up a bit longer with Miss Maggie for both McCain and Obama speeches. She couldn't say really how she was feeling, unhappy of her candidate's defeat but well aware of the importance of the moment. Indeed “change has come to America”.

A new dawn

The next morning I woke up in a better world. I woke up in an America that had overcome its fear of difference, its fear of the past, its fear of its future. We had tried so hard to turn a blind eye on the race issue and focus on the man rather than his skin. But we had fooled ourselves as this, if not as big as expected during the campaign, took all its proportions in the results. And electing a black man as President of the United States of America got on this very day a meaning that we probably wouldn't be able to realize before many years to come. Certainly we have entered a new era where we no longer stare into America's eyes with a look of disdain and non-understanding but where we reach for it in an overwhelming feeling of hope and trust. The previous night the “greatest country in the world” turned out to be exactly that. The land of democracy, liberty and opportunity, ready to take a chance on difference. Barack Obama represents in the eyes of Americans an alternative to the misery they have been experiencing for almost a decade, a light at the other end of the tunnel. “The road will be long and the climb will be steep” he said to his people but once again united they stand behind their new leader, ready for a bumpy ride if it means getting the country out of the ditch it has been digging for too much of a long time. He talked about education, about health, about economy, about ecology, about war, about putting people back to work. He promised to make his country a better place and for once in a long time a politician sounded believable. “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree”. This is a strong statement not only to his fellow citizens but as a message to the world, a message of opening, a promise of understanding and dialogue, an end to the traditional politics of aggression the country has been leading since the beginning of the cold war. It means reaching for your hand, it means working together on global issues, it means being friends again. A few days later gun sales had skyrocketed, Ted's wife announced proudly she had bought two new weapons to protect her family and a Black church was burnt to the ground in Boston. Obviously this election in itself is not the change everyone expects: it is the opportunity to make this change happens, the best opportunity of all. Republicans like the B. family are stubborn and fearful but they will eventually get on with it and Barack Obama will be a president for all. There will be no second American revolution and hopefully if no lunatic puts an early end to his duty even the strongest opinionated “shall overcome”. That is what they have always done, and that is what they will do once more, whatever disappointment 42% of the population feel after the results. In this I feel the strength and the glory of America. Yes the road is long and the climb is steep, but it feels like everyone has embarked on the same boat to fight for a better future. Unlike France or the UK which feel like such divided and somewhat uninterested nations, America keeps in its heart this energy to stand up from its ashes and start a new chapter. There is a true movement of its people with everyone involved in the events that will mark the World forever. And this formidable push gives me hope for the future. So no matter what, my spirits are high, I am proud of America on this 5th November 2008 and can't wait to go out and play with her again.

Sarah Palin, a nobody governor of a block of frozen tundra with a population of maybe ... two? ... who apparently has an animal rights IQ somewhere in the negative numbers, suddenly hitched her cart to a shooting star (or should I say now that all is said and done with McCain's miserable loss : A falling star?) and hijacked her way to stardom. And now that she has infested our society with the possibility of her continued run for the country's number one public office in the future, we have to worry if we will end up facing a return to Square One in the animal rights arena one day soon.

Will we revert back to the time when our ignorance commands center stage once again in this nation and our blood-thirsty urge (blessed by the Constitution) to kill innocent creatures and call it a "sport" prevails? When you take Palin's overall record on animal rights issues and look at how poorly Alaska values the welfare of its wildlife, Palin's potential for someday becoming the number one numbskull ruling the nation is truly something to fear. When FDR said: "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself," he was wrong. We have to fear an ex-beauty queen from the frozen land of Alaska, a woman with a brain of air and a heart of ice.

Palin thrives on the kill. She shoots from the air and takes down wild moose on the run. Great sportswoman, wouldn't you say? And she fears the competition that the wolf has to offer because they prey on the moose that she's after. So, what does the great governor of Alaska do to eliminate the competition? She puts a $150 bounty on the wolf. I love the way she handles the hunt ... I wouldn't be surprised if she had become VP upon a McCain win, if she would have had ol' John canned (lliterally) to take the seat for herself!

And this is the woman who cherishes the innocence of life and condemns any female who would even consider abortion even to save the life of the mother? Then she goes out and eliminates the innocence of wildlife without concern or remorse for the pain and death she causes. Palin is good at popping out babies. Good for her. Perhaps she does it out of love. But, somehow I doubt it. Perhaps she is just trying to clone herself, the sadistic plot of a monster madwoman who is quietly out to destroy all the strides this nation has taken toward intelligence. Don't let the dumb, innocent face fool ya. She's something (any I mean "something," not "somebody") to fear.

