Yes We Can: A Letter To My Unborn Child

To my unborn child:

As you read this, the story of President Obama is indelibly inked into the nation's biography. The audacity of Obama is as much a part of the American story as the honesty of Lincoln, the courage of Washington, the vision of FDR. The phrase "Yes We Can" is as ingrained in our lore as "four score and seven years ago" or "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Three words. So simple you may miss their importance. But at the time he first spoke them, they were nothing short of revolutionary.

When President Obama was still a young and exotic candidate, he got beaten pretty badly in a primary race by a powerful opponent. Some people were shocked. Some said it proved the doubters right. Many predicted he would never recover. But he was undaunted. And on a frozen New Hampshire night, he looked into the eyes of America and said "Yes We Can."

With those three words, this man we barely knew, who looked different and had a name we couldn't pronounce, touched the very core of what it means to be American. America responded because those three words are in our DNA, and watching this man speak, we had no doubt that it was true: Yes We Can.

President Obama was born at a time when many African Americans were still unable to vote. He was raised without his father, and at times there wasn't enough money for food. Many mornings, when he lived overseas, he had to wake up at 4:30 in the morning to study, just to keep up with American children his age.

He succeeded by being fearless and focused, graceful and true to himself. As a community organizer, Harvard lawyer, Constitutional scholar and state and federal senator, Barack Obama followed his heart. He worked for others. His vocation always followed his passion.

When he ran for president, Barack Obama was advised to wait. It was not his turn. He was inexperienced. He couldn't handle it. Then, when he became successful, he was attacked from every angle - some said he was "too black." Others said he was "too white." Some feared he was too conciliatory to those who disagreed with him; others accused him of being too partisan. Finally, people resorted to spreading lies and calling him every name in the book. But Barack Obama was calm, confident and clear about his purpose. He never got distracted, he never rushed, he was never guided by anything other than his own moral compass.

Like President Obama, you too will be judged unfairly. You will be embraced by some and rejected by others based on the color of your skin, the way you speak, or the clothes you wear. You may be labeled too young, too old, too short or tall or simply misguided. Some people may even try to dictate how you worship or whom you love. You will lose before you win.

And when you encounter those doubts, setbacks, even ridicule, you will understand the power of those three words.

Yes We Can means you will never be denied opportunity. Nothing will be out of reach. Yes We Can means you are not alone in your journey. If you listen to others, you will achieve more together than separately. Yes We Can means audacity and ingenuity beat inertia and trepidation every time.

Yes We Can prompted your great grandparents to risk everything and come to this country, weather the Great Depression, and prosper when the odds were against them. Yes We Can enabled both your grandfathers to face down death in a foreign war even as many in their homeland had disowned them. They never accepted failure as an option, they never stopped loving their country, and they never stopped believing in those three words. Yes We Can belongs to you because you've inherited it from all who came before you. You are the soldier, the businessman, the farmer, the teacher, the explorer. You are an American.

Americans dream big, follow-through, solve problems, and never quit. Americans are not always right, but we are resilient - we can change. Americans have a plurality of beliefs, but we hold these three words in common: Yes We Can.

As of this writing, your mother and I haven't met you yet - we haven't seen the color of your eyes or smelled your baby skin or heard your laugh - but we know you. And we know that every question has just one answer: Yes We Can.

BREAKING NEWS

BREAKING NEWS: Sources indicate that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. The name, which runs in the Obama family, is also the name of former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Many prominent pundits and political analysts have faulted Senator Obama for his middle name, pointing out that his decision to be named Barack Hussein Obama is an undeniable indicator of his terrorist sympathy.

Barack Obama spent a portion of his childhood in Indonesia, where his middle name helped him feel at home among the nation’s 200 million Muslims.

"I remember playing with Barack when we were nine years old," says Buana Bati, a childhood friend. “All the older boys held their sticks like they were guns and would scream 'death to America!' We weren’t quite sure what they meant by that, but Barack was never bashful. He stepped forward and said 'my middle name is Hussein!' He was immediately accepted in their group."

