Liking ain't quite Voting...

So I must admit, I am a social network fiend. I love me some Facebook. I am addicted. I check it far more than is healthy and/or reasonable. That said, I think social media is given a bit more credence in society than I think it is due…Let me ‘splain myself.

I enjoy the social media. It’s a great way to keep tabs on those I care about (a group no larger than 25 peeps) and those I kinda like keeping tabs on, but could honestly could do without (the rest of my 200+ "friends" on Facebook).

While I find it pretty cool to see what that guy I used to skip 5^th period Spanish with, has been up to. I think my life would probably go on without knowing how delicious this acquaintance from high school found a VooDoo Donut. 

*Way to state the obvious, VooDoo is delish!

So I was a lil off-put by a story I found in a (usually) reputable stalwart of journalism, Time magazine.

The title of the article was “Meet the 22-year-old who defeated Bank of America’s debit fee.”

On the surface, the preface was cool enough. A gal, PO’d with big banks (whom collected government hand-outs) charging fees for a service that was previously free, decided to say ‘Enough is enough,’ and started a social media campaign against Bank of America’s new debit fee.

The story (which you can read here) goes on to talk about how the gal used social media to coalesce a group and create an online presence to illustrate how the majority feels on the matter.

Now I am no mind reader, so I cannot be certain of the assertion to follow, but…

Clicking ‘Like’ or ‘I agree’ does not a wholehearted act of support make.

While a form of democracy, joining an online movement takes no real effort or thought. If something strikes you at the moment, all you need to do is click a mouse and ‘make a statement.’

I think such gestures are hollow. And rather lame.

Submitted for your approval, the case of JR’s fake engagement. -- 

I once left my (unpasscode protected) cell phone unattended at a bar…my bad.

Someone grabbed my phone and updated my Facebook status to: “I love my Fiancé!”

Now, I am not currently, nor have I ever been engaged. But I thought it was pretty funny, so much so that I even told the gal I was seeing at the time, that she should like the status, just to make it look believable. 

(Oh what an impairment alcohol is…)

After 30 minutes and double-digit “likes” and/or “Congrats, I am so happy for you” comments, I decided I should put an end to the charade. So I commented, ‘Sorry to disappoint…someone grabbed my phone at the bar. I am not engaged. Yet.’

What blew my mind, and has since shattered my confidence in social media as a voice of the people, were the responses that followed my comment noting that I was not engaged.

At least, 10 more comments and 5 additional likes followed as people didn’t read into what they were liking and just clicked a button.  

Sure, I didn’t help matters by taking steps to make the status look legit. But I think this story illustrates a few things.

First, “Liking” a status is not the same as voting or joining a movement.

Second, the ease with which someone can “like” something devalues the strength of that like. Let me illustrate, think of how much more receiving a text means versus simply getting a “Happy Birthday” comment on your wall on Facebook.

My thought process is like this, “Wow, someone took the time to compose and send me a text, and they may have honestly remembered my birthday.” As opposed to, “Welp, they saw the reminder on the Facebook homepage.”

Third, affecting real change takes action.

I am not devaluing the megaphone power of social media and the internet. But at some point, actors must step away from the keyboard and enter the real world.

While the power of the internet to affect the real world is very strong (see online bullying for example) I worry that people mistake liking a charitable organization with actually volunteering for said organization.

Again, here’s another real world example…

Election season is upon us, and while surfing the Seattle Times web site, I came across a pop-up ad that I really was impressed with- “Getting Married is so Gay. It’s About Time. Redhook supports Marriage Equality November 4^th.”

I immediately shared that ad on Facebook and got more likes than usual and even a share. Which is great, as I was able to leverage social media to share a point of view that I agreed with.

However, that ad was in relation to Referendum 74, which is a ballot measure to legalize Gay marriage in Washington State. So although I have shown support for the cause, to make it a reality requires me to step offline and actually vote. Sure, my post on Facebook may influence others to vote…but there are a couple keywords in that last sentence to pay attention to “may influence others”…the only concrete result from my actions on social media would me my voting for that referendum on election day.

All the likes in the world won’t make that referendum law.

And I guess that is the takeaway from this diatribe- Leverage social media and have fun, but don’t forget to take real effective action when necessary.

