Today, we elected Barack Obama the forty-fourth president of the United States of America.

Some people are ecstatic. Some are satisfied. Some are disappointed. But whatever our particular viewpoints may be, we can all agree that this is a historic and inspiring time for our country. We’ve seen people who’ve never paid attention to politics register and get involved. We’ve voted in record numbers. And, of course, we’ve elected the first African-American President of the United States of America.

I’ll write more after a good night’s sleep, but for now I’ll offer a simple continuation of a theme we’ve seen for awhile now: hope. Sure, it’s a theme that’s been picked on and undercut by naysayers, but I think we’ve seen today that hope has power. Hope can be so strong and so compelling, and we can want it so much, that it becomes palpable. Hope became palpable tonight in the millions of people gathered today in long lines, and tonight in parks and bars and living rooms around the country.

It’s ok for hope to be a defining element of our country. In fact, it’s probably crucial. And no matter who we supported before today, none of us have anything to lose by having hope for tomorrow. 

In his speech tonight, Barack Obama reached out to all those who did not vote for him. He asked for their willingness to work with him for a better country. Of my many hopes tonight, one of my greatest is that Americans will rise to this occasion, take the opportunity to embrace hope in all its risks and rewards, and reach back.

This election is groundbreaking and historic. We are all well aware of the obvious reasons for this–first black presidential candidate, first female VP on the Republican ticket–but there are others. And some of the reasons are less cause for celebration than for caution.  For one, this election marks the moment when cynicism and fear came to be viewed as virtues. 

It used to be that those who made decisions based on the worst of reasons–fear, bigotry, ignorance–kept their voices low and spoke of their opinions only within the familiar walls of their own living rooms. The intrinsic sense of shame that accompanies certain statements–namely, uninformed, unfounded, hateful statements–prevented those who made them from publicly declaring them. People seemed to understand the general idea that, if someone challenges your opinions or beliefs, it’s best to have facts and rational thought to back you up. Contrarily, it’s a bit hard to defend yourself when you rely mainly on fear of the “other,” incendiary rumors, or false information. So those with the least-defensible, most ill-begotten opinions most often kept quiet, not because others demanded that of them, but because of a very basic instinct: fear of embarrassment.

Yet this election seems to have encouraged many to wear their fear, bigotry, and ignorance like so many badges of pride. Sentiments that were once whispered or circulated only among the closest and most like-minded of friends and family are now outrightly and confidently stated in public. There has emerged a noticeable sense of impunity and righteousness among people who put forth opinions regardless of their truth, fairness, or rational basis. Sadly, we have seen numerous instances during this election in which ignorance has been not only tolerated, but outright supported and encouraged. 

McCain-Palin Rally in Ohio

To be sure, we have seen ignorant and ridiculous comments from all sides during this and past elections. But this phenomenon is happening on a scale that most certainly has not been seen before. This is not one or two people from the fringes who have happened to get in front of a camera. This is a trend that has emerged with a particularly alarming virulence in the course of this election.

McCain-Palin rally in Pennsylvania 

It should be obvious that I am not implying that all who do not support Barack Obama share the sentiments of these people. I am aware and respectful of the fact that people have well-informed, rational, fair reasons for choosing not to support the democratic nominee for president. The people in these videos don’t speak for most Americans. I acknowledge that.

But that does not mean that we should pretend not to notice when groups of people become more and more comfortable making false, ignorant claims, designed to fan flames of fear, in public. Brazen statements devoid of substance and fact are not impressive or courageous; those who offer them should not be encouraged. 

We should all–each of us–examine our own ideas about virtue and vice. What is really deserving of our cheers, hurrahs, and email forwarding button? Statements like those in the videos here? Surely not. Though it seems that increasing numbers of Americans would have us believe otherwise, it is not a virtue to be ignorant, in this election or ever.

General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under George W. Bush, endorsed Senator Barack Obama on Meet the Press Sunday morning. The endorsement by the high-ranking, widely-respected Republican for the Democratic nominee marked another unconventional turn in an unconventional election.

Powell’s endorsement came a little over two weeks before the general election, and it remains to be seen to what extent it will sway American voters as the last of them make up their minds in the countdown to November 4th.

Though the impact of Powell’s endorsement may still be a matter of speculation, the reasons for it are not. In his explanation of the reasons for his support of Senator Obama, former Secretary Powell highlighted at least seven reasons for his choice, from his disagreement with McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, to his support of Obama’s “inclusive, broader reach” as well as his “steadiness…and depth of knowledge.”

In his endorsement, Powell gave voice to concerns that many average Americans have expressed in recent months, as they have watched the McCain campaign seem to lose focus and polarize the electorate. Like Powell, many Americans I know were frustrated with Senator McCain’s response to the economic crisis, and took comfort in Senator Obama’s measured, reasoned approach and continued focus on the economy as the most important issue for Americans. Like Powell, many I know were alarmed by McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as the person to run the country should he not make it to the end of his term, and again took comfort in Obama’s choice of Joe Biden to fill that same great role.

