What This Election Means to Washington

There are many firsts about Sen. (soon to be president) Obama. One, above all, stands out to me: Obama is the first anti-war candidate to win the presidency. In the primaries, we were given two options: a candidate that supported the war (Sen. Clinton) or one that didn't (Sen. Obama). We chose the anti-war candidate, a position that has historically lost presidential elections.

In the presidential election, we were again faced with two options: a pro-war candidate (Sen. McCain) or an anti-war candidate (Sen. Obama). We reiterated what we said in the primaries: we want to end the war.

Obama is the first presidential candidate ever to run on the anti-war platform and win (its too early to say he won, but I think its a safe bet). Having said this, it is up to us to make sure that he sticks to his promise to end the war in Iraq (I have no idea how we are going to do this, but I'm open to ideas).

I can't stop thinking about how amazing this campaign has been. Obama first appeared in the national spotlight four years ago at the Democratic National Convention as a keynote speaker. He was then elected to the U.S. Senate and quickly became a popular figure in American politics. Obama announced his candidacy for President of the Unites States soon thereafter (a bold move to say the least). He built a coalition of Republicans and Democrats calling for change in how Washington works and an end to the war. Two years later, he won the presidential election.

I think the message we clearly sent to Washington is this: We are tired of how things are run. We are tired of lobbyists acting against our own interests.

Most importantly, we want the war to end.

One Day Left!!!

I find it really hard to believe that it is the day before the election. The election season has been so long that I almost forgot that we are actually voting for one of these people to be the next president (I already voted absentee so it has felt even less real to me).

There are two encounters I have had in the past week that I think characterize two types of voters that can really annoy me. The first one happened about a week ago. I was helping someone study for a chemistry exam when she noticed a big Obama poster I had hung up. Her response was "I'm a Republican but I'm voting for Nader because they both suck!" As the conversation continued another resident (a McCain supporter) walked into my room. The Nader supporter ended up storming out of the room yelling at both of us "I can't believe you're voting for either of them, they both suck!"

I'm not one to discourage third party candidates. They have made the democratic process more effective by preventing politicians from drifting too far to the middle without the worry of loosing the base. I also completely understand her cynicism (and for that matter encourage it). I would even respect her supporting a third party candidate in many previous elections. However, there is a war going on now. In this war (something people tend to forget) people are dying every day. This election is an opportunity to end a cruel and unnecessary war, if not anything else.

The other type of voter that has bothered me is the kind of person which I have nick named "double speak voters." These people are voting for McCain under the assumption that he is simply pandering to the right wing religious nuts, and, once in office, he will revert back to the maverick (that word makes me cringe now) that he once was. This admittedly may or not be true, but it would send a message to politicians that reasonable people don't care if they pander to hateful people that they don't agree with. To vote on such an assumption is undemocratic (to put it lightly).

Here is how democracy should work (in my oh so very humble opinion): you have the candidates. These candidates make their argument for what they would do and why they think it would work. The people listen to the arguments and vote. The winner becomes the next occupant of that office. In closing, I would like to suggest that it may not require two years to carry out this process. Next time, can we please limit this kind of stuff to six months? I don't think my nerves can take another 2 year election.

The next time a pollster asks you about a candidate's religion, you say: "I don't care."

A recent LA times/ Bloomberg Poll shows that 7% of registered voters in Ohio and Florida believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim. Another 44% in Florida did not know what religion Barack Obama is (that seems like a lot to me). I must admit that a part of me feels like I should not bring it up because it would bring some sort of sense of accomplishment or validity to those who began this smear.

However, I think the reaction to this smear shows a harsh and overlooked reality: throughout this election, Muslims have been demeaned by both Republicans and Democrats in a way that is disgraceful in a country this great. As Colin Powell put it on Meet the Press a few weeks ago: "it doesn't make any difference who you are or what you are, if you're an American, you're an American." What if Barack Obama were a Muslim? (he's not) Should it matter? (no) What if there's a Muslim-American child doing his civics homework who decides that someday he wants to be president? Is someone to tell him: no you can't have your shot at your American Dream because you're a Muslim? (of course not!)

Anytime Obama has been confronted with the question "are you a Muslim?," he has responded with the answer "no I am a christian." In doing so, he has implied that being a Muslim would disqualify him as a candidate. The correct answer to this question (in my oh so very humble opinion) is: "Not that it is any of your business, but I happen to be a Christian. However, if I were a Muslim, there would be nothing wrong with that because we live in a great country where we don't discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs" (or lack thereof for that matter).

So, next time a pollster calls you and asks: "What religion is Barack Obama/John McCain/any other candidate for public office?" you say: "I don't care."

Read more about the poll here

The Best Worst President We Could Hope For

I would like to preface this by saying that this election is not yet a forgone conclusion. There are still many things that Democrats can do to lose this election. It is imperative that we do not get overconfident.

Having said this, I think that we can all pause and take a brief sigh of relief to recognize that eight years of the worst presidency ever is almost over. I must admit that in one major way however, (brace yourself for this) that George W. Bush , the unequivocal worst president in United States history (in my oh so very humble opinion) has been good for the democratic process in this country by unintentionally causing a necessary split in the Republican Party (I know it may not sound like a big deal, but stick with me on this one).

What the Republicans are left with is the group that has been a destructive force for American democracy since their emergence as a major political force in 1980: the "moral majority" (because, of course, they are more moral than those horrible people known as democrats), now better known as evangelical voters. George W. Bush won the election in 2004 by mobilizing the right wing evangelicals and alienating everyone else; John Kerry lost the election by doing essentially the same thing.

With Bush's approval ratings so awe-inspiringly (and kind of amusingly) low, McCain will not win by concentrating only on the base. McCain has been given the impossible task of uniting the Republican Party that Bush divided. Bush furthered democracy (unintentionally, mind you) by dividing the Republicans into the two parties that they really are: the right wing religous nuts, and the understandable fiscal conservatives.

This correction that George W. Bush has made to the Republican Party will change the way Washington works for the better. Republicans from more civilized states (yes that wording is intentional) will feel more comfortable voting against old party lines in such non-issues as gay marriage and flag burning while being champions in understandable goals such as cutting spending and reducing the national debt.

For this reason, George W. Bush, who came into power in 2000 in spite of losing the popular vote (and possibly the actual election), suppressed the rights of gays and other minorities, increased the national debt to unprecedented and unimaginable figures, and performed favors for the rich while throwing the less fortunate into the streets, is the best worst president any country could ever hope for.

Many thanks, Governor Bush (as George Carlin put it, governor is the last position he held legally) for being so incompetent, uninformed, out of touch, and in many cases just plain lazy during your eight long, painful years in office. Through your failures, America has learned much about what they really need in a president, and, most importantly, that they should never elect someone like you ever again.