A column by a British editorial writer sparked the impetus for this post.  The central premise in this post is a variation upon what he had to say in his column.  He was interviewed yesterday on MSNBC and I found myself nodding my head in total agreement with the argument he was advancing.      

Today's New York Times piece about the role of race in American politics and American society is a deeply disappointing expose of how far we've got to go.  But instead of wringing our hands and lamenting the problem, let's confront the issue directly, all the better to put it aside.    

A color-blind society may never be in the cards for us.  We're too pluralistic a society, for one, and second of all it's an oversimplification to think that even those of us who share the same skin color would think with one voice, or be one monolithic entity.  This is the nation of rugged individualism, after all.  And by this, I aim to emphasize we may simply be unable undo the ways things are and may always be.    

It has become fashionable to lament the high cost of health care and college tuition to name but two services provided to the American public.  Both were never designed to become cottage industries, and yet both have become sprawling masses of inefficiency.  This we know.  This is something politicians have latched onto and incorporated in their stump speeches, but hardly anyone ever addresses the reasons for the increased cost.    

Doing so would force us to confront a few unpleasant realities about these fields, their impact in our daily lives, and just how unruly and undisciplined these industries have become.  It would be wonderful to see a politician speak the truth about these problems, rather than merely reiterating our grumbling without proposing an adequate solution to fix it.

Despite Obama's recent jog to the center, enthusiasm for the candidate remains high.  Though the halo has slipped a bit in the past couple weeks or so, Obama's rock star status remains largely undiminished.  This is particularly in evidence here in Alabama, a state McCain will likely win handily.  The GOP margin of victory may be less then ten percent, the closest it has been since 1976, which was the last time this state went blue and handed its electoral college votes to Jimmy Carter.    

I live in a middle class suburb of the largest city in the state, Birmingham, and the contrasts between the last election and this one are extremely marketed.  This is an area of the country which bought wholesale into the Rovian smear that John Kerry was little more than a flip-flopper and sold wholly into the now infamous 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad.  

It's been a while since I've seen Obama give a mention to his universal health care plan.  Having read through the plan in its entirety on his website, I have to say that I wish it took into account the reality of why medical costs are so outrageously high.  I am aware that an in-depth discussion of the details of the plan doesn't make for interesting sound-bytes and doesn't hold the interest of the American public the way patriotism, terrorism, and economic recovery plans do, but for millions of Americans forced to pay unnecessarily high drug costs, this hits U.S. consumers where it hurts the worst, in the pocketbook.  

Examining the alarmist headlines on the cable news channels has been amusing, to say the length.  All of them amount to some variation of:  "Will the Liberal Base Desert Obama?".  

In a word, no.  We're so used to grumbling our way down to the poll, casting our vote for a wholly uninspiring Democratic candidate in November, that if need be we will act in kind this time too.  But even so, I'm still under the sway of the Obama glow, even if certain segments of the cynical media have begun to question its love affair with the Illinois senator.  As I have maintained before and continue to maintain, politics has some degree of pandering involved and one never truly knows how any candidate will govern until he or she is sworn in and taken office.    

Let it be known up front that I didn't grow up in an uber-patriotic household.  Dad didn't display the flag at the front of our house, whistling an out-of-tune but nonetheless heartfelt version of taps while lowering the stars and stripes at sundown every day.  

I always felt a little uncomfortable in the presence of these deeply flag-waving people, mainly because I grew up in a culture of deeply rooted skepticism.  The extremely patriotic were no different from religious zealots in my mind and even as a child I found it difficult to entertain any sort of trust in elected officials.  I found myself constantly reminded of the evil deeds, doublethink, and unethical methods our government had fostered.  This kind of dubious record was, incredibly, in the same breath, combated by a desperate willingness to mythologize and romanticize the historical impact and lasting legacy of its noble deeds.  

Roger Simon's recent article on Politico, entitled "Obama Not Running as Movement", takes a pointed swipe at many of us here in the liberal base of the Democratic Party.  Those of us who have bristled at Obama's recent jog to the center would do well to remember that whether we like it or not, this country is still center-right in political orientation.

Double standards do exist, particularly in the realm of religious expression, morality, and foreign policy.  The Republican party can be excused far more easily than the Democratic party when it comes to perceived inconsistencies on this issues.  So a certain degree of political compromise is necessary to win in November.    

I read an article yesterday talking about how, for all the lip service this election from both campaign in favor of change and a radical shift from  polarizing policies and politics, this election has quickly become a grudge match along the same lines as the last several.  While the Democratic primary was a reasonably sedate affair, Obama v. McCain went nasty almost immediately after the Illinois senator secured the Democratic nomination and is likely to become notably even more mudslinging by the time it draws to an end in a little more than four months.    

For those of us who love a good political fight and are incapable of seeing politics in any other manifestation, this kind of back-and-forth bickering is much in line with our desires and expectations.  

Having read through opinions on both sides of today's ruling on gun control, it seems as though recent major decisions passed down by the high court fall in one of two major categories:  hard paternalism or soft paternalism.  Hard paternalism draws strict lines in the sand, believing that people cannot be trusted to make proper decision in their own behalf.  

Today's 5-4 ruling that rejects the death penalty for child rapists shows the clear divide not just on the Supreme Court, but in American society in large.  If we needed any further example of how polarized we are in this country, decisions such as these are more than eager to point it out.  If we needed a means to gauge how we have evolved over the centuries, this easily provides it.  