Palin went so far as to sue the Bush administration to take polar bears off of the Endangered List of protected species so that they would not come in the way of Alaska's drill for oil and gas. She was willing to wipe the species off of the globe for her greed. The woman would probably sell out her mother (or one of her kids, maybe) for a buck!

McCain probably patted himself on the shoulder thinking that he picked someone who would open up the doors to offshore drilling. Greed again. Thank the Great Spirit that McCain lost the race. The animals are safe for now. But, tomorrow is dawning upon us and the ice woman from the northern tundra is wheeling her way to the next Republican nomination. What will 2012 bring? Let's hope not Sarah Palin.

We all know that McCain ran a hard race, the cloud of Bush was over his head making it hard to get the votes needed to become president. Lets all hope that McCain's supporters will take his advice, join together with Obama and his supports to help make the United States strong once again. 

God Bless America!

If Republicans ran the world:

if you are not the best at what you do you should starve

Capitalism = competition
Socialism = cooperation

The difference between Democrats and Republicans:

Democrats hate the rich, Republicans hate the poor.

Democrats: the rich are paid too much

Republicans: the poor are lazy

D: there should be more opportunities for everybody

R: however you get your money, as long as no laws are broken, it's okay

Socialism: jobs should be made available

S: there should be a guaranteed minimum allowance

S: Socialism = positive view of humanity

Socialism is equality, cooperation.

Socialism is money going back into the system, ie: the inheritance tax in 1950 was

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0612/p17s01-cogn.html

"The increase in the concentration of wealth at the top in the US is "stunning," says Edward Wolff, a New York University expert on wealth. The number of households with wealth of $10 million or more in constant 2004 dollars has risen 5.19 times from 66,500 families in 1983 to 344,800 households in 2004.

Despite rising home prices, 90 percent of the increase in wealth between 1983 and 2004 has gone to the top 20 percent of households. The bottom 40 percent have seen a decline in their net worth, says Professor Wolff.

Since the wealthy have obtained, on average, between one-half and two-thirds of their assets by inheritance, the weakening of the estate tax would tend to expand the gap between rich and poor.

That bothers Wolff. "People with wealth can disproportionately influence the political process" with campaign donations and support for lobbies, he says. "It makes the nation much less democratic.""

The inheritance tax benefits society by expanding the wealth available to better society as a whole. This would include better roads, transportation in general, better schools, cheaper and better energy solutions, and much more. Socialism is not a bad word. Socialism means a better society for everybody and not just a chosen few.

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.

The reasons for this are to be found in the very nature of a majority of these pontificators' ideology - a strong tendency to the left, the far left in many cases. While there were many right wing press representatives as culpable, inarguably the preponderance of today's media persons are liberal minded to the extreme as revealed in surveys of their voting patterns as well as closely monitoring their reporting.

Media bias toward the Democrats and their nominee became clear and obvious by early spring, 2008. Blatantly so in many cases. Instead of observers of the political process, as is their responsibility and function in a democracy, they errantly became participants - participants with a clear choice of candidates as they cast their vote early and often for Barack Obama.

Their obvious disdain for anyone or anything Republican was evident from day one of this campaign season. They dislike President Bush with a fervor seldom witnessed and they were not at all abashed to say so in no uncertain terms. The vileness of this dislike - verging on hatred by some - determined their current positions as they searched for an alternative - any alternative - to the Republicans, both Presidential and Congressional, and landed squarely on the side of the Democrats where they felt welcomed and at home, cuddled by their own established and comforting liberalism.

The mainstream press has overwhelmingly lacked objectivity in assessing the two Presidential candidates and - at times so gleefully and so unprofessionally as to be distracting - developed a love-fest relationship with Barack Obama. Such overt and frequent on-air statements as “we will make history in this election” were common in cable news reporting - "code words" for their blatant support of the first black Presidential nominee.

Their discussions of the conventions and debates, as well as perceived and press accentuated gaffs by the McCain-Palin pair, were so exceedingly biased towards Democrats that one could not avoid becoming concerned with the lack of any truly fair assessment of the election process in their coverage. The San Diego Union-Tribune on the editorial page of Saturday, October 25th, nailed it when they so stated in an editorial entitled “Media bias? Some journalists have already voted”. In it the editor astutely observed “We usually don't put much stock in claims of media bias …But there are times when the partisanship and favoritism are so apparent that they cannot be denied. This presidential election is such an occasion….the media aren't fooling anyone with their pretense of objectivity. Little wonder that Americans have such a low opinion of the journalism profession when they perceive reporters and editors as something less than honest brokers….too many supposedly objective journalists have made their first choice perfectly clear.”

