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.

By all accounts, the people who attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, were religious extremist. Al-Qaeda, a splinter Sunni Islamic movement, founded by Osama bin Laden, claimed credit for these attacks following the tragedy. These fanatics believed that they had a mandate from God to "slaughter the Infidels". It was a force apart from any one country, and it was an aberration of Islam. Whatever religious banner the perpetrators of this horrific act gave it, they were not representative of the other approximate 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.

In the national grief that followed that terrible day in September, it was predictable that we would want to strike out at whoever had wounded our country so horribly

Little did most of us know, our administration already had someone in their sight who could act as a conduit for our national need for retribution. That the intended target was not the perpetrator of the attack, was, for the Bush Administration, a minor problem that could be rectified with a campaign of fear, skillful public relations, distortion of facts, and disregard for the Constitution. If you dared to question the Republican administration's drumbeat to war with Iraq, then you were "with the terrorist."

Though the facts have proved differently, recent polls have shown that at least 33 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks. This is insanity! 

How can we be so gullible and yet here we go again.

The bombs and bullets flying within a far away autonomous region of the Republic of Georgia suggest that George Bush's concept of a global "War on Terror" should be back on the front burner when it comes to Presidential politics.

The domestic debate surrounding our war in Iraq is rightly centered on how we should go about ending things. Withdrawal timelines or pathways to victory? What is a withdrawal, what is a victory?  The candidates will refine their solutions and avoid pinning themselves down in the face of ever-changing facts on the ground. But fading fast to historical background are our reasons for waging war, the very concept of the "War on Terror"" and the precedent it sets for future conflicts.

This election cycle has essentially reduced these issues to a single catchall phrase:  judgment. One man voted for war and one man voted against the war - choose your side and move on to discussions of how to end things neatly. There seems to be a generally agreed upon notion that dwelling on the rational for war is an exercise in crying over spilled milk - what's done, is done -- now is a time for decisive leadership.

John McCain talks about victory in Iraq. He has not given a coherent description of "victory in Iraq" - but claims victory is a moral necessity, as well as imperative to our security. Barack Obama's 16-month timetable is now being "refined." This is a politically calculated move to the center or a continuation of Obama's promise that the US  "must be as careful getting out of Iraq as it was reckless going in."

Either way, it's a vague policy at best.

I recently returned from three days at the Coachella Music Festival in Indio. Three days in the desert; music, musing and dancing in a herd of thousands. Body and mind are worn – as I write this, I feel like I’ve been sucking on Chinese toys all weekend. Still, live music for three days and nights straight invites the mind to wander down many a path. Some thoughts...

Thousands from around the state, the country and the world attended the festival. Most youthful, most liberal – but surprisingly few showing their political colors. A few Obama jerseys were spotted, never caught sight of any Hillary shwag - but as always, festival icons Leonard Peltier and Che Guevara were in full effect.  Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters sent a blood spattered dirigible pig floating over the crowd emblazoned with a sword wielding Uncle Sam Death Head, “Don’t Be Led To Slaughter” scrawled alongside. The pig’s underbelly was stamped with a disconcertingly hopeful message: a  ballot check marked next to Obama’s name. Not exactly the sort of endorsement that warms a politician’s heart – but still, a shout out from Roger Waters is a shout out from Roger Waters. Prince said he was so sick of debates – he couldn’t stand it anymore.  Hillary and Obama as the bickering parents in “This is What It Sounds Like When the Doves Cry”…

Gave a jump start to some Mexican kids in their twenties from Calexico – all studying to be lawyers. They shared their beer and we did the Spanglish thing for a while. We drank to Mexico and the U.S., neighbors and friends – they raised their beers, but were hesitant to really believe the friend part.  They wished it was so, but I had to agree that most of our national gestures appear to be those of a perturbed neighbor rather than a friend…

“Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18.” Albert Einstein

When I came across this well-known quote by Albert Einstein recently, it struck me that most of us pick our political candidates based on what we perceive as our “common sense.” My common sense, if Albert is right, was formed as the daughter of a fighter pilot during the 50’s and the 60’s. I was witness to the collateral damage inflicted on a military family by the wages of war. From Korea to Vietnam, my father’s career as a warrior was the central fact of our life and all else was secondary.