And be sure to get out and vote on Nov 4^th!

2010 Election Endorsements

Here are my endorsements for the 2010 Mid-Term Election. I have included my endorsements and those of the two major news reporting agencies in Seattle.

If you agree with my opinions, great! Go Vote!

If you don’t agree with my opinions, OK. But still, Go Vote!

I-1082: Privatization of workman’s compensation insurance
Vote- YES.
Washington is one of only a handful of states with a government monopoly on workman’s compensation insurance coverage. While I agree that government should step-in to provide such coverage when none exists, I do not agree with government freezing-out private competition. It’s time for Washington to modernize and move forward by providing those who are providing jobs some choice in their workman’s compensation insurance provider. The current Department of Labor and Industry is pretty broken-down and offers mediocre service at rather high prices, privatization just seems like a win-win here. Allow the State to focus on governing and not on insuring.

Seattle Times: Yes.
Seattle PI: No.

I-1098: Installation of a State Income Tax
Vote- YES.
Most folks hear “State Income Tax” and run for the hills. I was one of those people. However, I am also one who believes that those who have benefitted from living in the State of Washington should pay their part. This initiative places an income tax on those with an “adjusted gross income” of over $200,000 (individual) and $400,000 (joint). To quote Chris Rock (talking about having to pay alimony in a stand-up routine)- “If I’m making $500,000 a year and the wife wants half, I ain’t stavin, but if I am making $35,000 a year…” That sentiment rings true here for taxes. Forget regressive sales taxes that penalize all and disproportionately take a greater percentage of income from the less-wealthy and tax those who A) can afford it and B) are making money living in the very system that allowed them to succeed.

Seattle Times: No.
Seattle PI: Yes.

I-1100 & I-1105: Liquor Privatization
Vote- NO.
I realize this endorsement flies in the face of my I-1098 argument, but they are different beasts altogether. First and foremost disclosure: I was once employed by the Washington State Liquor Control Board as a liquor store clerk. That being said, loyalty to a former employer has little to do with my decision. Mostly, I like having the state in control of hard liquor. Having worked for the board I know that the clerks are paid well and offered a good benefit package which creates an appreciation for the job that creates a diligence in distribution of liquor that makes me feel safer. I have little faith in some 18-year-old gas station attendant to keep from selling hard liquor to those who shouldn’t have it. Just look at the CWU situation, it was the kids who mixed hard liquor with the malt beverages who got themselves sick, do we really need to make it easier for situations like that to occur? I think the cost of state administration is well worth the safety/oversight provided. And if you REALLY NEED liquor on a Sunday or at every corner store…I don’t think state initiatives are your biggest worry. Simply put, state liquor stores are not that great of an inconvenience and are money fairly well spent, keep them around.

Seattle Times: Yes.
Seattle PI: No.

I-1107: Candy Tax
Vote- NO.
Tax the vices! That has long been a mantra of mine, even before I was of voting age. I have no problem taxing things like alcohol and tobacco, and many folks agree with that sentiment. Candy should be on that list of vices, as it’s an indulgence. Which in and of itself, is just fine, but when done to excess can cause health problems…the same can be said of alcohol and tobacco. Since these overindulgences can cause harm, either financial or physical, to other citizens (be it drunk driving or increased healthcare costs) such actions/products should be taxed. Not as a deterrent, but as a measure to recoup some the expenses associated with the harms these overindulgences can incur. Leave the tax in place.

Seattle Times: No.
Seattle PI: No Endorsement.

Prop 1: King County Sales Tax Increase
Vote- NO.
“Just a lil bit more,” then a few years later, “Just a lil bit more.” Such has been the pitch from King County for years, and years, and years. I remember a sales tax in the 6-7% range back when I was in high school, and now we are looking at a double-digit sales tax rate? Where will it end? Enough is enough. I am normally the bloodiest of bleeding-heart tax-and-spend liberals, but it’s time to say, “No.” It’s time for the county to become fiscally responsible and work with revenue the voters of King County have already granted them in previous sales tax hikes. The economy is too weak and the tax too regressive to be viewed as a viable fix. Look to the long-term instead of reverting to the equivalent of an irresponsible teenager asking the parents for lunch money because they already spent their allowance for the month.

