Bye-Bye to the Myth of "Bipartisan"

No, I have not been kidnapped, in a coma, or otherwise put out of your misery. But my "day job" seems to be recession-driven. I have, however, had it with the current noodle-spined majority leadership. I have the following questions for the Democrats:

How can anything be "bipartisan," when one of the partisans insists that it’s all or nothing?

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has defined a "bipartisan" health care bill to mean "no public option." Hmmmm - no public option, which certainly also rules out "single payer." That equals..... WHAT WE HAVE NOW! So Sen. Grassley is saying "We, the minority party, get everything that we want, or we won’t even consider it." Not only is that not bipartisan, it’s not "reform." (And from their behavior during the stimulus bill debate, we’ve learned that even if they DO get what they want, they still won’t vote for it.)

The "bi" in "bipartisan" means "having two parts." The GOP’s insistence that any health care bill lack a public option takes the "bi" out of "bipartisan." The GOP does, however, have a handle on the concept of "bi" as in "bipolar." Their argument against the public option has a split personality: 1) The public option will be awful because the government can’t run anything right. 2) The public option will be so good, it will drive private insurance out of business. I won’t even get into all the things the GOP thinks the government does right (the military, and reading our private email, for starters), or the completely anti-free-market premise they are endorsing in wanting to protect the private insurance companies. The contradictory nature of these two talking points alone is enough to give you whiplash (treatment of which will cost you a $20 co-pay).

There is nothing bipartisan in the minority’s demands that they will get what they want, or they will take their toys and go home, but it is sooooo very GOP. Today, Sarah Palin resigned as Alaskan governor, because she could not put up with being a lame duck. Well, there’s public service for you! There’s bipartisanship! There’s maturity! That is, if you consider "maturity" to be one step above holding your breath until you get your way.

So grow a spine, Harry. Break some heads, Nancy. You were not put in the majority to assure that we continue steering toward the same cliff the GOP leaders have had their eyes on for the past eight years. Do what the American people put you there to do. And don’t do such a "bipartisan" job of it, that it ends up being ineffective and maybe even harmful. Just do it, and do it right! Yes, you run the risk of going down in flames. But the "bipartisan" course you are currently plotting all but guarantees that same self-immolation.

Farewell to George W. Narcissus

Last week, George W. Bush waved his official Bye Bye to all of us UnDeciders. What strikes me most about Bush’s farewell address is that it seems to be a plea to the American people to like him, even just a little bit. Because, as we've all been told time and again over the past eight years, it is all about the W.

He’s had a grand old time in office. Oh, yes, there was that 9/11 thing, but "This has been a joyous experience being the President.” When I heard that, it sounded to me like a kid saying that it was a lot of fun riding in the fire truck and ringing the bell. I got to be a fireman! I got to be President! Yippee!!

Oh, it's not all been fun. Oh, well, mostly it has. When asked in 2006 whether he was frustrated about the course of events in Iraq, he answered “Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy,” followed by, ah, “but war is not a time of joy.” No, not for most of us. Some high-profile media outlets edited out the happy talk from that sound bite. (CBS, NBC, I’m looking at you...)

And Bush has spoken of how grateful he is for the families of fallen soldiers. Because they make him feel better. How very sweet.

So in his farewell address, Bush’s vision remained firmly affixed on the reflection in the pool. “While our nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack.” Really? What world do you live in, W? If you measure “gravest threat” by those things that loom largest for most of us - things Bush has never personally had to worry about - we are not safer. The gravest threat to most of us is more likely food poisoning from an ineffective USDA, or the side effects of a new drug fast-tracked by a bought-and-paid-for FDA, than a terrorist attack. How about the loss of a job, or health care, or both? Half a million Americans will die in a single year from cancer, far more than have ever died from terrorism. That's pretty grave. What do you suppose the National Cancer Institute could do with the War on Terror’s annual budget of $370 billion? But for Bush, never mind any of that. He’s the Decider. So terrorism is not just a threat. It’s not even just a grave threat. It is “the gravest threat,” because that’s the only way he’ll have any kind of legacy worthy of a Presidential Library.

Bush further reflected that “Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks.” “I have experienced setbacks.” Not “we as a nation,” or even just “we.” “I.” That message has always been clear: “This is my Administration, not yours. You just sit back and think about your next shopping trip.”