My early prejudices against war came about from my sense that anything that took my father from me was a bad thing. 

Many of my relatives grew up with their lives intact. Their fathers were home each night. They didn’t have to watch their stoic young mother wait by the phone for a call that often never came. They didn’t habitually watch the chaplain make his way down the street in front of the quarters, holding their breath to see which house he would approach with his sad but predictable news. Yet these are the very people who today are still supporting Bush’s war in Iraq. Were their prejudices the result of pain-free entitlement?

One has to ask how each of our candidates acquired their “common sense." All of them grew up in very different circumstances from one another, and all have had considerably different experiences as adults.  They are each the sum of where they came from and what they have done. As a voter I believe my job is to support the candidate that will have the sense to lead the United States away from our current imperialistic path and back to a constitutional democracy where the welfare of the people is placed ahead of corporate desire for global domination.

 -Citizen Voices blogger Candace Suerstedt is a filmmaker and a mother of three who lives in Coronado.

One of the most annoying aspects of talking to self-proclaimed conservatives is their relentless propensity to retreat to jingoism.

Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy." It refers to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats of or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others. 

It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate with someone who reverts to somewhat subjective concepts like "liberty" and "freedom" as the justification for everything.  Whose liberty?  Whose freedom?  Who and what exactly are they referring to? How is sending our children to fight for control of Iraq’s oil serving our freedom or liberty?   How free are returning soldiers going to be without arms or legs or frontal lobes?  How exactly will the presence of Blackwater serve our freedom? (One of the first requirements of a totalitarian government is the creation of a private army.)  And finally, how is illegal wiretapping serving our freedom?

It has long been my experience that the biggest hawks are often those who have sacrificed the least.  Growing up, as I did, on Naval Air Stations, I learned first hand, on a daily basis, the enormous price the "warrior class" pays so the rest of the country can have their "freedom."  And there is no question that there is a need for military might, and it’s good to be the strongest fighting force in the world if you are part of the country that has it.  But having that force does not give us the right to abuse it to fulfill any agenda held by the Bush regime.  We, as human beings, must have moral boundaries.  When do we stand behind our government and when do we stand behind our humanity and say,  "Stop the insanity." How many slaughtered children are we willing to sacrifice?

 - Candace Suerstedt is a filmmaker and a mother of three who lives in Coronado.

I'm conflicted about voting Democratic right now.

Ideally, Al Gore would be my choice, but only to say: "I wish the Supreme Court had not cast the deciding vote in the 2000 election."

In order to move on, I need to get over Al Gore's loss and the fact that everything changed afterwards. But I'm having a really hard time accepting how much we've changed.

I've gotten the impression Democrats would like to get back to normal, to a time before the invasion of Iraq. Normal is a time when Democrats focus on "blue" issues, like reinforcing public kindergarten through 12th grade education; expanding infrastructure, like bridges; improving job training; making college tuition affordable; encouraging unions; protecting Social Security and Medicare; and all the other issues Republicans hate us for. I like normalcy too, but not at the expense of dealing proactively with the reasons things have changed.

When the majority of Americans told their leaders they disapproved of the war in Iraq, for instance, why did the Democratic-led Congress instead focus on domestic policy? Granted, Republican opposition went a long way in getting nothing done. But we didn't always need a majority of votes when it came to holding the Bush administration accountable for repeatedly lying to the American people. And what about filibustering? That's one type of symbolism that actually means something politically yet Democrats in Congress refuse to use it for fear of appearing divisive.

The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan drains every American resource except war profiteering. Ending the occupation of Iraq enables vital resources to flow back into domestic issues, something that means a great deal to cash-strapped Americans.

Democrats have an opportunity in this election to reiterate what the party stands for. Do we stand for progress, or do we stand for conserving our traditional base?

- Citizen Voices blogger Alma Sove has spent most of her life in San Diego and is currently attending law school.