Seattle Times: Yes.
Seattle PI: No.

State Senator
Vote- PATTY MURRAY.
I don’t trust Dino Rossi. I view him in the same light as Tim Eyman, someone who seems to love the political spotlight, yet offers nothing of substance to actually benefit the voters they are asking the support of. Meanwhile Patty Murray has been a steadfast and active representative of Washington State in the “other” Washington. Murray was instrumental in returning the Air Force Tanker contract to Boeing when it had all but been given to a non-domestic company in Airbus. The bulk of this endorsement is based-on a simple dislike/distrust of Rossi, but when you begin to review Murray’s track record, the Senior Senator deserves the job.

Seattle Times: Murray.
Seattle PI: Murray.

Edu-tax-cation

So I came home last week to a piece of mail that surprised me.

No, it wasn’t a delayed-delivery Christmas card with a crisp C-note in it…Darn it.

Instead, it was a ballot.

I had no idea there was a special election taking place and opened the ballot to see what pointless recount/initiative was causing all of the hullabaloo.

Color me embarrassed, but I soon realized the special election was about something I value greatly, education. The election was simple, the Seattle School District offered-up two levies for approval.

On the face, these levies appeared to be the Seattle School District foisting even more taxes upon the over-burdened citizens of Seattle. *I should say, the Seattle School District foisting even more taxes upon the over-burdened Property-Owning citizens of Seattle.

I note that last distinction because I’ve previously been a property owner and now understand what property taxes are. They can be a rather foreign concept to a renter, and my previous stance was to approve any property tax increases as it didn’t affect me…I also think kids deserve books and enjoy paved streets/public transit. So why not approve everything and let someone else foot the bill?

But I digress, as I delved into the nuts and bolts of the levies being proposed, I noted they were not proposing any new taxes, but simply requesting to maintain existing, but expiring levies.

Now that I am back to renting, I am on-board with approving property tax hikes, as long as they make sense. So I am not going to tell you how I voted, but I think you can figure it out. *I will note that even when I was a property owner, I stayed pretty true to my blue-state leanings and usually sided with tax increases, as long as I thought they served a greater good. By the way, Education = a greater good in my book.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. I hate the saying, as it’s pretty cliché, but it’s so damn true. As I hear of cuts to what I consider vital social programs: education, mental health, social services, all in the name of a balanced budget that is anything but, I get a lil fired-up. It is akin to cutting off the nose despite the face.

These programs (education especially) are in no less demand than this time last year, 4, or even 10 years ago. So why are they on the chopping block?

Simple answer- Politics.

Letting a levy expire is a backdoor way of lowering education spending without having to take the PR-hit that goes along with actually cutting education spending.

I’ll grant that every levy is a term-limited proposition. As such, everyone knows the levy will expire at some point. But I see levies as band-aids, not solutions. A levy is a short-term fix as a (hopefully) better long-term solution is researched and implemented.

That obviously hasn’t happened here. And the economy has worsened, so offsets to budget shortfalls by donations from the private sector have disappeared. Which only increases the need to, at a minimum, maintain current spending on education.

Not that any of this matters to me anyway.

I am a single fella with no kids who rents his house. So the tax hike won’t burden me, much the same way letting the levy expire won’t benefit me.

Yet here I am ranting away, Why?

Because a poorly educated populace does no one any favors. Isn’t giving kids a decent education worth a couple hundred bucks a year?

Poor education is not a blue or red issue. It’s a societal issue. Everyone is entitled to the right of being able to “read, write and arithmetic” regardless of political leanings. Kids are not a political token and education is not a place to cut corners, Period.

Maybe forcing senators and other such elected officials to take some of the unpaid furlough days they’ve forced on other lower-level public servants will drive the point home…

The lesser of two evils

As another election season comes to a close I can’t help but reflect on the past couple of years and say: Thank God it’s over!

Being a political junky you’d think I look forward to election season in the same way a fat kid looks forward to dessert, or dinner, for that matter.

But I don’t.

I have become so disillusioned by the process that I nearly don’t vote. (Living in a Blue state like Washington means my vote is pretty worthless anyway.)

I trace it back to the 2000 election. And no, this isn’t going to be a Bush-bashing-if-only-Gore-had-won column. It’s going to be a "this process has hosed me ever since I cast my first vote" rant.

