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.

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?

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.

I don't know about you, but this past week has worn me out.   For the first time, I understand why people jumped out of windows after the stock market crash of  '29.  When I was a kid, and heard those stories from my grandparents, I would think, "How silly, they could have just started over."  Easier said than done, unless you are looking from the vantage point of a child, or a young adult just starting out, or a politician with a generous salary, guaranteed health insurance, and a lifelong pension.

Many of us have watched our own pensions, investments, and retirement funds dwindle away in a matter of hours. Personally, I'm just grateful that my three girls are out of college.  We were able to help them in a way we probably could not today.

During past recessions, raising three children, I was so broke I had nothing to lose. (I know...I should of said, "Sorry kids...no dinner tonight. Mom and Dad have decided to save for retirement.") But around the age of 45, terrified by a barrage of articles from economists telling me I should have started saving in my 20's, I decided I had better get serious about saving for old age.  I developed a plan, and stuck to it as best I could. When I started investing in the stock market, I reinvested profits rather than take them, even though there were capital gains taxes to be paid.  "Building for the future", I thought.  Boy, that was stupid, because now those profits are gone...evaporated, so that means I paid taxes on money I will never see. 

Many sleepless nights crept by this past week, as I tried to decide what to do. Should I liquidate the remaining stock I held, or "ride it out" as they say.  I watched the news, compulsively scanned the Internet, called brokers, listened to the worried talk of friends, eavesdropped on strangers, channeled Jim Kramer, and Suze Orman.

Progressing into the self-abuse phase...."I should have seen this coming", I yelled at myself. I could have pointed my fear and frustration toward my husband, who knows a lot more about investing than I do, or my banker daughter ("Why did I spend all that money sending you to business school if you can't give me any advice?"), but that felt really, really scary. Finally, by Sunday, my head was spinning and I had made myself sick with worry.

Waiting for the Congress to act on the bailout, trying to understand what a bailout would mean, wondering who would actually be helped by the bailout, listening to the partisan fighting, watching the panic on Monday, I finally cracked.  

The Bush Administration's plans for a speedy bailout of Wall Street seem to have hit a speed bump with a Congress possessing a newly installed spine, or at least a sense of curiosity about what they're being asked to approve. The administration's proponants of the plan are being compared to used-car dealers and there are reactions of disgust and distrust from both parties in both houses of Congress.

Senators McCain and Obama both gave speeches today outlining their problems with the plan. McCain broke his objections down to five points, where Obama focussed on four. I was particularly happy with Senator McCain's insistance that the management of those companies seeking assistance commit to capping their income at the appropriate level for federal employees.

In my view, the problems with the administration's proposals came in two areas. First, their repeatedly inaccurate crying of wolf for the last seven years, has left them with zero credibility. Second, there were no consequences for anyone but the taxpayers.

Fortunately, Congressional ears now seem to finally be resistant to the crying of wolf. Additionally, everyone running for office seems to understand that the consequences of this economic disaster must be laid somewhere, anywhere, but at the feet of the voting taxpayers. Yes, we'll all pay in the long run, whether or not any kind of bailout passes, but Congress seems to understand that we should not be alone.

More on this topic is in a particularly good piece by Washington Post op-ed columnist Eugene Robinson.

How do you turn a dream job opportunity into a shame-fest of lawless impropriety and highly publicized congressional hearings?  For a clue on living that nightmare, just ask Monica Goodling, the disgraced aide to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' whose political cronyism may lead to having her law license pulled.

Way to go, Monica.  Now your namesake is twice associated with presidential disrepute.

To get a glimpse on this particular road to ruin, first, graduate from a lower-tiered law school known predominantly for its religious affiliations to the televangelist Pat Robertson and its emphasis on educating law students to "change the world for Christ." Next, get hired after only six months of prosecutorial experience to oversee the ongoing hiring of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.  And finally, do a bang-up job of highlighting political affiliation over experience during interviews that would include legally relevant questions like "Have you ever cheated on your wife?"

Amidst televised Congressional hearings into the questionable ouster of nine U.S. Attorneys, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales omitted why he promoted someone to the position of White House liaison, while testifying he had limited knowledge of the practices taking place under his watch.  Goodling resigned last year before testifying under immunity.