Yet the most powerful moment of the Powell’s endorsement didn’t come with any of these points, however well-reasoned they were. It came when Powell shared his own moment of truth–what he experienced when looking at a photo essay in which a woman is grieving at Arlington Cemetery, with her head on her son’s grave. Her son was an American-born citizen and solider who was killed in Iraq; he received medals of honor for his service; he was fourteen years old at the time of the 9/11 attacks and enlisted in the U.S. army a few months after he graduated from high school. Her son, Kareem Rashad Sultan Kahn, was also a Muslim.

This mother was at the grave of her son, a man who was an American, a soldier, and a Muslim. These characteristics are not mutually exclusive. And the recent insinuations that “Muslim” is synonymous with “terrorist” and “evil,” that “Muslim” should used as an insult and a disqualifier, that being Muslim means not being an American, grossly and shamefully misrepresents what this country is all about.

For me, this part of Powell’s explanation cut right through the tit-for-tat distractions that are present in any political campaign. This was a simple and necessary reminder of our humanity. In some ways, it seems that this election season has caused some to disregard the founding premise of our country: all of us are created equal. Even during a heated election, we should never lose site of this most essential principle, as this is the idea that made our country great in the first place.

The United States of America is not supposed to be a place where everyone holds the same beliefs, practices the same religion, or shares the same facial features or skin color. It is supposed to be a place where anyone has a chance. It is supposed to be a place where it simply isn’t ok to use a person’s religion as an insult. For me, and–I hope–for many, Colin Powell’s words on Sunday morning helped remind us what it really means to be an American.

At about twelve minutes into last night’s debate, I stared in wonderment at the television. Is this finally him? Is this the real McCain?

I had the sensation of watching a real debate–face to face, back and forth. And that sensation persisted through much of the hour and a half of this third and last presidential debate. The format was close-contact, with the candidates sitting at a table with moderator Bob Schieffer. The questions were honest and sometimes tough, the moderator, persistent. 

As the debate went on, the real McCain seemed to come and go; nevertheless it was a more authentic performance out of the Republican nominee than we saw in previous debates. Barack Obama seemed at times to be playing it a little safe, but was consistent in presenting himself as the measured, cool-headed candidate that we’ve seen in each debate thus far. By the end, a clear victor had emerged, though: Bob Schieffer.

Early Zingers

We saw some good lines early in the debate. As McCain threw out the old line about Obama voting twice to tax people making $42,000 a year (for the record, untrue), Obama strived again to set the record straight, reminding McCain that this false claim has been widely disputed. “Even Fox News has disputed it,” Obama finished. Sure, this gave more fodder to Fox fans. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t funny. 

But McCain gets the award for best zing of the night. In response to Obama’s regular comparison between the Republican nominee and George W. Bush, McCain looked his opponent in the eye and laid it all out: “I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.” To be fair, this opened up an opportunity for Senator Obama to put out his own zinger, pointing out all the reasons he equates John McCain and George Bush (McCain’s “vigorous support” of Bush’s “tax policy…energy policy…spending priorities”). But McCain’s line held its ground as the most memorable of the night.

Red Meat

Without much delay, Bob Scheiffer went there, bringing up the fact that the campaigning has of late taken a distinctly negative turn. Most notably, the McCain-Palin campaign has adopted a line of personal attack against Barack Obama that many, including myself, argue has incited hatred about brought out the worst in some of McCain’s supporters.

McCain’s response was to focus Representative John Lewis, a man who is not associated in any way with the Obama campaign. Lewis recently came out against the McCain campaign tactics, drawing a comparison between its recklessness and incitement, and the violence incited by George Wallace’s campaign in 1968. McCain said his feelings were hurt by this, and that Obama should repudiate Lewis. McCain went on to say that he did not condone personal, hateful attacks, yet, in the next moment, asserted that he was proud of the people at his rallies. McCain then brought up Bill Ayers, ACORN, and (almost) the kitchen sink, interrupting Obama the whole way through. In this part of the debate, Senator McCain became, before our very eyes, an accusatory, angry man who had lost focus on the issues that are vitally important to the American people.

Though I’m not sure how he managed this, even in response to this, Barack Obama took the high road. He clearly and honestly explained any associations that McCain brought up. He refrained from mentioning McCain’s “associations,” such as his good friend Godon Liddy, a convicted felon and documented encourager of violence against the government. He refrained from mentioning that, just a year and a half ago, McCain gave a favorable, supportive speech in front of that very organization–ACORN–that he now derides and blames Obama for associating with. Obama then went on to list his real associations: Warren Buffett, Paul Volcker, Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, General Jim Jones.

