Meanwhile, I would like to recommend the following TED talk. No matter which side of the fence you may have stood during this recent campaign this brief talk may explain how the entire spectrum of thinking – liberal to conservative – is critical for our long term success as a civilized nation and world.

(Note: if you do not see an image below, select either “player 7 or player 8″ below to activate the video player. Or, if you have a high speed connection, you may wish to view the short talk in High Definition here.)

As if candidate Reagan returned to hand off the baton to Obama, here he is making the simple and connected case with a simple but connected question.

Elections in the mid-19th century were festive affairs, and people gathered to carouse, jostle one another and vote. They sometimes cast their ballots on a stage to cheers and jeers. Voting, even their choice of candidates, used to be extremely public.

A series of progressive reforms in the late 19th century turned voting into a private affair. Campaign operatives were kept clear of polling stations. People got to vote in secret, and few knew whether their neighbors voted.

Turnout plummeted.

Get out and meet some people this election. It’s fun. Joe and I got to meet our congressman (Rep. Bart Stupak) this weekend when he joined our group for a door-to-door canvassing. No booze, but the pizza at our little party was pretty good.

Obama ’08 – Vote For Hope from MC Yogi on Vimeo.

Almost daily Andy asks the GOP Vice-presidential nominee to submit to the press. When the McCain campaign bans the press Andy wonders if this is happening in America .

This is America, Andrew, where we do not let facts obscure our vision.

Idealism of the Sullivan variety is like most idealism. It sometimes forgets where it is when it chases “ought.” Mr. Sullivan looks down on Sarah Palin like a helicopter pilot spotting a pack of wolves from the air who hollers at the armed guys in the passenger seats to shoot while they can, and he is flummoxed when they only stare.

Idealism amuses us Americans. Sure, we are an exceptional lot. Yet, just because we Americans know what we “ought” to do does not mean we are inclined to do it. For that sort of dish we need to be hungry. But hungry we rarely are, because we constantly stuff ourselves with snacks and almost always spoil our dinner.

We snack on simple characterizations, slogans, and tasty fear. A real meal? We do not have the patience and will to prepare lasting nourishment for ourselves, nor do we have the determination to hunt down and kill the beast that might starve our freedom. Here, have another snack, instead.

We avoid the dirty work of reality, which may be why we leave it to others to do. Or, we give it to those who say they will and turn them into superheroes, like Sarah Palin.

There is something superhero-like in Sarah’s schtick. Never mind that she would gleefully shoot your dog if, in crossing her path to progress, the animal might delay her journey. Because superheros know what they are doing we accept the destruction their actions create, all the while hoping Bowser and the rest of what makes life good survives.

Americans value superheros because superheros do what needs to be done. So, why question them? They do our work so we can eat more snacks.

So when Mr. Sullivan idealistically demands Ms. Palin cast herself at the feet of the infotainment pool of what is left of American journalism so they might accurately take measure, he misses the fact that we Americans just do not scrutinize our superheroes. No. We just believe in them while we can. And, who wants to change America?

Giving attention to what people say before Thursday is generally a waste of cognitive resources. Pre-Thursday hype is little more than an orgy of over-acting by a cast of politicians. Nonetheless, I do love the show. But what a stupid time to poll the public.

Remember a convention is not a pre-arranged wedding. Hillary people are there to support Hillary. Why is this so difficult to understand? Obama people support Obama. Everybody goes to Denver to rant and rave for a few days about their candidate and their pet issues. Two days later the party wizards perform magic and the Dems are mesmerized into inviting Obama home for some luvin’. The luvin’ will happen. But, not before Bill yells “last call” Wednesday night. Everyone knows the Clintons are masters who will ignite the enthusiasm of most Hillary supporters who will start to feel the Obama luv by Wednesday close of business. The Hillary people not on board by Thursday are Democrat frauds and should go start their own party or go over and kick the GOP while it is down.

Thursday is when true Democrats will come together in a giant mutual Obamagasm. Four years ago it was Kerryasm. Four before it was Goreasm. This year, the “asm” just goes better with the name Obama.

The weekend will show Obama’s expected brief bump in the polls. It won’t last, however.

Be sure to tune in for all the pundit hand-wringing next week when McCain’s poll numbers get goofy sometime around Wednesday. Those numbers will stabilize and be very close to Obama’s by the following weekend until the election. Why?

Because the media has mostly forgotten there is a huge difference between fair and balanced (thanks Rupert Murdock and FOX). If media see dirt about a candidate media scamper to find equal dirt on the other candidate. If media only report hard news they are labeled a bully by the newsworthy candidate. The media fall for it every time.