Being 21 in the year 2000, it was the first Presidential election I could vote in. I was stoked. We were that the end of the Clinton Administration, the economy was doing well, 9/11 hadn’t happened and I was looking forward to keeping the good times rolling by electing Al Gore…pre-An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore.

Truth be told, I didn’t dislike G.W. at this point, in fact I said he’s a guy I’d never vote for, but would love to have beers with.

Then came election night. I cast my ballot for the Gore camp and headed home to watch the landslide. States turned blue and I felt a part of something.

Then things changed, states started turning Red and I began to be confused. How can this happen?

By then end of it all, I had cast a vote for the winner of the popular vote, yet somehow the other candidate was President-elect.

Not a great first experience.

Then came 2004, and after my experience in 2000 and Bush’s handling of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, I was ready to vote the bum out of office.

This was the first presidential campaign I paid close attention to. And I was shocked by the ferocity of the campaign ads. From Swift boats to Flip-flopping to national security, instead of candidates explaining who was better for the job, they focused on why the other candidate wasn’t.

I couldn’t fathom how anyone could vote for G.W. a second time, but again I was forced to sit in front of a TV and watch just enough states turn red to give Bush a return trip to the White House.

Burned yet again.

Being a student of politics, I knew beating an incumbent was a long-shot. But what really stuck with me were those campaign ads, from both sides. The same can be said for the ads used during the hotly contested Gubernatorial race here in Washington that year.

I guess ads like these are as much a commentary on the American public as the folks who produce them. I mean, if they didn’t get results, they wouldn’t get made.

Sadly this election process has been boiled-down to winning at all costs proposition. As opposed to a refined exposition of why a candidate is qualified for the position and why they are the best one for the job.

To put this in real terms, when interviewing for a job, you don’t slander other candidates to better your chances. You simply present your case as to why you are the best option for the position.

It’s too bad the same precedent doesn’t apply to the election process.

Instead of keeping things positive, and focusing on their strong points, candidates rely on spin and extort the truth to paint opponents in a bad light. Granted, this is an effective tool for winning an election, but my question is: Does doing so benefit Americans?

Coming out of the battle for the Democratic nomination both Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton had gone so negative against a fellow Democrat that some feared the party was permanently fractured. Fueling fears that Clinton supports would not support Obama as the Democratic nominee for President. Sure, Obama had won, but at what cost?

Folks feared Clinton supporters would jump ship and vote for McCain out of spite.

This game of division, perfected with great success by the Republicans and operatives like Dick Morris in the early 90’s and more recently Karl Rove, must stop. To be fair, Morris was hired as a consultant during Bill Clinton’s presidency, so Republicans aren’t alone in my criticism. All sides are guilty.

I am no longer interested in hearing a candidate speak more about their opponent than themselves. Both McCain and Obama seemed to spend more time paraphrasing each other than actually hitting their own talking points.

Attack ads also should be curbed. Democracy is a special animal and the current trends in campaign strategies only cheapen a noble tradition. It got so bad this Sunday that I turned-off the TV during Football, yes Football, because I could no longer tolerate the vicious attack ads.

So as a reforming political junkie, I will say this. Think about this past election season and how your candidate campaigned. Then consider if they warrant your vote.

I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I look forward to the day I can vote for the best person for the job. Sadly, I don’t see that being an option for a long, long time.

Stop reading this and go vote!

Get out and vote today.

I don’t care which way you vote, just do it.

If you don’t, you have no right to complain.

It's just that simple.

Putting the cards on the table...

Well folks, here they are.

Homer’s Odyssey 2008 Election Endorsements.

Prop 1- Yes.
For far too long the status quo in Washington state politics has been to sit on our hands. Dating back to the early 1900’s the sentiment of “this plan isn’t good enough” has retarded any real evolution towards a comprehensive mass transit solution for the region.

So here we are in 2008 with a plan on the table, why wait longer, allow the need to worsen and costs to increase?

This may not be the perfect plan, but it is a start and something to build from. The roads are still crowded and more busses alone are not the solution.

What is needed is forward thinking and proactive planning. I am not a fan of sales tax in general, but a .5% increase in the sales tax is tolerable.