This decision also makes a strong case for the need to elect Barack Obama in November.  A McCain Presidency would swing the balance of the court ever more resolutely towards the right and undermine reform measures passed by what will likely still be a Democratic-controlled Congress.  The majority of American society still favors the procedure, but our appointed and elected gatekeepers have asserted they know better than the rest of us and made the decisions for ourselves.  This authoritarian impulse one either embraces as a necessary means of control or rails against as running contrary to the popular will.    

Often times elections are won and lost not by any forceful show of strength or a resolute offense, but rather by keeping overt miscalculations to a minimum.  The office of President has often been won by the candidate who doesn't necessary make the strongest case to the American people, but instead makes the fewest mistakes.  So if the first few rounds of the Obama/McCain battle royal reveals anything, it's that thus far the Illnois senator has managed to stay away from major problems on the campaign trail.  

Obama has thus far run circles around McCain, who continues to seem old, tired, and out of sync by contrast.  The Straight Talk Express looks like a decrepit museum piece, heavily antiquated and seemingly pulled from a completely different era, one certainly not our own.  In addition, he can't seem to keep his advisers from saying stupid things.  Case in point:  Charlie Black.    

Ever since Barack Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination, it has been both frustrating and interesting to see the way the news media has proceeded to chip away at his reputation as a reformer and as a new face in Washington.  Some of these issues give me reason to pause, but most I shrug off as part and parcel of any politician running for high elective office.

I can understand why few people are willing to go into the meat grinder of politics.  Those who run for elective office can never do much right but are capable of doing practically everything wrong.  Political culture thrives on scandal and negative reinforcement, appealing to the part of us biologically programmed to recoil in disgust at the sinister side of human behavior.  Every press expose seems to be designed specifically to induce outrage and rise everyone's blood pressure.    

Al Gore's endorsement last night in Detroit drew a fresh batch of sharp parallels between Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy and played up Gore's environmental credentials.  This, in and of itself should come as no surprise to anyone.  Prior speeches have seen the Senator from Illinois  bill himself as a cross between Abraham Lincoln and JFK, with a smattering of other Democratic superstars thrown in for good measure.  In a different candidate, I'd see this as empty chest-pounding, but Obama's earnestness and charisma make this characterization seem plausible.  

One also can't help but notice that Obama's massive rallies have the character and the makings of a sporting event, right down to the cheering, chanting, and booing the opposing team at all the right moments.  Gore and Obama both had to interrupt their speeches once or twice to set a somewhat unruly crowd straight a few times. Clearly both enjoyed the intensity of the rally, and the degree of passion and enthusiasm that the people in attendance felt strongly.    

Since September of 2007, I've kept close tabs on the latest poll numbers.  It's been interesting to see the ebbs and flows of the Presidential race, particularly after Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech two Saturdays ago.  As has been firmly established, the election in November will be close, which is why I practically dismiss off-hand (while hoping them to be true, of course) the first few pronouncements that have come in the form of deeply speculative stories---delivered in a tone of cautious optimism each of which give Obama's election in November an air of inevitability.    

We've seen inevitable candidates before, and as I recall, said inevitable candidate ended up in second place rather than as the presumptive nominee, hence the reason I'm inclined to not pay these accounts much mind.  Meanwhile, it seems as though a mild bounce, post-nomination, is the best Obama apparently will receive now that the American people and, in particular, Clinton supporters have had time to digest the reality of the situation.  

The recent 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S. is rightly seen as a victory for those who oppose the hard-line stance of the Bush Administration.  While some believe the decision was merely a corrective to re-establish the role and the scope of the Court, this decision also encapsulates a microcosm of popular opinion.  

Sadly, many people cease to understand the logic of putting terrorist suspects on trial at all, and the most hawkish of them feel as though they should have been summarily executed on the battlefield in a "shoot first, ask questions later" fashion.  Even John Kerry modified his stance against capital punishment by adding an infamous caveat that the death penalty would never be used in his presumptive administration except, of course, for terrorists.  It had the feeling of an awkward campaign pledge tacked on for purely political reasons, and it's one of the reasons Senator Kerry did not win the Presidency in 2004.

After the fireworks of the Democratic primary, this week in politics appeared rather mundane and routine.  Case in point:  the battle over economics and tax code semantics, which as waged by both campaigns over the past several days, produces little more than yawns. Regarding this issue and this pitched battle, each party's well-trod talking points are, if not older than dirt, certainly not any younger.  Even for activists on both sides, playing tit-for-tat with dueling tax systems and the labyrinthian language of said systems is a maddeningly dull fight that only someone with a master's degree in economics could relish.    

What we all might be able to agree upon is that neither candidate--neither Obama, nor McCain, scored a slam dunk in this first round of head to head skirmishing.      

The new batch of rumors swirling around Obama are characteristic of the attacks upon a candidate whose personal dealings and personal life are still unknown among large segments of the electorate.  I myself had to bone up on the details of his life by doing my own reading on the subject and I certainly encourage others to do so if they'd like a truly well-rounded picture of the Illinois senator.  In saying this, I wish more of the electorate would take a far more active role towards responsible citizenship; one hopes the activist example set by Obama and his passionately devoted supporters will encourage more towards similar pursuits  

My hope, also, is that the Obama campaign itself will thoroughly understand that many people will not be similarly inclined towards this degree of hyper-focus, due to time constraints, families, demanding occupations, and otherwise selfish pursuits.