But mostly he wanted us to know that his intentions were - well - intentional. “You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.” He wants us to appreciate that he was willing... to... do... what? What does “willing to make the tough decisions” mean? What the Hell does being President mean, if not a willingness to make the tough decisions? Isn’t that an entry level requirement for the job? So he’s saying “I hope you can agree that I was willing to be President.” Yes, George, I have to agree with you on that. And I’m willing to drive the fire truck and ring the bell, but that does not make me a fireman.

Finally, W wrapped up his self-congratulatory monolog with a touch of plagiarism (thank you, Ronald Reagan): “And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other - citizen of the United States of America.”

And we will be honored to let you return to that status. Not to mention quite relieved.

While the fat cats play, the mice will pay

GM CEO Rick Wagoner gets a salary increase, to make up to $2.2 million (plus stock options), while his company is losing money, so much so that we now need to bail them out.* (OK, it’s a LOAN, but it’s government assistance nonetheless.) As part of this deal, Wagoner does not have to give up his millions, but the workers have to promise not to strike, and to take a pay cut. Chrysler has a similar no-strike provision in its loan agreement. Ironically, it is the workers, in the form of taxpayers, who are giving the loan to Mr. Wagoner and Chrysler CEO Bob Nardelli. Yes, those "greedy workers," who are finally getting what's coming to them for asking their company to honor the contract to which the company agreed. If the auto companies have to continue honoring their contracts with the workers, how are Mr. Wagoner and Mr. Nardelli supposed to feed their koi?

In truth, even if the CEOs do work for the much trumpeted single dollar, the money saved would not rescue GM and Chrysler. But if nothing else, the pressure on the UAW to bear the brunt of this bailout, while allowing Wagoner and Nardelli to keep their jobs - even for a dollar - just looks bad. Maybe it’s a done deal, but if there is anything that can be changed before this agreement goes into effect, then it should be changed. And if it can’t be changed, then there should be hearings on how this came about, so it won’t happen again. Otherwise, the conservatives will get exactly what they want: an end to the UAW, and the beginning of the end for unions in general, all courtesy of the US taxpayer, who are being asked to foot the bill for their own financial demise. This is taxation without representation, which, if I recall, was the basis of a revolution some years ago. In the name of enlightened self-interest, Congress and the millionaire Detroit CEOs might want to ponder that point.

* See:

Detroit News: "Strikes would imperil bailout funding"
Raw Story: "Bush Admin. to bar autoworkers from striking against GM"

Eight Years Later - Told Ya' So!

In 2000, I wrote to the Seattle Times editorial board, after they endorsed G.W. Bush over Al Gore for President (original Times article). What follows is my letter to them. In reading it again, it amazes me that so many of the pudits and political prognosticators have been caught off-guard by the death, destruction, and economic devastation of the past eight years. I had lost the letter since then, but finally found it today. Here it is, followed by an email I sent the Times in 2004, after they endorsed Kerry.
___________________________________

RE: Seattle Times endorsement of G.W. Bush for President
October 4, 2000

I was beyond "surprised .. disappointed, [and] dumbfounded" (Mindy Cameron) at the Times' endorsement of G.W. Bush for President. I have been consistently dismayed by the media's focus on the "exaggerations" of Mr. Gore, many of which have in fact been exaggerations by the press regarding what Gore said and what he meant (see "Will Pseudo-Scandals Decide the Election?" at http://www.prospect.org/archives/V11-21/wilentz-s.html).

But for the Times to state that this decision is based upon an "overpowering need for integrity and civility in office, for a realistic balance between government and commerce, for a new, bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation" is naive at best, and ignorant at worst. Integrity and civility? Obviously the Times has been paying as little attention to this "compassionate conservative" as the rest of the "liberal media." This is a man who has been investigated for securities fraud. The SEC took no action - it was passed off as ignorance on Bush's part. This makes the Times' endorsement even more distressing. A man who had graduated from Harvard Business School, took his business through two mergers, and touts his business savvy, still managed to miss not one but FOUR SEC filing deadlines, and finally saw his business fail at the expense of just about everyone but himself. (Please see Times/AP article of September 07,2000 "Bush says Gore waffling on debates; candidate's ads suggest that vice president can't be trusted" by Laurie Kellman, and Eric Alterman's "The scandal no one cares about," found at http://www.msnbc.com/news/477199.asp). In light of this history, the Times' assertion that"Bush understands the dynamics of taxes, regulations and enterprise that form a successful business" is eery, if not downright frightening. Maybe Bush's foibles in this area were not intentional, maybe they were. Either way, I hardly want to trust this nation's future to a man who would either bungle things this badly or would intentionally defraud stockholders. By the way, the SEC was chaired at the time Richard Breeden, a former aide and appointee of the senior Bush. The SEC denies any favoritism. Of course they do. Who investigates the SEC?