The time has come to bite the bullet and make it happen.

Prop 1000- Yes.
This initiative is similar to Oregon’s right-to-die law.

While I am no advocate of suicide, I am a staunch advocate of personal liberty and dignity.

This law requires 2 of 3 doctors to approve of the action. Which is enough of a ‘safe guard’ for me.

I hope no one ever has to make use of the law, but that’s wishful thinking. Recent personal experiences have only strengthened my support for this type of law.

No one thinks twice of putting an animal out of its misery when terminally ill or its quality of life is severely limited.

Shouldn’t we extend the same compassion to a fellow human?

I-985- No.
Tim Eyman. Enough said.

Eyman wants to reduce the hours of HOV lane restriction to 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours at night.

Not sure where he’s driving, but rush hour lasts far longer than that. And it’s obvious that adding another lane to traffic does little to solve the traffic mess.

Just another ill-conceived Eyman brain child.

Governor- Christine Gregoire-D
I voted for Dino Rossi last election. I don’t say this often, but I was wrong.

I questioned Gregoire’s character in that first election. But after 4 years, we are not worse off, in some very trying times.

Gregoire has also increased support for social programs which I find very important.

Budgets are hard to manage, especially as tax revenues dwindle, so I don’t knock her there.

But back to character, I simply don’t trust Dino Rossi. His “Don’t let King County steal the Election” billboards which are plastered all over the state speak volumes about his character…or should I say lack there of. We don’t need a divider in Olympia, especially a divider who wants to lower the minimum wage.

President- Barack Obama-D
No shocker here. He’s unproven, yes. And yes, he speaks in broad terms. But when he speaks, he says what I want to hear from my president.

He represents a change from the status quo. Now I am willing to say, change is not always a good thing…But I am willing to take a chance.

He understands that there is a world outside of our borders and our reputation is severely tarnished. And he appears open to the idea of working with other countries to restore America’s previous luster.

He also understands the plight of the working poor. Sure we need jobs, but taxing those who can afford it just makes sense.

His ideas on modernizing our economy and educating ourselves to make the American workforce an actual commodity on the world market again, just makes sense.

I will admit Obama has lost some luster during this campaign, but he remains the far superior choice.

Time-Out!

I gotta admit, I was impressed this week.

As this election has dropped lower and lower on the respectability scale, I was happy to see one candidate put politics aside and put the American people first.

I applaud John McCain for stepping-up, suspending his campaign, putting-off the Presidential debate and returning to Washington to address “the greatest financial disaster since The Great Depression,” and broker/vote-on a bail-out plan.

Wait, isn’t that his job?

Oh right, it is.

Where’s the news coverage when I get up in the morning and slog myself into the office?

How can someone, who is running for President think asking for a ‘time-out’ is a smart political move?

What happens if (please God don’t let it happen) future-President McCain is signing a bill at his desk and the phone rings?

Will he forget what he’s doing?

Will the bill get signed?

Can someone actually call the Oval Office directly?

I can see the sentiment: Put the American people first. I just doubt the sincerity.

The move looks to be more of a political ploy than anything else, especially given the actions of GOP operatives in the state of Michigan, a crucial swing state.

I was recently forwarded this story, which outlines moves by GOP operatives to invalidate many Michigan voters because they have been foreclosed upon. It is gerrymandering plain and simple, as many of the voters being targeted are presumed to be Barack Obama supporters.

Hmmm, McCain suspends campaign to resolve the financial crisis, while the GOP attempts to prey upon foreclosure victims to better his chances of winning in Michigan.

Will the Real John McCain please stand-up?

With his return to Washington to pass a bail-out plan that does nothing to better the situation of the average homeowner facing foreclosure, but benefits the large investment firms on Wall Street who made millions getting everyone into this mess…

I think the real one has.

But back to the ‘time-out’ McCain requested with regards to the debate.

The President, whoever it is, will face numerous tough situations and decisions. And sorry Senator McCain, but they don’t come one at a time.

Asking for the delayed debate shows nothing but weakness and a bit of “Uh, what’s going on?” cluelessness.

Does the issue need to be addressed? Most Def.

Is it McCain and Obama’s job to vote on this bill? Yup.

But both are running for President and both have missed numerous Senate votes during this election season.