Upon returning to the United States and later matriculating at Columbia University in New York City, Barack Obama kept his middle name a secret. "I was determined not to let them know my true identity," Obama wrote in his memoir, Dreams From My Father. "Once they heard me utter the name Hussein, I knew my secret would be out." Casual students of the Arabic language may know Hussein to be a common, secular name that means "small, handsome one;" but to Al Qaeda operatives and old jihad hands, any utterance of "Hussein"” is no less than a battle cry.

"In Kandahar, where I grew up, there is a saying," said Nuri Al-Sadr, a recent immigrant to Dearborn, MI; "when Hussein inhabits the White House, the blood of the infidels will run in the streets like water." Mr. Al-Sadr, looking over his shoulder, then added, "of course, no one from my family has said this."

As the general public learns the truth about Senator Obama’s middle name, the reaction has been mixed. Many fervent supporters of Obama’s are unfazed. One such supporter, 21 year-old Kathy Rowlands from San Jose, CA, says "I just know he’s the One. And the Bible tells us that, when the Messiah returns, we may not know him. He may look like Jesus, he may look like Moses. I guess this proves that the Messiah is returning as Mohammed."

Others are less forgiving. Steven Williamson, a pipefitter, life-long Democrat and staunch Hillary Clinton supporter from Philadelphia, PA, shook his head from side to side while wiping a solitary tear from his eye. "I knew it," he said. "I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. From the first time I saw him, debating Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, I said to my wife, I said 'that man right there is a terrorist. And he’s going to bring down our country, sure as I’m sitting here.' Well, I hate to say I told you so."

Obama's Keys To Winning Tonight's Town Hall Debate

With one presidential and one vice presidential debate behind us, a pattern is emerging: each time, the Democratic candidate has come to the table armed with facts and policy proposals, while the Republican catered to pundits and the public with an amalgam of attitude and atmospherics, colloquialisms and avoidance-by-way-of-personal-anecdote.

And in tomorrow's town hall meeting in Nashville, John McCain will be on his home turf. McCain's been described as the "master of the town hall," and Nashville may present his last, best hope of wresting the momentum from Barack Obama. Rest assured, he'll be in fighting form.

Obama, who has been criticized by opponents for being "aloof" and "professorial," may have his work cut out for him. But his laid-back, unflappable demeanor and his down-to-earth lifestyle create an excellent opportunity to connect with the voters in the room and those watching on television. Here's what he needs to do to capitalize:

• Keep it short. Like Al Gore and John Kerry, Barack Obama is a victim of the Progressive's love of policy nuance. The Harvard lawyer may love building and presenting a case, but he'll be speaking to "ordinary Americans" - likely white, working class, and skewing older. He'll need to keep his responses short, pithy and punchy. This is no secret, and he's pulled it off plenty of times, so there's no need to worry; but he'll have to keep it in mind the whole time. Even one belabored answer risks losing the audience for good.
• Make eye contact. And not just with those in the room. Obama should split his time between speaking to the crowd and directly to the camera. In the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday, we all witnessed the contrast between Sarah Palin's eyes staring through the screen and Joe Biden's, cast downward as he addressed moderator Gwen Ifill. Obama will be wise to remember that the people he needs to win over are on the other side of the camera.
• Get a move on. We've all seen Obama in town hall meetings, half-sitting, allowing his comfort with the constituents to create a relaxed, personal atmosphere. Even seated, his presence still commands attention. But this doesn't translate as well on camera. By contrast, John McCain is a mover. He prowls the stage, cracking jokes and addressing his "friends." In the context of the emerging campaign narrative, this contrast can serve Obama well - Obama the cool hand versus the jumpy and erratic McCain - but he must be careful not to cede control of the room. Obama has an advantage standing next to the shorter, stooped McCain, and as he walks with his languid stride, even stepping into the audience to connect with questioners, he can remain the singular focus for the entire 90 minutes.
• Yes, words matter. Obama often uses clinical language, referring to "the middle class." In more populist moments, he opts for "folks." But in informal town halls, he must go a step further, into the second person. I'd like to see him directly address a questioner, or even the television audience, with "you." I'd like to see him ask a follow-up question of those in the audience, put full names to anecdotal characters, even tell stories that extend beyond the campaign trail, into his personal life. The majority of undecided voters are not bigots or cynics - they're just waiting for him to invite them in.

