Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on being named the next president of the United States. Yours was a well-run campaign, aided by the help of countless passionate supporters. You successfully captured the heart of the American people, currently so eager for the change and hope that they believe you can bring. You have already brought about one change: you will go down in history books as our first African-American president. It is yet to be seen what other changes will come with an Obama administration.

To that end, in spite of a long campaign in which you fought hard to reach the White House, the real challenge will begin in January when you take office. You have a healthy ego right now; this is understandable given your incredible victory. But despite becoming (arguably) the most powerful man in the world, yours is a position that requires the humility of service. You will be the ultimate representative; not representing a district or a state, but representing and serving an entire nation. With great power comes great responsibility, and you have a responsibility not only to your supporters and those of like minds, but also to the (nearly) half of the country that was not convinced. There are blue skies over my home state and yours, but a great part of this nation remains bathed in red.

When asked the seemingly benign question, "What does this election mean to you?" I have trouble giving an uplifting answer. I'm sure a lot of voters (53?) are able to use the words of Obama himself to respond, saying that it means "change we can believe in" or that it represents hope.

The fact that this election is historic is not lost on me. That our next president could be someone who in the not so distant American past would not have been able to vote demonstrates huge strides in seeing all men as truly created equal, in terms of race. That is an ideological victory not to be overlooked. And yet, when judging a man not by his race but by the content of his politics, there are so many other ideological issues that, if triumphant at today's polls, I cannot view as victorious. My lack of support for Obama does not mean that I do not want change; in fact, there are many things that I would like to see changed in this country very much. I want to even hold onto hope that the next president will bring these changes to the White House. But "change I can believe in" is not, quite frankly, what this election means to me.

In effort to get a more positive response to report on (and blogging ideas), I decided to ask my husband his thoughts on what this election means to him. This is, after all, the man who answered the question (posed by one of my seventh grade students) "Are you Republican or Democrat?" with a diplomatic, "I serve my country and my commander-in-chief, regardless of political party." He thoughtfully responded to my question by saying that for him the issue in this election has been one of who would do the least damage to the country. He says that the American people don't want to be at war anymore, and he can't say that he blames them - my husband has served two overseas tours, one in Iraq - but that in the process of desiring that change, he fears that we are crippling ourselves, robbing ourselves, blinding ourselves. His vote represents his desire to hold on to some of the rights that came with the founding of this country - earned prosperity, guns, individualism.

I too fear that we have blinded ourselves. America wants change, and it is clear that we are willing to overlook quite a bit in the name of that change. We are willing to overlook inexperience, radical ties, inconsistent positions, blatant media bias, unrealistic idealism, unprecedented campaign funds and spending, and the like (all issues independent of party platform positions themselves) for the Messiah, the One who says the things we want to hear. It is not unlike how people felt in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929; it was inevitable that Herbert Hoover and his party would not be welcome in the White House - although a recent History Channel program has given me the impression that history has given the man more of a bad rap than he deserves.

But there is still hope, even for Republicans like me. Obama will be faced with the reality of domestic and international issues currently challenging our nation when he takes the oath of office. He will have to adjust to the challenges, and not all of Obama's policies that I take issue with will come to fruition. We are fortunate to live in a democratic country where I have a voice and will again have a voice in four years, because we live free of dictators and despots. I have faith and hope that my opinion still matters.

Go figure - even for me, this election does come down to hope.

Presumptive president-elect Barack Obama (the polls may differ in their closeness, but all of them - even without counting the younger, cell-phone-only generation -  show him ahead, so I'm not harboring any delusions) "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," according to his press secretary. On this, it seems that he would disagree with quite a few of his powerful supporters in Congress (and the UCC, of which Obama's home church is a part).

Many on the right (and in the libertarian camp) fear such a reinstatement because one of its targets would more than likely be conservative talk radio. Under the doctrine, views expressed in such an outlet would have to be balanced by "progressive" views.

But many congressional Democrats, as well as members of the "mainstream" media, seem to have very little interest in "balancing" other outlets. In Arianna Huffington's book, Right is Wrong: How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America, Shredded the Constitution, and Made Us All Less Safe, she writes:

"A key to understanding the fanatical Right's takeover of the Republican Party and how these ideas spread to the rest of the country is looking at the role of the media - not the Fox News pseudo-newsmen or the talk radio blowhards - but the respectable, supposedly liberal media. Without the enabling of the traditional media - with their obsession with 'balance' and their pathological devotion to the idea that truth is always found in the middle - the radical Right would never have been able to have its ideas taken seriously. If not for the media's appeals to balance, movement conservatism would have been laughed out of the court of public opinion long ago."

It is hard for me to take someone seriously who does not acknowledge that there is plenty of "public opinion" out there - including a number of oft-shunned Democrats - that favor a pro-life position. That Huffington feels it is the media's duty to silence a view that she believes is so obviously wrong (and therefore must be) is very telling, but it's not like she can make it so - she's "only" a journalist and not a member of Congress, right?