This was followed by another commentary on the editorial page of October 28th entitled “Noxious analogy, Comparing GOP, Nazi rallies reflects on media” wherein they observe “Decades from now …the first entry is sure to be the Barack Obama - national media coupling of 2008. What is going on now is simply stunning….Consider the readiness of journalists to liken McCain-Palin rallies to Nazi rallies in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s….In the Oct. 28 New Yorker, Steve Coll …became the latest….Steve Coll should be ashamed. But, then, so should many others in the national media….”

Precisely, although you will not see such an honest assessment on the editorial pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post nor hear a forthright discussion of this topic on television networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, or the obviously extreme leftist MSNBC!

Americans should be very troubled when the fourth estate, inherently responsible for conveying political news fairly and with at the very least a modicum of objectivity, takes obvious sides so blatantly in an election. That should never happen, but it has.

I didn't always feel this way. In fact, for the first 22 of my 30 years of voting I was an unquestioning Republican, aligned with the conservative philosophy that government's proper role in society is to provide greater freedom to individuals and private organizations; rather than restricting their behavior, taking their money, and dictating their values.

The first hint that my political understanding was flawed - like a brick across the head -came from the nomination of George W. Bush in 2000. As I imagine many remaining Republicans now feel about John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin (who is much like Bush), I couldn't believe that rational people who cared about the country could choose someone so ill-informed, inconsistent, and childish (without any of a child's saving curiosity) to potentially lead us all. There had to be something wrong with my assumptions about the process used by the people who made the decision.

Challenging and correcting assumptions is something I'm very adept at (though I too have my bind spots; clearly politics was one of them). My success has come from identifying the fundamental relationships that connect the facts and then testing them. In this case, I discovered that I and my party had an inaccurate understanding of “values” (they are what we collectively agree are important, rather than something intrinsic to the world) did not grasp or respect the interdependency of everyone on each other, and tended to simplify human nature to the point of being a useless and dangerous caricature (people are not good or evil, though their actions may be as defined by their society's values).

This, along with study of a broad spectrum of issues, led to my own philosophy. Government is a group within a society, whose function is to develop and maintain the resources, infrastructure, and social cohesion necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the society. Members of the society support these vital activities in part by following laws and providing material assistance (typically through taxes, people pay for what they use).

The requirement for “social cohesion” is met in a practical sense by the rules, shared values, and common knowledge that conservatives misinterpret as an arbitrary and unnecessary restriction of freedom and dictation of values. “Freedom” is not the ability to do whatever we want to do with minimal interference by others (also defined as “personal responsibility” by those who don't want responsibility for what happens to anyone except themselves). Freedom is the right of all individuals to be represented in the decisions that society makes about itself through the agency of government.

Long-term survival of society tends to be at odds with the increased power of individuals when resources are noticeably limited. It's obvious to me after considerable research that most of the world's most daunting problems, from climate change to war and economic recession, are a consequence of our accelerated depletion of natural resources including (but not limited to) oil, precious metals, fresh water, and other species. Dealing with this situation will require the acquisition of new resources and reduction of waste, with the latter facilitated by the former if we switch to entirely renewable and recyclable resources. Physical and cultural infrastructure supporting perhaps a whole new economy will be needed. In the mean time, remaining resources will have to be rationed, which will necessitate further restriction of behavior. All of these actions duly fall to government - and given the scale of the problem - all governments.

In the unavoidably growing tension between government and the private sector, whose purpose is to enhance the satisfaction of individuals by using what the society collectively owns (and is managed by government), government will need to prevail until the problem is solved. Individuals and businesses can help in a multitude of ways, enabling people to use the remaining resources more efficiently and bringing the new resources into use as quickly as possible. As the growing “green” industry has demonstrated, business is already ahead of the government in several respects, but capitalism's propensity for unsustainable exponential growth must be tamed so that we can all live within our common means.

The rational elements of our political discourse mirror the tug-of-war between the future of society and the power of the individual, represented by the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Although most Democrats seem just as committed to unfettered growth as Republicans, their philosophical focus on the importance of society has given them a clearer view of the need for radical change in our economy and government's legitimate role in enabling it. They are also more likely to change their behavior to further the common good. For these reasons, I believe that they are the best choice for leadership in this critical election season.