Obama has every advantage a candidate could ask for, and Tuesday night may be his opportunity, not just to extend his lead in the polls, but to upset the undisputed champion of the town hall meeting.

[Cross-post from HuffingtonPost.]

Voting Democratic for the First Time in 50 Years - Profile of an Obamacan

Jo Anne Morse is a 67 year-old retired schoolteacher from Florida who, in nearly 50 years of voting, has never voted for a Democrat. In the interest of full disclosure, she is also the author’s mother.

In 1968, as a military wife with a toddler son and a husband overseas, she voted for Richard Nixon. In 1984, she scoffed at Geraldine Ferraro’s groundbreaking candidacy and voted for Reagan’s second term. Even in 2004, amid an unpopular war and darkening economic skies, she never gave a second thought to supporting George W. Bush’s second term.

So why the sudden change of heart? Simple, she says. She looked around her and realized that, in the words of Barack Obama himself, the stakes were just too high to do the same thing and pray for different results.

The following is a brief interview conducted last week.

You’ve been voting for 50 years. Have you voted Republican in every election?
I have, yeah. All my life, growing up, my parents were always Republicans and I thought that was the thing to do – and here I am, 50 years later! I made my decision differently this year.
Why did you decide to switch this year?

I started listening to what he said, and I was always impressed with the way he ran his campaign. He had people all excited about him – he talked about what they should do and they could do, and it was very exciting to see people thrilled about his candidacy.

I feel like he encourages people to do something – to be more than they are. I think he’s trying to get them up.

The Republicans have said so much in the campaign – that he’s such a liberal senator, and he’s just so left. But I keep thinking to myself, I don’t think he is.

They say “you don’t know somebody till they’re in office, he may raise your taxes,” but I don’t see that.

Are you concerned that he’ll raise your taxes?
Well, he says that he’ll give tax breaks to 95% of the middle class. So I’m not concerned that he will.

Do you feel like we can trust him to do what he says he will do?
Yes, I feel like we can trust him. Once he gets into office, I know he’ll have a lot of people around him pulling him one way or the other. But I feel like he’s a good person and an honest person, and I trust his judgment to do the right thing.

Does Obama address the issues that are important to you in this election?
I think he does.

Do you feel like he understands what’s important to people?
I think he does. He comes from working with the people in Chicago, trying to help them, and I think he’s in touch with people’s needs. We don’t all have the same needs, but I think he wants to help people and get them going.

I decided to vote for him because he has an understanding of what people are going through, and he can find answers for that. I just had a feeling of trusting him and believing that he could do it.

Is he able to find solutions to those problems and bring them about?
He is. He’s obviously a pretty smart guy, and once he gets into office, I think he could find an answer or find a way to an answer for whatever needs to be dealt with.

I’ve sat here watching him on the campaign and – I guess when I think about it, I’m surprised that I’ve gone Democratic, but I feel like he can be trusted. And I believe what he has to say about the war.

You like Obama’s position on the war?
Yeah, to get out. There’s so much on the other side [Republicans’ Iraq positions] that I used to think. But it’s so ridiculous, how long it’s gone on and how many bad things are happening. A lot of people have been lost, and all the money they’ve spent to get this thing right. And maybe now that the violence is down, maybe…

I just thought, well, maybe Obama has the answers. Everybody seems to have come to that point [phased withdrawal] by now – except McCain. I don’t know that McCain is right, either.