That Bush would bring us "a realistic balance between government and commerce" is an interesting endorsement for a man who has a history involving the taking of private property for public use. Take a look at Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority, through which Bush and his pals managed the expropriation of some 270 acres of private land, used less than 20 acres of it for his ballpark, and parlayed the rest into commercial ventures which apparently put quite a bit of change in his pocket. This is not to mention the cash he walked away with after getting his ballpark. A state judge later ruled that the amounts paid to the property owners involved was far below market value, and a settlement was paid. I obtained much of this information from very limited sources (including a Times/Knight Ridder article of May 27, 2000, "How Bush made his fortune" by Chris Mondics, and again Alterman's above-noted article at msnbc.com). All of this is certainly part of public record, court documents, etc. I've looked for it, but have found little from my computer in Kingston. But I'm a civilian. I count on the media to ferret these things out and inform the public. I'm very frustrated that this hasn't happened.

The Times also based their endorsement on a need for a "bipartisan era to confront the needs of the nation," later stating that "Bush promises to bring a sense of bipartisanship to the White House and has shown that ability with Democrats in the Texas statehouse." Has the Times bothered to interview Democrats in the Texas statehouse? I have heard interviews with these supposedly happy bipartisans, and they are NOT all that happy. I dare the Times staff to dial the phone numbers of a few legislators in Texas with "D" behind their name and see how much cheer and goodwill comes through over the telephone line. Contrary to his implication that he brought harmony to the patient's bill of rights debate, they will tell you he was dragged kicking and screaming to the issue. He did not support it, and he did not sign it. The bill only became law because he declined to veto it, knowing he would be overridden. Ask these happy Texans about Bush's role in hate crimes legislation. He did not back it, but he was eager to take credit for its implementation in Texas. Bush accuses Gore of exaggerations and lies - go to Texas and meet with these people and see how jolly a bipartisan bunch they are. THEN tell me that Bush is the man to bring bipartisanship to Washington DC.

And while you're at it, reassure me that Bush's party won't have more to say about things in a Bush White House than Bush himself. To reassure those of us who question his qualifications for President, he has promised he will surround himself with people who know what they're doing. Most of these people - if not all - will be of the party that brought us one of the most partisan periods in recent memory over things that mattered little to most of the rest of us. Is Bush strong enough in his convictions to override his keepers and impose his will? And what are his convictions, anyway? In the Times' endorsement it is stated of Gore that "He equivocates on nearly everything." But the same statement could easily be made of Mr. Bush, as he artfully dodges the issue of abortion. This is the most distressing issue of all in reflecting on the Times' endorsement of this man. This is not just one election. This is not just one possible Supreme Court nomination. This is a possible four nominations. This one election could cost women dearly in the years to come in their right to control their reproductive decisions. We already live in a time when the right of a husband to decide to end a pregnancy to save the life of his comatose wife has been challenged in court by a complete stranger. We live in a time when a woman has been prosecuted for opting to undertake natural childbirth rather than undergo a caesarian section as recommended by her doctor (and both mother and child were healthy after natural childbirth, by the way). We are hanging on to our reproductive rights only by sweat and vigilance. The editorial staff of the Times can wait for some other election to have a romance with "free-flowing" talk and illusions of integrity. With these possible nominations in the balance, I am horrified that the Times would endorse, using words like "clear choice" and "superior candidate," a man with whom they admittedly disagree on this important issue. And with the endorsement of a man so obviously flawed and ill-prepared for the most powerful station in the world, these words cause me to question the integrity and credibility of the Times itself.

___________________________________

September 7, 2004:

RE: Times Endorses Kerry - So what were you thinking four years ago?

The Times has seen the light - finally! Following your 2000 endorsement of Bush for President, I strongly objected, arguing (with documentation) the following:

1) The Times saw an "overpowering need for integrity and civility in office." I expressed serious concerns, including an SEC investigation of Bush for securities fraud. Although the investigation was later dropped, I pointed out that either Bush was incompetent, or he had committed fraud - neither quality is something I wanted in a chief executive. And judging by the company Bush keeps (Enron, anyone?), I'm not buying the ignorance defense. Now, in 2004, the level of "integrity and civility" - from lies about Iraq to Cheney's potty mouth (telling Sen. Leahy on the Senate floor to go f*ck himself) - is probably not what the Times had in mind. (Bush used the same naughty word in a 1999 interview with Tucker Carlson, evidence of his "integrity" I missed in my 2000 rant to you.)