Brilliant. Not brilliant because media fall for it, but brilliant because the corporations that own the media know a tight dirty race makes good television and it sells newspapers and pays the talking heads and gives dividends to retired shareholders.

With so many microphones and cameras these days there is no shortage of material. Plenty of lies, distortions, and pot-stirring to go around. The result? Equal poll numbers until the election.

CNN’s “Keepin’ ‘em honest” slogan is not actually what they and their colleagues do best. In fact all big media should be honest and adopt the slogan about their reporting on political candidates “Big Media – keeping ‘em even.”

Media trash, doubt-monger, or swift-boat any candidate moving too far ahead in the polls.

See the problem here? We ignore issues because media irrationally embrace an erroneous definition of “fairness” as meaning “balanced.”

Much of this reductionism to labels, slogans, and truth is a norm of Western culture where we are compelled to find ONE CAUSE for each phenomenon we encounter. We regard with suspicion ambiguous or complex information as less-than-truthy because it doesn’t feel or sound truthy to our stimulus-craving hyper-aroused and attention-disabled FOX News “fair AND balance” conditioned brains.

To reach a Western “truth”:

Step 1: Instantly form a belief about something or someone. (Really, we do it all the time)
Step 2: Scavenge for evidence in support of the belief. (Pay no attention to non-supporting evidence.)
Step 3: Enjoy the resulting “know-it-all” nirvana.
Step 4: Roll eyes when someone doesn’t “get” the truth.
Step 5: Hang out with other people who “get” your truth.

Media talking heads don’t get famous and rich saying “I don’t know.” That boring uncertainty we assign to scientists paid on a scale commensurate to their charm. We smug gluttons of truthy-sounding nonsense giddily wallow our vast land of all-knowing plenty while secretly hoping the sky waits a little longer to fall.

____
p.s. I drink Obama Kool-aid. What do you drink?

As for the twelve million registered voters in Texas the difference between their preference for Sen. Clinton versus Sen. Obama is down to 4 out of 1000 persons. That is hardly a resounding endorsement for either candidate.

Yet, caucus results favor Obama. Why? Maybe only highly educated young people can find their way to such an event to state their support for their candidate. Think about this. Obama says his approach to government is to leverage the passion and desire of the American people to pressure change that will strengthen the citizens instead of patronize the extreme wealthy and excuse corporate selfishness. Let’s say he means this. I believe he does because that is why I support his candidacy. But another reason I support his candidacy is because I see evidence of impassioned people bothering to attend caucuses to state their case and be counted. These people will set policy on health care, national security, and ensuring the constitution is protected against further erosion. I won’t count on the ex’s in Texas to help.

Perhaps experiencing these existential dilemmas at a young age helped me develop tolerance for multiple outcomes. Struggles viewed in this way are not catastrophes, bad luck, fate, or events of anguish. They are dilemmas of choice. And how we struggle with these dilemmas reveals who we are deep inside. So as I learned to make choices in little dilemmas instead of launching into hysterics or shriveling into self-pity. In essence I developed a belief about my world that everything works out and helps fuel my attitude as I move along.

Did you notice the “attitude” word? May I offer a definition? Attitude is not a smile or a snarl. Attitude is how we automatically respond to situations based upon millions of tiny little realities we have over time constructed for ourselves. How someone wrestles with little dilemmas tells us more about who and what they are than any psychological test or “facts” you might think you “know” about them. Such facts tend to be items that fit into our own constructs of reality and are generally a poor way to size up a person.

Dilemma triggers attitude. Core beliefs fuel attitude. Despite our desire to think we’re in control of all this we usually just go along for the ride.

Political seasons are a smorgasboard of human attitude. I have a taste for political seasons. As I watch the candidates I look at their style of speech, body language, defense mechanisms and, of course, how they struggle. Yes, I am interested in their policy positions, but I have yet to find a candidate whose policy positions are exactly mine. So instead I focus on their attitude. Is their attitude consistent with their stated positions? If so, is their attitude toward the people and constitution of this country one of respect?

Now I face a dilemma. This January 15th I will be served a plate of Brussels sprouts. I get to decide between voting for a candidate with an attitude I distrust whose name is on the ballot or vote “undecided.” Should I vote for “undecided” on the chance enough voters in Michigan will do the same with the hope that, in such a case, the delegates will vote for my choice of candidate whose name is missing?

Is this a catastrophe? Should I become hysterical and rant and rave at the Michigan party leaders for making this silliness happen? Should I fire off angry letters to the Edwards and Obama campaigns? Should I stay home and give up on the political process? Should I weigh the cost/benefit and focus on the benefits of making a choice? Based upon what you know about my own attitude, what do you think I’ll do? What would you do?

Photo credit: MassDistraction