A Turn

By most accounts and polls, McCain’s personal attacks against Obama fell flat when the Democratic nominee chose to answered politely and honestly and address the real issues that matter to American people. As the debate turned to issues of trade, McCain shifted to an approach we’ve seen before, with a slightly patronizing tone designed to make Obama seem naive. “I admire Senator Obama’s eloquence, but words matter,” stated the Republican nominee in reference to Obama’s understand of the issue of free trade. It was a virtual pat on the head and pitying stare. 

Frankly, I’m surprised by this approach ever time I see it out of John McCain. Quite simply, attacking Senator Obama’s “eloquence” doesn’t work very well, because it is exactly that trait–Obama’s skill with words–that allows him to come right back and undermine the implication that he lacks understanding. Beyond that, his eloquence often allows him to add a deeper dimension to a discussion that exhibits knowledge and a true understanding of the issue. In this case, McCain implied that Obama didn’t understand free trade issues with South American countries. Obama responded by addressing political and national security issues in Columbia and Peru in a way that someone who lacked understanding simply would not have been able to pull off. His eloquence did not indicate that Obama lacked understanding, it demonstrated that he possessed it.

Red Meat, again

Late in the debate, Bob Scheiffer, continuing to demonstrate himself as the most skilled debate moderator of this election season, turned this discussion to Supreme Court appointments and Roe v. Wade. The question to the candidates was, “Will you consider appointing a Supreme Court justice with whom you disagree on Roe v. Wade?” 

McCain’s response was that he would “not impose a litmus test” on any candidate for the Supreme Court. He went on to say that he would judge a potential appointee based on their qualifications. To follow up, the moderator asked for clarification, asking Senator McCain if that meant that he would seriously consider appointing a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court. McCain’s response was that he would base his decision on a person’s qualifications, but that being pro-choice would effectively make a judge unqualified. Anyone who carefully followed McCain’s logic saw that his real answer was that, no, he would not consider appointing a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court, because he would consider that person unqualified.

Toward the end, the debate took an ever-so-slightly softer turn. There was a hint of reconciliation, as Obama agreed with a few of McCain’s points on education, and vice versa. 

The closing remarks saw each candidate remind voters of the reasons they feel they are best-qualified to lead us. McCain referenced a “long line of McCains” who have served this country. Obama focused on making an outright promise to the American people to work “tirelessly” every day of his presidency to make the world better for them, and for their children.

All in all, the most authentic debate we’ve seen yet.

If two teams in a competition follow different rules, I’m not sure that anyone can win. Even if there can somehow be a victor, it is bound to be a messy, maddening affair.

This is what is happening with twenty-odd days to go before the presidential election. The McCain campaign seems to have created one set of rules for John McCain, and another for Barack Obama. Here’s how.

McCain Rule #1: You are responsible and may be implicated for every action ever taken by anyone you have ever served on a board or committee with

The McCain campaign announced their new rules with one name: Ayers.

As messenger, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has delivered dozens of speeches in which she uses Bill Ayers to raise questions not only about Barack Obama’s motives, but about who the democratic nominee for president even is.

The argument from McCain and Palin goes as follows: Barack Obama and Bill Ayers served on the same board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Also, Ayers, thirty years after ceasing his despicable ways, and many years into his post as a professor at a respected university, hosted a fundraising meeting for Obama toward the beginning of Obama’s political career. Thus, according to the McCain-Palin logic, Obama is “palling around with domestic terrorists” and can’t be trusted.

The major logical flaw here is this: The Annenberg Challenge was a non-profit organization whose goal was to promote public school reform in Chicago. Its parent organization was founded by a woman named Leonore Annenberg. Leonore Annenberg is a vocal supporter of Senator John McCain.

So, just to make the irony and the connection clear: a prominent endorser of Senator McCain created the education foundation that had Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (as well as a number of Republicans) on one of its boards. Were the number of Republicans on that board, and is Leonore Annenberg herself, “palling around” with Bill Ayers, too? Or is Barack Obama the only one who is guilty by association?

There’s also the very troubling issue of a few of John McCain’s past associations. There’s McCain’s “old friend” Gordon Libby, a felon who spend years in federal prison for his part in Watergate. There’s McCain’s associate Ralph Reed, a key figure in the Abrahmoff scandal. There’s McCain’s associate Carl Lindner, Jr., a man who gave approximately $1.7 million dollars to a paramilitary group that is now designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. By McCain’s Rule #1, we should question and doubt John McCain for each of these shady associations. Because he knows and has worked with these people, he should be held responsible for their actions.

Doesn’t John McCain see that, if a candidate is not only judged by but inextricably linked to anyone who has ever hosted a campaign event or provided major political support for him, then that leaves McCain himself linked to a convicted felon, a figure in one of the highest-profile political scandals of the decade, and a supporter of terrorism?