What other issues in this election are important to you?
Well, I’m concerned about all the talk of climate change. I think that’s got to be dealt with one way or the other. And I think if we could bring people home from the war, then we could get settled to take care of things here in the US. And I think that’s what we need to do right now.

Jo Anne used to joke that she couldn’t figure out how she and her husband – both socially conservative, fiscally conservative and politically conservative – had raised two liberal sons. Her youngest (yours truly) would respond “you taught us to have an open mind, to care for the neediest among us and to consider the options carefully.” This year, she took her own advice.

About those "Fundamentals"

On Monday, amid one of the most significant and far-reaching financial breakdowns in half a century, John McCain declared, again, that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." And the Obama campaign jumped on him like he had said "death to America." The gleeful way the Obama campaign reacted made it clear they believe they’ve got their Ace in the hole.

But as any poker player will tell you, an Ace does not a winning hand make. It’s part of a winning hand, but the other cards must fall into place as well.

Ever the Warrior
It’s no secret that McCain is weak on the economy and out of touch with the needs of the average American. But the "strong fundamentals" line wasn’t born of naïveté. It was the result of an old political instinct, something drilled into him since his days in the Naval Academy: project strength.

We know that John McCain’s world view (what Sarah Palin might call the “McCain Doctrine”) revolves around his military background, and his comment on the economy was no different from a statement on an advancing enemy: "We’re strong. We’re prepared. We will win."

McCain sensed that the American people, in a time of crisis and with no incumbent in the election, might be more interested in finding solace than in placing blame. And being reassured by a three-decade Washington veteran that "the fundamentals of our economy are still strong" can go a long way toward placating certain voters.

The Change We Need
Meanwhile, Obama has been hammering him for said out-of-touchness. With the $520 loafers, the multiple homes and the images of McCain golf carting with Bush 41, this label has a good chance of sticking. And if Obama can seize this opportunity, he’s got the election in hand.

But he won’t win this issue by arguing a negative. To establish himself as a leader with Presidential mettle, he’s got to offer the American people – in simple, specific and no uncertain terms – "change we can believe in." Bold leadership on this issue will not only score him an electoral victory, it will cement him as the type of "out-of-the-wilderness" savior many of his supporters believe him to be. A press conference, a bold plan and a groundswell of support among economists and pundits will be his domestic version of the Brandenburg Gate.

Obama mustn’t allow this to turn into a war of which candidate is less out of touch. Obama has gained some ground with his attacks on McCain’s gaffes. Now he needs to pivot toward the positive – toward the future. And in so doing, he’ll find that his winning hand includes a pair of Aces.

Hothead McCain

Over on TalkingPointsMemo, David Kurtz brings up the Obama camp's new line of attack branding McCain as a "reckless hothead," and asks "does it have a chance of working?"

I say the answer is yes - it has a chance of working. I'm not saying it will work, and I'm not saying it's the best message ever. But it has a definite chance of working, for a few reasons.

First and foremost, it's consistent with the way the public already views McCain. Other memes, which should be more damaging - the Bush III meme, especially - require a bit of swimming upstream. For years, McCain has held the title of Maverick in the eyes of the public and the press. And, while he no longer deserves that title, it will take a lot to convince low-information voters of that fact.

Whereas, with the trigger-happy meme, it goes in lock-step with everything we know about the man. Even what we (and by we, I mean the press & the electorate) like about him. It is one thing that is consistently true all the way back down the narrative line. Now, Obama doesn't have to trot out a bunch of Phillip Butlers the way the Swift Boaters did in '04 or talk about the C-word if he doesn't want to get his hands dirty. There's plenty of poorly chosen one-liners, Senate floor tantrums and Iraq War grandstanding that will do the job just fine.

And secondly, it subtly ties McCain in with Bush - in a way that's much more effective than hammering home "Bush's Third Term" over and over again. It's effective because it plays on the same emotions - the war fatigue, the sense that Americans are dying for our president's (vice president's?) whim.