2) The Times hoped Bush would bring "balance between government and commerce." I suggested you look into Bush's expropriation of 270 acres of private land, using a few acres for his ballpark, and parlaying the rest into profitable commercial ventures. Once President, Bush granted inflated no-bid contracts to his oil cronies. Old habits are hard to break.

3) The Times also hoped Bush would bring the same "sense of bipartisanship to the White House [as] with Democrats in the Texas statehouse." I dared you to call some Texas Democratic legislators, and check their "goodwill" level. You would have heard how Bush's "trophy" bills (hate crimes, patient's rights) became law despite Bush's opposition. Now under this "uniter," the country is more divided and polarized than ever in my lifetime. Surprised? I'm not. But then, I was paying attention in 2000.

Oh, there's more, much more, but I'm limited to 200 words (already exceeded). So here are my final three:

Told ya' so!

The Purpose-Driven Acid Test

We have less than a month to go until 01-20-09, the date emblazoned on the bumper stickers and lapel buttons of progressives everywhere. And it’s a double-header as far as reasons to rejoice: the end of the Bush years of war, torture, and economic shell games; and the inauguration of Barak Obama, a progressive community organizer, and the nation’s first black President.

President-Elect Obama has been making his list, checking it twice. Just to name a few of his Cabinet choices, and the responses from various stakeholders: Tim Geithner for Treasury - the market breathes a sigh of relief; Illinois Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois for Secretary of Transportation - a rare Republican fan of Amtrak; Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu for the Department of Energy - a departure from the "weird science" policies of the past eight years; and the unabashedly pro-union Hilda Solis for Secretary of Labor, probably the one choice the PE has made that approaches radically liberal. The nation should be abuzz with anticipation of impending competence.

The one pick that seems to be getting the most attention, though, is that of Rev. Rick Warren, conservative evangelical minister and author of The Purpose-Driven Life. Rick Warren, however, is not your typical Right Wing Reverend. He has gotten considerable flack from his own conservative ranks for giving as much heed to Jesus’s "Blessed are the poor" message as to the "eye for an eye" edict in Exodus, and for his questioning the wisdom of taking the "fill the earth, and subdue it" command a little too literally. He does not stray far from the flock, however, as he maintains the classic anti-choice and anti-gay-marriage stance that remain the acid test for conservative evangelicals. Still, Obama has seen some grounds for agreement, which is the starting place for any dialogue. And up until now, Obama has received a lot of praise for his Team of Rivals approach to appointments, so this particular pick should not be such a surprise.

But the message coming out of the progressive base these days is one of shock and despair that Obama has tapped an opponent of choice and of gay rights, for: Chief of Staff? No. The Head of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives? No. Pope? Nope.

To say a prayer.

OK, the symbolism is not lost on me. We are talking about the opening act - literally the Invocation - of his historic Presidency. Vocal members of the LGBT community are feeling especially betrayed by this invitation to Rev. Warren, in the wake of his highly visible support for California’s Proposition 8. But I’m looking at this from my own personal angle. Up until the Saddleback Church appearances of then-candidates Obama and McCain, I was only peripherally aware of Rick Warren, due to the visibility of his aforementioned book. It has been the basis of study groups in a number of churches, including one in my parents’ home church. I really know nothing more about the book, other than what I could find on Wikipedia or Amazon websites. But just knowing that my parents’ conservative congregation has devoted some time to it tells me plenty about the book, and its author. This is someone who has credibility within the conservative sphere of influence. So the fact that the progressive President-Elect Obama has tapped the conservative Rev. Warren to participate in the kick-off of his Presidency seems to me to be a full circle.

