As Citizen Voices Bloggers, we agreed to appear on These Days periodically, as part of the job description. For this week's segment I was "encouraged" to go out into the community (my neighbors, co-workers, etc,) to find out how people were feeling about the presidential race, take an informal poll, and report my findings as part of the Wednesday morning show.

Asking people you know about their political beliefs is kind of like asking them about their sex life.  It can feel invasive, and being a private person myself, (at least I was before I got this blogging gig,) and since my neighbors and I have maintained a respectful avoidance of this subject... them with their McCain/Palin signs and me with my Obama/Biden signs, I didn't want to scratch the illusion of tolerance by actually talking to them.  So I did the only reasonable thing... I coped out.

In the spirit of non-scientific inquiry, I got in my car and drove as far away from my neighbors as I could, looking for random victims. I sampled opinions at the community gym, (where both TV's are usually tuned to Fox), Farmer's Market, Dog Beach, a hair salon, and a political forum.  I sent emails to friends, colleagues, and relatives.   Some of my face-to-face contacts at first declined to answer my questions, but when I said "okay", and started to walk away, they usually followed me to tell me what they thought anyway.

The first day of polling was not good news. I encountered a large number of people who had (1) not registered, (2) not paid attention, (3) said they would ask other people or their church how to vote, (4) didn't know anything about the issues. I heard excuses like "I have kids, I have to work, I don't have time to read the paper."   Seems like raising kids might be one of the premier reasons to care about who will run this country in the coming years.

Before visiting family in Ohio this week, I’d assumed this swing state—a battleground for Democrats and Republicans—would be a hothouse of political conversation. After hanging out with native and transplanted Ohioans kind enough to offer me a piece of their minds (with some coaxing and humor), only a few times did conversation turn to national politics.

Here’s what I’m coming away with:

• Nobody’s really thrilled with either candidate, and have very specific problems with voting for either party’s representative.  For instance, the word “entitlement” was offered when discussing Obama’s ideas for the country.  The gist of the conversation concerned taxpayers paying for what others hadn’t earned.  This disdain for entitlement will keep people away from Obama in November, even when voting for McCain isn’t much of a palatable option.  (This seems like a mainstream opinion to me and not one relegated to just Ohioans.  The undecided vote at this point—including in our family an Army couple of two twenty-somethings and their little boy—may not vote at all rather than hold their noses and comply with an amorphous civic duty.)

• Of those who have already decided on a major party candidate, many proudly display their choice with lawn signs and bumper stickers.  Most people who display a preference for president also have several other yard signs for local candidates. 
  

• In small towns like Xenia, Ohio neither Joe Six Packs nor Joe Plumbers are, in fact, obsessed with either their guns or their religion. In the unscientific poll I conducted of the working middle class people living here, there is a certain pride and confidence from attending both Sunday school and keeping a Smith and Wesson (or its general equivalent).  But that pride is a far cry from being small town “hicks” that can’t think or make decisions apart from prevailing community values.

• Illegal immigration is more than a fleeting thought, even in trying economic times in a state not bordering Mexico.  An ambiguous divide exists between being compassionate for people trying to improve their lots on the one hand, and understanding that Americans struggle to do the same thing without breaking the law to do it on the other hand.  (I would argue that although many would say they never break the law to make ends meet, there is still some fringe economic activity, such as pirated entertainment, helping some with tight budgets).

My biggest fear while here has been that Senator Obama’s insult about guns and God will come back to haunt him, and that his words not only struck a chord but then also grew roots.  If I had to guess, I’d say this state goes Red in a few weeks.  I hope this isn’t the case and can’t wait to be proven wrong.

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?

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.

Things are getting ugly for the McCain campaign, and the mud slinging is gearing up earlier than the McCain folks would have liked. But mud is not the only thing the McCain campaign is launching through the air; prayers of desperation are coming fast and furious. Here are McCain's top ten Hail Mary's.

10) DNA evidence surfaces that proves Osama Bin Laden and Barack Obama are 14^th cousins twice removed.

9) DNA evidence surfaces linking John McCain as a descendent of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings - McCain initiates media assault accusing Obama of playing the race card against McCain and his 1/2064 African American ancestry.

8) The Flux capacitor is finally discovered - economic and energy woes evaporate - McCain is able return to his strong on war drumbeat.

7) Obama steps out of the Presidential race, revealing that he is in fact the Messiah and that he has decided to honor the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

6) Sarah Palin steps down as VP and is replaced by Dick Cheney's gay daughter. Overnight, radically new coalitions are formed at a head spinning rate, the American Idol crowd loves it and McCain wins in a squeaker.

5) Sarah Palin steps down and John McCain names Chris Angel as his new running mate. Days before the election John McCain appears at the Bellagio in Vegas walking on water.

4) John McCain promises that if elected, he will immediately step down and make Sarah Palin president.
Just enough of the Hillary scorned are wooed by the crafty old Maverick.

3) John McCain breathes an actual fireball during the Tuesday night Presidential debate. Obama is forced to concede that McCain would make an "awesome" Commander in Chief.

2) Acting on a tip from John McCain, George Bush pulls Osama Bin Ladin out of a Pakistani cave - Fox News is there.