If Team Obama gets this point across, then the only card McCain has available to him will backfire sensationally. Every time he tries to talk about judgment, experience, the 3am phone call, he will be undermined by his own carefully-nurtured narrative. At least, there's a chance of that.

Contractor Clinton vs. Architect Obama (To Win the Working Class, Obama Must Speak Their Language)

Earlier in the campaign, I used an analogy to illustrate the difference between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each see a car for the very first time. Hillary opens the hood and asks “how does it work?” Barack gets in the driver’s seat and muses “where can we go with it?”

The analogy was meant to describe their divergent approaches to government: Hillary the policy wonk vs. Barack the big-picture reformer. But as Senator Obama struggles to wrest the fiercely loyal blue collar vote from Senator Clinton, the analogy takes on new meaning.

Beyond the Clichés
For all the clichés of identity politics – the racial divide, the generation gap, the culture wars – the pundits have missed a more fundamental distinction. Call it forest/trees, process/product or left brain/right brain – these are the true differences between the two candidates, and they’re reflected to a T by their supporters.

Demographers are fond of pointing out that Obama is a hit with college-educated populations, while Clinton retains her base of union workers (despite Obama’s near-monopoly on union endorsements) – and the quick translation into economic terms seems like a no-brainer. But “Bittergate” notwithstanding, the causal relationship has been overstated: people don’t support Obama because they’re rich and no one pulls the lever for Hillary simply because they're poor.

There is no logical, policy-based reason for “down-market” Democrats to prefer Sen. Clinton to Obama any more than there is for gun owners to. Hillary’s personal narrative contains little class struggle and her policies are certainly no friendlier to the working man. (In fact, Hillary’s reticence to move the cap on Social Security tax suggests more sympathy for the upper middle class.) The difference between the two lies in how they draw their conclusions and, more importantly, communicate them to voters. Some people respond viscerally to broad calls for sweeping change. Others demand specific, concrete, policy-oriented solutions: what does it mean for me?

While the blue collar/white collar distinction provides a convenient shorthand, it rings true in a manner that goes well beyond income level. By and large, blue collar jobs are tactical jobs. They’re focused on the individual elements that make up a whole: building, assembling, diagnosing, repairing. People who devote their lives to these pursuits are tactical thinkers, they break a mission down to its inherent steps and proceed incrementally.

Architects vs. Contractors
Nowhere is this distinction more apparent than in the construction industry. Architects, famous for their lofty plans drawn up in air-conditioned offices, face a disconnect when trying to communicate with contractors. Unless the architect comes to the table armed with a comprehensive understanding of materials, man-hours and job specs, the architect and contractor quickly arrive at an impasse. The artist’s rendering may be beautiful, but without a sound tactical plan, it’s meaningless.

Similarly, Barack Obama’s rendering of a new American architecture sounds gorgeous, but until it’s translated into a concrete roadmap of steps that directly affect Americans it’s, well, just words. Taking on special interests sounds nice, but how does that fill our tanks with gas? Sure, we’re in favor of bringing our country together, but we also want to bring our kids to college.

So, while Obama shows off his working-class bona fides by recounting his days organizing steel workers or reliving his modest single-parent upbringing, he misses a golden opportunity. These voters aren’t interested in whether he is rich or poor (voters tend to assume candidates are rich, regardless); they may not even want to know whether he can relate to their problems. All they want to know is how he will solve them. He’s already won over the architects, now it’s time to work on the contractors.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. CONVENTIONAL WISDOM

It’s bound to go down as the persistent narrative of this campaign: time and time again, the Conventional Wisdom has been proven wrong by the efforts of the candidates and will of the voters.

