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.

Sarah Palin seems to be taking a page from the McCarthy era, mixing it with thinly veiled racism, and igniting partisan driven hatred.  Unfortunately for John McCain, surly as he is, her message is actually more testosterone driven than his.   At times, one wonders if she has confused the order of the names on the GOP ticket.

But John McCain aside, her rabble rousing tactics jeopardize the safety of all of us. This behavior, at any time is reprehensible enough, but in the current atmosphere in America, it is obscene. The  economic uncertainty, the ongoing tragedy of the War on Terror, and the threat of growing global unrest make this a fragile chapter in the life of our country, and we had better get our priorities in order.

The divisiveness that Palin has wittingly or unwittingly enflamed with her words will not disappear after November 4th. The coming months are going to test our national sense of ourselves as Americans; spending our days at war with one another is not in our best interest.  Whichever candidate is elected President, his arsenal of skills must include bipartisan team building, and I am not just referring to Congress.

As I reviewed Palin's history in Alaska, she seemed benign enough (if you were not her ex brother-in-law, an environmentalist, or a political rival.) I find it hard to believe she masked all these retrograde political beliefs...she doesn't seem to be much of a reader or deep thinker from all accounts. I wonder if she even understands the historical context of her accusations. Could it be that the Bushies who orchestrated her crash course in politics filled her with some philosophies that suited their agenda, an agenda that had more than just the election in mind?

"You can put out my fire...Let me hold your hose...Pull out your hose..." -Firefighter testimony in sexual harassment lawsuit against the City of San Diego

Outrage! What is going on in the San Diego gay community lately? Is it the eight years of the George Bush administration? Are the gains toward social legitimacy and legal marriage responsible? Where is the pride? The aforementioned taunts lobbed at four San Diego Firefighters during the Gay and Lesbian Pride are despicable. An utter embarrassment to the generations of brilliant gay comedians who came before these hecklers who dare not speak their name.  The flurry of green carnation petals you see flying these days are a direct result of Oscar Wilde spinning madly in his grave.

These lame "hose" jokes were pulled from the bottom of the cliché bin; the sort of fireman jokes you might expect from rural Pennsylvanians taking a time out from guns and bitter religion.  If we can no longer count on members of the gay community to come up with side-splitting, society skewering, keen edged barbs at just the right moment... then the world is truly becoming unrecognizable. Next, I suppose there will be a black President.

Firemen who wilt, wince and blubber at Will and Grace or Three's Company caliber gay jokes are one thing - but I for one refuse to stand for a city which cannot properly heckle its beefcakey civil servants. The recent mistrial verdict should not be read as a victory for San Diego's gay community. You know you have problems when Mike Aguirre rushes to your defense.  Never mind those Playboys the fellas back at Firehouse No. 5 had sitting around.  Never mind the long standing tradition of firemen posing in hunky calendars for charity (the Carlsbad crew).

I suspect the tears these firemen purportedly shed after the parade were less of shame than they were of sorrow.  Is gay comedy dead?  Have firemen become super sensitive? Has this equality thing gone so far that now straight and gay people are equally funny? Or maybe it's time for me to confront a longstanding prejudice.

Strangely enough, the most pressing political question of the current presidential campaign was first struck upon by Mel Brooks more than thirty years ago: Where the white women at?

The Democratic primary and now the general election have brought a new found concern (for some) and focus upon women's rights. But like most things in this election, there is little room for intelligent discussion of the issue. What exactly is the status of the glass ceiling? Is it a question of American politics or American culture or both that has thus far prevented the rise of an American Angela Merkel,  Margaret Thatcher or Benazir Bhutto? All three rose to heads of state as leaders of their individual parties.  Perhaps parliamentary lawmakers are more likely to recognize substance than is the general electorate of our country. There is no shortage of impressive female U.S. representatives, senators and governors in our country, but thus far none deemed worthy to take hold the reigns of our country - or even ride shotgun.