I appreciate Obama’s ‘deal with things as they come’ approach.

It’s the response I’d hope to get from a President.

The Fuddy-duddy effect

I came across a piece last week by syndicated columnist George F. Will that got me a little riled-up.

Here’s a link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373230_will03.html

While Will does raise a couple of good points, I think this piece exemplifies why so many older folks are uncomfortable with the idea of electing Barack Obama.

I remember having a discussion with a Hilary Clinton supporter debating the merits of each candidate. And the discussion about Obama kept coming back to one question: “Change, just what does that mean?”

At the time, I couldn’t answer that question to either the Clinton-supporter’s or my satisfaction.

After a bit of reflection I am still trying to come-up with a solid definition, but here’s my working definition.

Change:
- In politics as usual.
- In how America, views/interacts with the rest of the world.
- In what Americans expect from their government.
- Anything but George Bush.

Thank goodness for term limits, the rule hosed us by forcing Clinton from office, but we all win this time around when Bush gets sent packing.

My definition of change seems to really scare older, I mean, more experienced-voters. As evidenced by this snip-it from Will’s column: ”Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities,”

Change is scary, so I understand the knee-jerk “sky-is-falling” reaction to anything new. But I cannot comprehend how someone as intelligent as Will can insinuate that an Obama presidency will be a “calamitous consequences of calamities” when you look at the last eight years and consider his predecessor.

The sentiment is that with anyone but Obama, you are getting a known quantity, which I am willing to concede. John McCain, once the maverick of the Senate, has now fallen into line with the status-quo republican election machine and now looks to be G.W. 2.0. What’s really scary about this new McCain is that he seems to have a bit of a Napoleon Complex. As in, he needs to prove that he is not just a replacement for G.W., but that he’s even tougher on terrorism. I am absolutely terrified to see what “calamity” will come from that.

America has never had its hands clean when it comes to foreign policy. As I’ve noted before, America has been bully to the world. And regardless of the President, democrat or republican, has steadfastly acted in ways that bettered American interests abroad regardless of consequences.

The time has come for that to change.

This is an example of the change that Obama supporters like me are talking about. Obama is willing to talk with other countries. I am encouraged by that. My foreign policy experience is a bit thin, but last time I checked, it’s hard to negotiate when one party has the barrel of a gun in their mouth.

Who knows what will happen if Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez sit-down for brandy and cigars at Camp David. But I am worried where we’ll end-up if they don’t. Just the idea that some of these politically marginalized countries may have a seat at the table will be enough to ease tensions and start a dialogue that will lead away from worrisome rhetoric and possible military action.

Will’s argument seems to be based on the sentiment that the world is too big and one man is too insignificant to make any real change. Perhaps that is experience speaking to my youthful ambition. Or perhaps that is just the cynicism of the elderly looking back on their own wasted life.

Just because you’ve been there and done that, doesn’t mean it’s the only way it can be done. America can elect its oldest President ever and maintain the status quo. Or America can roll the dice on change and elect Obama.

Honestly, I can’t see anyone doing worse than the guy who’d been in office the past eight years. But I’d hate to give McCain a chance to surprise me…

The Magic 8-Ball says: Obama-Edwards '08

I said it a few months ago, but I am going to put it in print today.

Obama/Edwards in ’08.

The last full field debate was when I noticed some sidling on the part of John Edwards. At that point Hilary Clinton was still the “Candidate of Destiny” and everyone was gunning for her.

But what I saw from Edwards was a man also making mends with a former opponent, Barack Obama. Instead of pointing-out why he was better than Clinton, Edwards starting using the word “we” or “myself and Barack” when making points.

I could see the bridge being built from the Edwards side. And while there was little reciprocation from Obama at the time, I think the ticket would make sense.

Obama is an educated black man, from a Northern state, always a problem in the South. And Obama is from Illinois, the very state that brought us Abraham Lincoln, who defeated the South and abolished slavery…all points that aren’t overlooked by many Southerners.

Obama needs to balance the ticket to win the states that are currently going to Hilary.

Edwards offers that balance. He is a white southerner, who comes from a blue-collar family and offers the “picked himself-up by the boot straps to make something of himself” story that all corn-fed hard-working good-old-boys love. Edwards can play the “I am one of you” card to bring those voters into the Obama camp.