The current Conventional Wisdom holds that the longer the Democratic primary continues, the worse it is for the Democratic Party. But this “Wisdom” may be as faulty as Hillary’s “inevitability” argument or the post-mortems that streamed in after Iowa. In fact, this battle royale could prove beneficial for the Party as well as the eventual nominee, thanks to the abundance of free media, favorable focus on Democratic policy issues and training effect this extended race will have on the eventual winner.

It may sound like a stretch, but improbable scenarios are the hallmark of the 2008 Democratic primary.

De facto incumbents
A common concern is that Democratic fundraisers will face dry coffers in the general election, having tapped every resource during the primary. But here’s where the Fourth Estate comes into play: free press.

Our national obsession with this primary has made Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the most common images on news desks from coast to coast. If ever two campaigns didn’t need free press, it’s these two –record-breaking fundraisers with seemingly endless reservoirs of cash. But this year the press is free and copious. The Democrats monopolized pre-Super Tuesday coverage: even a certain spouse garnered twice as much airtime as the top Republican newsmakers, and Sen. Obama alone won more coverage than all Republicans combined.

In this incumbentless election, Democrats’ dominance of news broadcasts makes them the most familiar faces in America – de facto incumbents, if you will – which gives them a clear advantage.

Re-framing the discussion
Even the politically-averse can’t avoid being bombarded by Democratic talking points or ad-nauseam dissection of minute policy differences. With the Republican race effectively concluded, coverage of Republicans – and therefore Republican ideas – is secondary.

When the main event features two senators of converse personalities but nearly identical voting records, minor policy differences are magnified – and the gap between them becomes the middle. To the extent that voters adjust to this new politics, they, too, tend to move in that direction.

The result is an inadvertent reversal of something master political strategists such as Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove spent years to create as they endeavored to frame the discourse in such a way that Democratic ideas seemed unviable and irrelevant. But as we agonize over which healthcare plan is truly “universal” or which candidate will most zealously punish corporations, over tax hikes for the rich or bailouts for the working class, and over who will remove forces from Iraq the fastest, these ideas get mainstreamed.

Buoyed by a near-complete collapse of the Neo-Conservative agenda, Democratic policies are emerging from the shadows. From the environment to the economy to foreign policy, American voters are giving progressive ideas a good, hard listen.

The wild card phenomenon
Finally, no exercise in handicapping would be complete without a sports analogy. It’s no secret that a political campaign is a lot like a football game, won with an impenetrable defense, a brutal ground game and incremental advances into an opponent’s territory, ultimately building that all-important momentum.

Sports fans will attest that teams emerging from hard-fought contests often perform better in their next round than teams that have rested or coasted to victory. As dramatically witnessed in last month’s Super Bowl, where a wild card emerged victorious over the most successful team ever, it turns out that rest & relaxation are no match for consistency, precision and stamina cultivated by ongoing competition. And few campaigns demonstrate more clearly the importance of timing and momentum than this 2008 Democratic primary.

Heading into the general election, many predict that rest and wagon-circling will do Republicans good. But Democrats would be wise to consider the 2007 NFL season and the triumph of the wild card.

American voters, rabid sports fans that we are, love a good upset – especially if it means overturning the Conventional Wisdom. After all, the only thing we know is how much we don’t know; the only constant is change. And isn’t change what Democrats seek in 2008?

Of course, as we approach “Mini-Tuesday” on March 4, Conventional Wisdom maintains that the race is nearing its end. Which, according to the narrative of this primary, may bode well for Sen. Clinton. And, more importantly, for the Democratic Party.

BARACK OBAMA, YOUR REASONS

That first post was long and filled with the platitudes you've heard ad nauseam over the course of the primary campaign, and I can tell by the look on your face that you're not convinced. You want to know what he's done.

Let's get to it. His time as a community organizer in Chicago is not to be scoffed at. Having spent four years as a community organizer on the none-too-mean streets of Olympia, WA, I can say that it's real work. At times, it's not work at all, it's (to borrow a term) a fight. It's not easy, glamorous or self-serving – especially for an Ivy League grad who would go on to be President of Harvard Law Review.