Does our country view women's rights as a universal issue or a special interest? The ascendency of Obama over Hillary follows a historical pattern established in the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement and Civil Rights Act both trumped and inspired the women's rights movement. The Civil Rights Act passed, the Equal Rights Act stalled. The nomination of Sarah Palin also follows a historical pattern of empty, token gestures toward equality of the sexes.

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.

Hopeful, fearsome, Riefenstahlian propaganda or choreography of the new world order -- the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics were nothing if not overwhelming. The conventions have a tough primetime act to follow. No sky jogging, no LEDs, no day-glo lycra -- just a man, a mic, and a message. Obama will surely deliver a rousing speech, McCain will sleepwalk through a wooden Minneapolis extravaganza; and then we'll go right back to flash polls and daily sniping.

Made for TV spectacle has a death grip on presidential politics. This is no novel claim or original discovery, but it feels particularly sad and final this time around. Careerist pundits are set on full-thrust vomit mode, so that even the occasional insight is tough to take. Ideas are not valued. Those millions and millions of dollars raised by both candidates need to be spent, and network and cable channels will oblige with a guaranteed ninth inning thriller. 

Just like the O.J. trial created junkies for courtroom entertainment; we now crave the adrenaline rush of the 2000 Gore/Bush election. Both campaigns, the press, poll workers, vote counters and voting machine manufacturers all know that anything goes and anything can happen. What parts of this election will end up in a courtroom? I don't need hope in a candidate as much as I need renewed hope in the process. Any more punditry on my part and the self loathing will finally be unbearable.  So...

My friends, with the DNC this week, I thought it might be nice to look into how political blogging can explode on the media.  Let me tell you a tale that is now being affectionately referred to as 'Pizzagate'.

Last Monday, a pizza delivery driver named Anna delivered $30 worth of pizza to a house.  The twist to this is that the pizza was being delivered to Curt Bramble, Senate Majority Leader for the state of Utah.  Mr. Bramble then allegedly began to berate the delivery driver, harass her manager over the phone, and even tried using his position as Senate Majority Leader to force them to accept a personal check.  When they finally agreed to accept a check, it wasn't to his liking, so he then finally put the bill on his American Express card.  All in all, not the best way for anyone to treat someone who provides you food, and definitely not how a political figure should act.

But, the story doesn't end here.  In fact, it just begins.  For, you see, it turns out this young lady is a blogger.  A blogger who let out her frustrations over this in a post, as any blogger in her situation would.  She didn't name names, but she did leave enough clues that it was obvious whom she was writing about.  That's when it hit the fan.

In polite company, so the saying goes, refrain from speaking about religion and politics.  The two subjects tend to roil deep ideological divides between friends and peers where none were apparent.  In the interest of political conversation, however, perhaps discussing the two topics is a worthier pursuit than silence, especially when contemplating a candidate's character. 

Does the role of religion in a politician's private life transmute into a dangerous public weapon used against his or her opponents? Or does the candidate's religion materialize into a useful tool with which to frame issues of morality, ethics, values, and judgment? 

Alternately, may a modern politician publicly avoid discussing his or her religion without engendering the mistrust of voters? 

Enter Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California's dual conversations on CNN last Saturday with both presumptive presidential nominees.

His premise at the outset of the forum is that "faith is a worldview."  I think by "faith" Pastor Warren means "Christian faith" and by "worldview" he may mean something closer to an all encompassing mission.  The self-proclaimed "values-voters" (a moniker I only use as shorthand reference, wishing it were something else) often is a one-issue voter.  Want to guess what that one issue tends to be?  The big issue probably does not need to be spelled out, but it has to do with sexuality, as do so many other socially conservative issues. 

So, does a modern presidential candidate hurt his chances of election by emphasizing a worldview that does not include his or her "faith," and more specifically, his or her Christian faith? 

Can there be an agnostic or atheist, or Jewish, president of the future United States?  Or have voters created the need for this type of forum because Christianity is the perennial elephant in the room, so to speak? 

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.