I am really not all that surprised that Obama’s invitation to Rev. Warren has raised a bit of a stir; however, the extent to which it is dominating the progressive media does surprise me. When I first heard about Obama’s Inaugural Ceremony line-up, my focus was not so much on any symbolism invested in the "opening act," as it was on the arc of Obama’s overall choices. The benediction is being given by Rev. Joseph Lowery, a liberal, and strong proponent of gay rights. So if you are going to tap a conservative to be part of a message of "change," Rick Warren is probably the best candidate. As mentioned earlier, there is some common ground there with some environmental and social issues. Then wrap up the ceremony with the Rev. Lowery, to point the way forward, to a more progressive philosophy. Yeah, I thought. Nice touch. Somehow, though, Obama’s detractors cannot get past that "first" thing. It is all or nothing. No, they are not calling for impeachment, nor are they lamenting that McCain didn’t win instead. But this controversy does appear to be taking on the characteristics of a political acid test.

Where does the term "acid test" come from, anyway? It is a way to test gold for authenticity. If the metal is fake, it will survive the test. But if the metal is real gold, the acid will destroy it. So the term "acid test" has come to mean that ultimate trial - the one certain test of authenticity. Unfortunately, it also means that the only way to know the value of something is to destroy it. I don’t think that those who so vehemently object to Warren’s Invocation intend to destroy or diminish Obama’s ability to get things done. But I do wonder if the constant drumbeat of "No, no, no" over this one thing, as symbolic as it may be, might be having exactly that effect.

Should we insist on an all-or-nothing standard? It seems to me that we are just wrapping up eight years of UniThought politics. If the Republicans have taught us anything lately, it is that when dissenting viewpoints are shut out by turning away those who hold them, we inevitably shut out other valuable contributions by those same individuals. I have also been dismayed in the past eight years at the Bush doctrine of not even talking to our adversaries. I am counting on Obama to steer foreign policy more towards the model summed up by Yitzhak Rabin when he said "You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with very unsavory enemies." I think his pick of Rick Warren portends that we can indeed look forward to that kind of change. (Not that I would call Rev. Warren a "very unsavory enemy." But hopefully, you get the point.)

Obama cannot rescind his invitation without further alienating the very people he seeks to draw into his dialog: conservative evangelicals. People like my parents. What impresses me the most is that the extending of this invitation is so classically Obama. This is exactly why I voted for him. This is exactly why he won. He understands that by pushing, you get push-back. He’d rather pull people along in the wake created by those things on which we can all agree. He has found such concord with Rev. Warren in issues of environment, poverty, and treatment for AIDS. Rev. Warren is a link - if only a hair-thin one - to those Americans who did not vote for Obama, but to whom Obama said "I will be your President, too."

Perhaps Melissa Etheridge said it best in her blog today on The Huffington Post, in which she describes a meeting she had with Rev. Warren, after which she concluded that "Maybe if they get to know us, they won’t fear us."

And maybe we won’t fear them.

______________________________________

Snow Falling on Caesars

Up until a couple of years ago, we lived in the middle of a forest. Now we do not, but we did not move. The forest was cut down around us, and we now live in the middle of what is basically a 3-acre park: still surrounded by our trees, but with an ugly clear-cut just on the other side of the property line. And of course because the timber company was able to cut right up to the property line ("forest management practices"), our trees have now been exposed to the ravages of wind and weather, after over 80 years of strength in numbers. So our trees fall at a rate of about a dozen a year (the first year it was over 30), faster than we can make use of them in our single wood stove. In a few years, the landscape on the other side of the property line will start to look less like a bad haircut on Frankenstein’s monster, but for now it is just painfully ugly.

Except on days like today. We had a couple inches of snowfall last night, and even that small amount is enough to smooth things over and make the sixty acres surrounding us less of an eyesore. Parts of it actually look peaceful and lovely, a snowy meadow. It is an illusion, I know, but it is a welcome break from the ugly realities of what lies beneath the white blanket.

I have spent the past few weeks in a kind of snowy dream state of relief, following the recent election. After eight years of illegal war, state-sanctioned torture, spying on citizens, and questionable elections, we appear to have elected a chief executive who is more interested in Americans’ day-to-day sanity than in Empire. So while there is still plenty going on to be upset about, including handouts to financial giants followed by and the lack of any assistance to blue-collar industries, I keep telling myself "four more weeks, four more weeks...."

When Barak Obama takes the oath of office (and I do so hope he doesn’t wuss out, and that he actually says "I, Barak Hussain Obama, do solemnly swear..."), it will not only be historic, but, I expect, restorative. At least the insanity will stop. For a while. But what then? The signals coming from the President Elect and his team indicate that there will be no investigations of wrong-doing of the previous administration. When I bring up this concern to some friends, their response is along the lines of "Oh, he can’t go down that road, or he will not be able to govern." OK, I can see that. Sort of.