Barack has run more political campaigns and held elected office for longer than Hillary. He has taken tough political stands that bucked the establishment and special interests. In notoriously corrupt Chicago, he passed ethics reform; he authored and passed a law monitoring racial profiling and videotaping interrogations… and still won the Police endorsement. As a result of his bill, the Washington Post named Illinois "one of the best states in the nation on campaign finance disclosure."

In the Senate, he has passed 19 bills, to Hillary's 10. When he stormed in, trailed by Hosannas, the Senate leadership tried to put Obama in his place by saddling him with a veritable minefield: ethics reform. He authored a law requiring lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who bundle for them. His bills have championed economic reforms, consumer safety, energy and the environment. This post is a very level-headed look (it's titled "I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype") at Clinton and Obama's Senate records, side-by-side. It's long, but enlightening.

Lastly (and I'm sorry, again, if you're tired of hearing this), what's most important and telling is what he didn't do: support the Iraq war or vote to support Bush's preparation for war with Iran. The most crucial quality a President has is judgment. Whoever is elected President will face issues that he or she has never faced before, that no amount of time on either end of PA Ave. can prepare them for. There will be intelligence, there will be advisors, there will be demands of every type of action, but ultimately, the President will exercise judgment.

Every Presidential victory and misstep that we can name through our history – from the LA purchase to recovering from the Depression to every one of our wars and scandals – have boiled down to judgment. I believe the judgment Obama has exhibited to this point, along with his international appeal and progressive post-boomer perspective, are just what we need to restored the United States to a position of leadership.

OK, I've said enough. I hope I didn't overwhelm you or come off as preachy! Now it's back to integrated digital marketing solutions...

BARACK OBAMA, MY REASONS

OK, so. Let's kick this thing off.

Barack Obama. Let me start by saying that there seem to be two schools of thought about the Presidency: the President as leader and the President as chief executive. I think this cuts to the heart of the debate in the Democratic Party right now, and illuminates the utter disbelief that seems to be coursing through Clinton camps these days (even though Bill was more former than latter).

I recently told a friend that if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama saw a car for the first time, Hillary would say "how does it work?" Barack would say "where can we take it?" And my decision this election is based on my deep concern about where we're being taken.

Let me say that there is no doubt as to Hillary's immense ability as a lawmaker and politician. She's clearly gifted and brilliant and I don't think anyone - even those on the Right - will disagree. But she's also terribly divisive. Forget for a moment the numerous questions about shady backroom deals. Forget the more practical consideration that Hillary Clinton seems to be the only thing that can get Republicans to polls this November, and think about the broader picture. Can we really afford another 51/49 electorate leading to 8+ more years of culture wars? We are at a crucial juncture in our history, and the only way to move forward on the environment, restore our standing in the global community and comprehensively overhaul domestic institutions like Social Security, education and (currently non-existent) healthcare is through a broad coalition, working together with common goals. There's nothing starry-eyed about that, it's pure practicality. We need these people on our side, behind our nominee.

But back to the starry eyes. To be an Obama supporter is to believe that the majority of Americans do share these common goals, and the way to bring about change is to work together to solve them. To be an Obama supporter is also to believe that the hard work ultimately falls more to the citizenry than the government, and inspiring people to take an active role in their government is the best thing any leader can do. As such, to be an Obama supporter is to be proactively engaged.

I find it baffling (and, sure, a bit maddening) when people say with such pride that Hillary is a "fighter." A fighter she may be (putting aside, for a moment, instances where she declined to fight for labor unions or a 12 year-old rape victim), but what if all of us fought these battles? Over 1 million people have donated to Obama's campaign. 10,20,30,000 people show up to hear him speak, many inspired for the first time by a politician.

While Hillary may be a fighter, Obama is creating new fighters. This new wave of civic pride and engagement is, quite frankly, the only thing that can save the United States from the brink of irreparable decline.