I often overlook local election issues in favor of presidential races and state propositions - and my guess is, many people do the same. Despite receiving a "Voting Guide for Republicans" in the mail each election, I do my research on the issues rather than blindly fill out my ballot with the guide's recommendations. (I do wonder sometimes how many people use political party guides as command rather than recommendation. My recommendation is do a little research on an issue or don't vote on it at all.)

But researching local candidates is often tedious. Here in Vista, we are electing Vista Unified School District governing board members. And I do care - aside from working towards being a public school teacher myself, I may one day have children in the Vista Unified School District - but even after looking over candidate bios, I find few meaningful ways to distinguish the candidates.

Elizabeth Jaka is a "community volunteer" who seeks to "provide quality educational programs that will give our children the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century." Sounds great! Steve Lilly is a retired educator who wants to see "increased student learning" and assessments that "provide teachers and principals timely data on student performance" (what a concept - tests that indicate performance). Also noble! Angela Chunka wants to give students access to the latest technology and close the achievement gap - no argument here! Stephen Guffanti and Eileen Fernandez want to see students reading and writing English at grade level - a no-brainer, right?

The likely prospect of being led by President Obama come 2009 ignites excitement in many. For me, though, it is a cause for fear - especially in light of the current economic crisis. My household doesn't make $250,000 per year, so according to the Obama camp, I should have no taxation worries. But what does it really mean to "spread the wealth"?

Heads up: I'm about to make reference to ACORN. And while it's not pretty, it's certainly not swiftboating, in part because I'm not going to try to connect the disturbing wave of recent voter fraud to Obama. I'm going to assume that he not only knew nothing about it, but also that he does not endorse it. No, I'm going to bring up ACORN because it can tell us a lot about what Obama stands for. In his words, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career."

Among the issues ACORN fights for is one that has contributed to the current dreary economic landscape. According to ACORN's housing website, it has previously been involved in projects in which "homebuyers have qualified for loans as low as $82,000 and payments as low as $850 per month," with claims that "families with incomes as low as $26,000/year have already purchased homes." Essentially, ACORN (in support of the Community Reinvestment Act) puts extreme pressure on banking institutions in an effort to secure loans for persons who are typically unqualified for such mortgages by normal bank standards. Sound like the type of irresponsible policy that could later backfire with detrimental economic repercussions, including perhaps massive subprime debt and mortgage foreclosures resulting from banks lending recklessly? Well, it's only the tip of the iceberg of harmful economic action that Obama would engage in.

Last night's presidential debate was decidedly... unenlightening and boring. Although the town hall format could have brought something new to the table, the game remained virtually unchanged. McCain had a tough job to do, as he entered the debate nine points down in the polls by some reports. Many Americans are now scrutinizing Obama more closely in light of the view that he is the more probable future president, and this is something McCain could have capitalized on - but he didn't, at least not as much as he could have. Both candidates presented their positions rather well, but this is old news - especially when Obama seemed to avoid directly answering questions in favor of steering the debate towards prepped talking points. Important issues came up, but the responses given could have been directly taken from campaign speeches. In what turned out to be a highly conventional debate, we heard the candidates reiterate their positions on health care, taxation, Iran, Russia, and energy. There remained much divergence and some agreement. The economy and current economic conditions were understandably a time-consuming focus.

But despite the need to address the economy in light of significant changes that have taken place since the last time the candidates faced off, I think Tom Brokaw could have made some more interesting decisions regarding question choices. When citizens, and not journalists, are given the opportunity to ask the questions, fascinating issues are bound to come up - and we can get a unique insight into our politicians' characters and lives. In this debate, however, if you agree with Obama's positions, you probably felt like Obama won; likewise, if you went into it a McCain fan, you more than likely believed him to be the winner (case in point: both the FoxNews on-screen poll following the debate and the Drudge Report online poll declared McCain the winner). Did it do anything for the undecideds? I've made up my mind, so I can't be certain, but my guess would be that it didn't do a whole lot in terms of issues.

But maybe the spotlight wasn't on the issues. Maybe the goal was to see the next president being, well, presidential - a goal both candidates succeeded in. Obama was comfortable, said things a lot of people want to hear, and presented himself as empathetic. But as McCain repeatedly brought up, it comes down to rhetoric versus record. So keeping that in mind, and in light of this rather promising debate format that failed to live up to my hopes, I've assembled a list of my own questions, specifically for Senator Obama. Some of these contain issues that I wish McCain had brought up, and some require more than a two-minute response, so poor Tom needs to stop looking at the timer.