Edwards has also been to this dance before. His experience campaigning would be invaluable to Obama, a relative newcomer to the national political scene.

Edwards has also been in the Senate since 1998. Again, adding much needed DC-experience to the Obama campaign. The draw to Obama is that he isn’t a DC-Insider, but that is also one of his biggest knocks with older voters. Edwards, offers a good middle ground, having been in the Senate since the Clinton Administration. Though he now works for a PAC, would could be a tough sell to Obama’s base.

I am no James Carville, but this pairing just seems to make sense. Obama and Hilary have gone too hard at each other in the primary and America simply isn’t ready to elect a Black man & a woman into the presidency.

I think the pair would make a good team, with Obama’s ideas and Edwards experience. They could not only win the election, but may just make some changes.

Choices, Choices...

I haven’t decided who I am voting for in November.

I have decided who I am NOT voting for: John McCain (though I do like the guy) and Christine Gregoire (mostly because her last name is so hard to spell).

This Obama character is damned engaging. I heard an interesting observation on NPR about Obama the other day. Something to the effect of “He’s the first politician in a long time to actually talk to the American public like they are adults.”

That struck a chord with me.

I remember seeing a speech by a then unknown Jr. Senator Obama at the 2004 Democratic National convention. Obama was introducing former President Bill Clinton, my personal political hero…and Obama overshadowed Mr. Charisma himself. My eyebrow raised and I took note of this kid from Illinois.

It’s been a very long four years since that convention and the world has become an awfully scary place. I think we are all going to feel the effects of “BUSHwacked” foreign policy for many years to come. The one thing I’ll commend Bush for, is that he openly acknowledges his actions in the Middle East, which is much more than I can say for every President before him. At least Americans are now aware of why the rest of the world hates us so very much.

But back to Obama, it’s easy to get distracted from looking to the future when dealing with our present. But this Obama kid says that he’s the future. I’m not sure what it is about these kids from Chicago, Kanye West calls himself the future as well, wonder if the two hang at the same coffee shop or something.

But I think the two represent parallels to each other.

Granted, one is a politician and one is a hip-hop artist. But both men represent people who made their own way in careers that are very regimented and not prone to change. They saw the archetype for success in their industries and not only ignored it, they changed it.

West refused to conform to the standard-issue rapper persona that the industry demanded for success. He did his own thing, created his own sound and ended-up winning a Grammy.

Obama is very much the same. First off, he’s black. I am not sure how many of you watch C-Span, but most politicians aren’t black. Yet Obama managed to make his own way in politics.

Not only is he black, but he’s young. And in the glad-handing, you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours, institution of American politics that is strike number two. Obama isn’t the golden boy he’s been made-out to be as he’s seen his share of defeat. But he’s managed to learn from mis-steps and has progressively moved toward the goals he’s set for himself.

Even if I don’t vote for the guy, I do respect his tenacity and intelligence. Obama is bringing the same confidence and intelligence that made West a hip-hop star to politics. He’s making politics interesting and intellectual again. As a political junkie, I love him for that. I could never write this much about John Kerry and I voted for that fool.

If Obama is as smart as I think he is, he probably doesn’t want to win this election.

The state of our great nation is not so hot right now. And if Bush is a lame duck, whoever wins in November is going to be a scape-goat for the quagmire that will be the legacy of the Bush Administration.

This is where I begin to have my doubts about Obama. He is a great speaker and a man with great ideas. But I wonder how much fluff can actually become reality.

America is ripe for a change and this may just be the time for a paradigm shift. I realize that I am now knocking Obama for the very thing I have been praising him for…being different.

Should I vote for the status quo (Bill, I mean, Hilary Clinton) because they can actually do something at a snails pace? Or do I roll the dice and hope that Obama can deliver on half of what he’s promised?

I must say that I was extremely impressed by Obama’s recent speech on race. His willingness to finally discuss the ‘elephant in the room’ of race exhibited a fearlessness and boldness that has been lacking from American politics for a long-time. His speech was not only eloquent but fair.

He, of all candidates represents hope for change.

I guess the question I need to answer is, Am I ready for that change?

Perhaps that’s a question we should all be asking ourselves.