1) John McCain accepts defeat in the race for the US Presidency, but makes a heroic comeback as the President of Pakistan. He still has nukes, he still gets to fight terrorism and he gets to wear a uniform again.

Chicken dinner was the plan on Pa Olsen's Colorado farm in 1945 and he sent his mother-in-law out to do the dirty work. She grabbed young chicken Mike, got him by the neck, the ax swung and she botched the job. Like unlucky chickens everywhere, Mike went careering madly around the farm without his head. If a chicken with its head cut off can be lucky - Mike was. He somehow survived the decapitation with his brain stem in tact. Accused of being a hoaxer, Pa Olsen had his chicken oddity verified at the University of Utah and by the Guinness Book of World Records. Olsen then went on a whirl wind, barnstorming tour of the United States (joined by a two headed sheep and a few other barnyard freaks). Mike was fed through a syringe and by all accounts roosted and strutted like any other full headed chicken. Chicken Mike ran around the country for eighteen months before luck caught up with him and he choked on a corn kernel and passed into lore.

John McCain is just wrapping up the eighteenth month of his Presidential Campaign. Eighteen months of surprising new directions and unpredictable behavior have him challenging Chicken Mike's record for running around the country without a head. All of the foxes and the hens and the sheep and wolves in Washington quieted down this week as it looked like the Wall Street barnyard was about to go up in flames. These situations call for a line of bipartisan water buckets and calm assurance - not a headless chicken looking to bask in the glow.

Does it make me an elitist if I don't think the ‘average person' should be the vice president of the United States? 

The Palin interview with Charlie Gibson felt like watching a bright undergraduate accidentally show up for a PhD thesis defense: confident posturing, thoroughly rehearsed responses and an overwhelming sense that she has no idea what she is talking about. You can't blame the average citizen for not knowing what is described by the "Bush Doctrine" - but Palin's ignorance was and is astonishing. This is not a spell potato(e?) sized gaffe, it's a dangerous insult to the nation.

And what of the torturous reverse engineering that went into her Abraham Lincoln based explanation of  the  Youtube sermon: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God, that's what we have to make sure we are praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." ?

 Lincoln referred  to the tragic brother versus brother, cousin versus cousin nature of our Civil War when he said:

Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully.

Palin claims to have intended this same sentiment in her sermon. The inference would then be that she feels our current enemy might also be on God's side; that Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Sunni terrorists, Shia terrorists and any other IED planting insurgents might also be doing "God's will." I would never presume to know God's will," she told Charlie Gibson. But at about 2.45 into the Youtube video Palin  seems to have a different  philosophy regarding the will of God when she says: "We can work together to make sure God's will is done."

Palin has every right to believe the War in Iraq proceeds according to her God's plan or that like Bush believes, the war is a Crusade of sorts. But swallowing the revisionist, disingenuous gloss she put on the "God has a plan" sermon goes down like a horse pill. I just wish she had the strength to stand honestly by her convictions, to let the American people know that she would be a Commander in Chief who would rely more heavily on God's plan than on a knowledge of foreign affairs and that her faith sometimes allows her to know God's will. It must be a great comfort and source of confidence to her - of the sort that gives rise to Bush Doctrines.

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...

I don't follow baseball. So it should have come as no surprise that my last-minute decision to quickly check team colors before heading to Petco Park last Sunday revealed that I was - you guessed it - wearing the opposing team's colors. (To my credit, I was wearing Padres blue. But layering it with red resulted in what could easily be mistaken for Philly pride.)

But I should introduce myself as something other than an ignorant sporting event attendee. I am your new conservative KPBS (stop right there - did I just use "conservative" and "KPBS" together?) citizen blogger, and my attendance (sans red layering tee) at a Padres game brought politics, faith, and patriotism into focus. Perhaps there's just something about singing "God Bless America" with 30,000 strangers during the seventh inning stretch that triggers feelings of unity, pride, and yes - true thankfulness. This, combined with the Saddleback Church Civil Forum of the evening before, got me thinking about the place that religious beliefs - anyone's religious beliefs - hold in American politics.

It is important to recognize and practice the separation of church and state. We do not live in a theocracy, and this country was founded on the principle that every individual is free to practice his or her religion. Separating religion and government, however, does not render a candidate's faith irrelevant. Without morality, a government has no reason for existence - what need would there be for law? And as long as morality is an important feature of our nation, so too will the religious perspectives of presidential candidates be of interest. This much is made clear by the attention given to the recent conversations Pastor Rick Warren had with Barack Obama and John McCain

Warren was an excellent moderator, posing serious and thought-provoking questions that went beyond what one might expect during a faith forum. And before we rush to judge Warren's motives, it should be noted that he said in a CNN interview last month that he would not publicly support one candidate over the other. In reading Alma's most recent post, it occurred to me that had Obama and McCain been interviewed by a Muslim imam or a Jewish rabbi (interviews I would find newsworthy and interesting), very few would express suspicion at the motives of the interviewer. If Warren had an "all encompassing mission," as Alma puts it, I believe he made it quite clear: "I think I can set up an environment that people can actually say, oh, so that's what that guy's really like." Why must "Christian" be a code word for "Crusader"? I certainly don't believe that "Muslim" is a code word for "terrorist." But back to the forum...

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?