But, to use a cliche, past is prologue. Nixon broke into an office, and his successor just wanted the long, national nightmare to be over. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush did an end-run around the law in Iran-Contra, and the next President said "Let’s move on." So now our current Commander in Chief (shudder) started at least one illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of people; and appears to have ordered illegal imprisonment, kidnapping and torture - among other things. But our incoming President is poised to raise the Stockholm Syndrome to national proportions by telling all of us that it really isn’t worth getting all flustered about.

Despite the right-wing hype over the latest "scandal" (that Obama might have spoken to, or maybe even have been in the same room with, the disgraced Gov. Blagojevich!), I’m not worried about what lawless havoc might be wrought by an Obama administration. What I am worried about the lawless havoc that could be wrought by a future administration, taking advantage of the "never mind" precedent going back, in my lifetime, to at least the Nixon years. In that span of time we’ve gone from breaking into an office to breaking into a country, and I shutter to think what’s next.

So I have asked my representatives to press on, and to insist that subpoenas be honored, and questions be answered. If nothing else, hold a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, al la South Africa. I don’t want revenge - well, yes, I do - but I want my democracy back even more. So even if we have to let the bad guys go in order to figure out how they got away with it, then so be it. Just stop it. My concern, though, is that even some of the good guys got close enough to the line, or even perhaps put a toe across it, to want this all to go away. But that does not mean I will stop asking them to do the right thing.

I walk around our property now and look at the white vista stretching out where the snags and weeds used to be. And I know they are still there, under the snow. Perhaps our winter wonderland will hang around until at least January 20th. Once the snow melts, things will get ugly again around here. But not, I fear, in the other Washington. Not ugly enough.

Tonight Is Your Answer

This is pretty much unedited. I have a major project I should be finishing tonight, but that does not seem important. The center of the universe tonight is Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois. By the miracle of television, I am sitting here in Washington state, watching history unfold.

____________________________

I knew I would be in tears tonight if this actually happened. No surprise there. But it might take until January 20, 2009, for me to really take it in.

President-Elect Obama is giving his acceptance speech, and told us that people all over the country said to themselves “that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.” I am feeling that. It had to be different. I wasn't sure I could abide a repeat of the last two election. It had to be that all of our votes would be counted. That we would have our democracy back. That the goal would no longer be a red victory or a blue victory, but rather it would be what we can accomplish together. Or as our next President just said, “That we are and always will be the United States of America,” echoing his landmark speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. That we would regain our faith in a government by, for, and of the people.

Did he just say that “we as a people will get there”? At least he did not say “I might not get there with you.” And now he just invoked Kennedy - the spirit of sacrifice. But we’re in a new century now. President-Elect Obama (oh, I just can’t believe I’m saying that) just said that we rise and fall as one nation, one people. That’s the take-away for me tonight. Speaking to the loyal opposition, he said “and I will be your President, too.” All of the sudden it hits me - he will be our President.

I’m looking forward to The Government being “us,” not “them.” I’m looking forward to The Government being at least part of the solution. I’m looking forward to the words “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” being a good thing. I’m looking forward to accountability. To balance. To hope.

This evening, Obama recalled for us Ann Nixon Cooper, a 106 year old black woman, who was born into a world in which she could not vote because she was a woman and she was black. This year, she cast her vote for a President Obama. What a piece of history. But I sincerely hope tonight that we did not elect a black man as President. I hope we elected an honest man. An intelligent man. A curious man. A gracious man. It has been so long since I have felt we had any of those qualities in the Oval Office.

I was a child when so many of the stirring speeches of the 20th century were delivered. I did not watch them in real time with any awareness of their importance. But on June 3rd of this year, I remember listening to Obama’s speech when he cinched the Democratic nomination, and feeling that these words might be recalled along side “Ask not what your country can do for you” and “I have a dream” - his prediction that we would look back on that night and say that “this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.” I remember thinking that he could be right - if he wins.

Well, he won. We have a little over two months to let it sink in. For some time now, I’ve been fearful that the election could be stolen. That the power of fear would win over hope. That there would be a catch. And I hasten to add - if only because I’ve become superstitions in my old age - that we have not yet had the inauguration. But for tonight, I’m allowing myself some relief and joy. We have accomplished incredible things. To quote the next President of the United States, “if there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible... tonight is your answer.” I’m still pinching myself.