While certainly all eyes (including mine) will be on how Sarah Palin performs against Joe Biden's extensive foreign policy experience in tomorrow's vice presidential debate, I'm counting on the Democratic candidate for the entertainment. There's no telling what he might say - maybe something along the lines of, "You cannot go into a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent"? Maybe he'll remind us that "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America"? Or perhaps he'll continue to damage his own running mate's campaign by contradicting it directly through the claim that "we're not supporting clean coal". Hey, I'd even enjoy hearing one of his more baffling comments, like the statement that his wife having a doctorate is "a problem". I hope, though, that he can refrain from asking a paraplegic man to stand up for all to recognize. It is fortunate that debates, by their nature, are unscripted - I'd hate to see Biden have to forfeit his vice presidential run due to plagiarizing the speech of a British politician. All in all, I'm looking forward to Biden being Biden - and glad that it will be on national television, for all to see. (This, of course, Biden can liken to FDR's television appearance in 1929. Oops.)

Since it can be difficult to discern sarcasm in print, let me just explicitly state that I am not being sarcastic about being entertained, plain and simple. Before all the die-hard Biden fans out there attack me with comments galore and eager defenses, let me just emphasize my genuineness - I think he's a hoot! In the words of Nancy Pelosi (although in all seriousness, I don't agree with her brushing off Biden's awkward joke about his wife), "lighten up!" When you believe, as I do, that this election is about choosing the lesser of two evils, there is a serious need for some comic relief. And although Stephen Colbert is helpful, he is no substitute for the candidates themselves - one of whom, might I add, has visited 57 states, with one more to go.

I've become very interested in academic performance at local public schools, primarily due to my teaching credential program. Last week, I stepped onto the campus of a middle school in the San Diego Unified School District to observe a seventh grade social studies classroom. Anticipating my first truly "urban" school experience, I braced myself for some of the challenges described in my textbook. Twelve-year-olds wearing gang colors. Unruly kids disrespecting their teachers. Eighth graders reading at a third grade level. Despite attending the school made famous by Dangerous Minds, I do not feel that I had ever experienced this.

Instead, I entered a classroom with kids seated quietly at their desks, working on a warm-up activity in which they hypothesized some of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire. And the great majority of them seemed not only engaged, but to be coming up with reasons that demonstrated higher-order thinking skills and a deep understanding of historical events.

Does this experience point to the success of San Diego schools? Does it demonstrate that unlike the typical urban school described in my textbook, the school I visited suffered none of the challenges commonly present in the public schools systems of metropolitan areas? Contrary to research and popular belief, was this class of 36 proof that a smaller student-to-teacher ratio is not necessary?

Unfortunately, no.

Matthew Dowd, who led President Bush's campaign for reelection in 2004, recently told the New York Times that "The only things that are going to change the equation of the election are the four debates." This is due to the plethora of partisan and biased media sources that the public is confronted with every day. As Dowd pointed out, "The average person has 90 channels. They get all the dot-coms. They all get a newspaper. There is so much flow of information that they just begin to discount it all."

And for that, we can breathe a sigh of relief, although I fear that Dowd might give the average person too much credit in saying the media will be depreciated. But if the most influential factor in this election will be the candidates' own voices - through debates and interviews - then I hope the moderators and interviewers will break with the improprieties of the past several months and truly give both sides an even playing field.

I'm sure that every tribute imaginable has been proffered in the name of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and yet, seven years later, it is as important as ever that this event not be minimized. Like so many cataclysmic crimes, we often can immediately call to mind a visual of the perpetrator (be that Osama bin Laden, or, more tragically, a group of generic Middle Eastern-looking men) but not the victims. Memorializing this event without politicizing its context seems difficult. Even in its immediate aftermath seven years ago, when I attended a candlelight vigil in UC Berkeley's Sproul Plaza, it took all of five minutes and two speakers before the tone of the wake became one not of remembrance, but of blame: our nation, the great Satan, was the true terrorist. Through our actions, we had invited our own demise; the terrorists were acting out of centuries of mistreatment and injustice.

Without exonerating the crimes of the past, which perhaps can never be truly redeemed by future generations anyway, I'd like to suggest that we put aside our political differences and remember the lives that were lost on that fateful day. Many have commented that the attacks ushered in a new era; and certainly, our strategies have changed in light of a new type of threat. But maybe this kind of evil has always existed; only the tools and methods of carrying it out have changed. Perhaps many of us have similar aims - to reduce the injustice in the world - but different ideas of how that plays out in everyday life and politics. The fact remains that seven years ago, nearly 3,000 people died in an act that cannot be justified, no matter how much self-hatred some desire to pour into it. Among the 3,000 victims were children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, those with aspirations of greatness, those with potential that hadn't yet been truly realized. Families still suffer because of the senseless killing that took place on that day. So on this day, rather than focusing on the plethora of conspiracy theories in existence or on refuting them, I propose that we save that for tomorrow. Today, let's ponder the tragedy of a life prematurely ended, and value the ones who are still with us.