McCain Rule #2, as recently adopted by his staunch supporters: If anyone you have ever associated with has unsavory, despicable characteristics, then you yourself share these unsavory despicable characteristics

McCain’s Rule #2 has been applied most liberally to Obama’s associations with Ayers and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. To be clear, Ayers’ stupid, unpatriotic actions should be denounced; this is obvious, and Obama has said so on a number of occasions. Similarly, Jeremiah Wright should be called a fool for his anti-American rants and offensive, hyperbolic rhetoric. Again, Obama has fully separated himself from Wright, and from every anti-American comment this man ever made (even those he made when Obama wasn’t even in the congregation).

Yet this rule requires us to further abandon reason, and believe not only that Obama is guilty by association, but that he actually shares the same characteristics and opinions as any unsavory person he has ever been associated with. McCain’s Rule #2, in spite of being illogical and unfair, has clearly been embraced by some of his supporters, as evidenced by the shouts of “treason!” and “terrorist!” after Barack Obama’s name is mentioned at McCain and Palin rallies.

Did Sarah Palin need to renounce the pastor who made absurd accusations about an Alaskan woman and warned congregants about the dangers of witchcraft, while Palin herself was not only in attendance at the church, but called up on stage as a participant? Would John McCain assert that, because Sarah Palin sat in church and listened to this man, she herself must share his opinions?

We can also go back to McCain’s friend (McCain has called him that) Gordon Liddy. Liddy is most well-known for spending four years in prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, but his less-reported behavior is arguably the most troubling.

McCain’s friend Gordon Liddy has asserted that listening to recordings of Hitler’s speeches made him feel “a strength inside [he] had never known before.” Liddy proposed kidnapping anti-war activists during the 1972 Republican National Convention. His documented advice to Branch Dividian cult members about how to fight the law enforcement officers trying to stop them in Waco was: “Give them a firefight. Just remember, they’re wearing flak jackets and you’re better off shooting for the head.” Shooting for the head of members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms who were trying to protect innocent Americans. That certainly constitutes promoting violence against the government.

Has McCain renounced this Gordon Liddy for encouraging violence against the government, for his participation in Watergate, for his idolization of Adolf Hitler, or for his proposal to kidnap Americans exercising their right to free speech? He has not. In fact, McCain has called Liddy “an old friend,” and said to Liddy on his radio show recently, “I’m proud of you.” McCain has accepted $1000 in campaign donations from Gordon Liddy this year alone.

That should be bad enough, but McCain Rule #2 leads even further. McCain has applied this rule to Obama on a regular basis, so let’s see what happens if we apply it to McCain.

By McCain’s own rule, McCain not only “pals around with” convicted felons who in their past have plotted and incited violence against the U.S. government, McCain himself has plotted and incited violence against the U.S. government. By McCain’s own rule, because one of his associates wanted to shoot government officials in the head, so too does John McCain want to shoot government officials in the head. By McCain’s own rule, because he knows Liddy, McCain must sympathize with every past or present bad deed done by Liddy, and thus McCain must also draw strength from Adolf Hitler and advocate the kidnapping of dissenters. Treason! Terrorist!

Does the absurdity and unfairness of this argument make your skin crawl? It should.

McCain Rule #3: This rule does not apply to John McCain or Sarah Palin

Well, shoot. Never mind, then. Silly me, thinking that John McCain’s own rules should apply not only to his opponent, but to him as well.

I am the last person who will say that we shouldn’t ask questions of each other and of our leaders. We have every right to seek information and to hold our candidates accountable, and to keep pressing at those gnawing questions until we are satisfied. That is one of our responsibilities as voters.

Yet an equally important responsibility is to be fair enough to ask those questions of both sides, and to accept that some questions may not lead to the exact answer we were hoping for or that will help us make our case. I don’t maintain that every question Americans have asked about Barack Obama has led to answers that cast him in an ideal light. But for the sake of fairness and honesty, we should acknowledge that the same is true of many of the questions Americans have asked about John McCain.

In a divided and frustrated country during what is by all accounts a difficult era, I bet most of us can all still agree on a few things. Like when we set rules, the rules should count for all players in the game. When we set standards, it is only right to apply those standards to everyone equally, and to give honest due to the truth we find, whether is applies to friend or foe.

It may sound quaint, but I think these ideas go all the way back to pre-school for me. It was there that I learned a pledge–one we made every day, to our country, and to each other. That pledge is about the most fundamental elements of America, like one nation, indivisibility, and liberty. It ends with an idea that is as important now as it has ever been: justice.

Justice for all.

Taxes

Obama on McCain: McCain ”proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he’s going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth.” Further, ”McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts.”

McCain on Obama: ”He wants to raise taxes,” including on the middle class. Further, ”Obama has voted 94 times to either increase your taxes or against tax cuts.”

Being Responsible with Your Vote