Americans, in one week, we go to the polls to decide the outcome of the most important election many of us have ever voted (or will vote) in. The next President of the United States is going to be forced to make decisions which will influence the future direction of this country. Many of these choices will not be easy, and some of them will be undoubtedly controversial.

Our choice at the polls is clear. Only one man is fit and prepared to become the President of the United States: Barack Obama. By casting your vote for Barack Obama, you are casting a vote to take America in the right direction. He is, as they say, the right man for the job.

America’s reputation as a global economic, political, and military powerhouse is on the wane. Our reputation with other nations has been dragged through the mud and thrown into the gutter after eight years of a Bush/Cheney administration. We are facing economic chaos, two wars, and global unrest. American innovation has been stifled, American jobs are shrinking on a monthly basis, and the American people are tired, downtrodden, and frustrated.

Barack Obama will work to restore our reputation overseas, to strengthen diplomatic and military ties with other nations, to reform our troubled economy, and to provide vitally needed services at home. Obama proposes reforms to the tax code which will benefit Americans who are struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck. He supports reform of our educational system which will improve the next generation of Americans. While his healthcare plan is not perfect, it will certainly represent a marked improvement on the existing system, and Mr. McCain’s plan. Barack Obama also supports partnering with Americans to benefit our country, providing more funding to people who are willing to serve in Americorps, the Peace Corps, and other service organizations.

Many people suggest that Mr. Obama is not prepared to serve as President of the United States, given his experience. The truth is that no one is prepared for this position. It is a unique, one of a kind job which requires strength of character, compassion, and the ability to seek help from others. Mr. Obama has these traits. His running mate, Joe Biden, has a wealth of foreign policy experience which will be invaluable for the United States. These men are prepared to lead America.

Some people say America is not ready for a black President. Americans may never be ready for a black President. That doesn’t mean a black man shouldn’t be President. This is a country where any naturalized citizen who reaches the age of 35 can be President, or at least that’s what it says in the Constitution.

Mr. McCain has run one of the foulest political campaigns I have ever seen. A man who is willing to sacrifice all personal integrity in a cynical, cold, and cruel campaign is not fit to be President of the United States. A man who must win at any costs is not ready to lead America. A man who cannot control his temper, who cannot form coherent policy, who cannot stand up for what he believes in when it matters is not fit to govern this country. The misinformation, lies, smears, and constant cynical moves of the McCain campaign are, quite frankly, unAmerican. It is time, gentle readers, to say goodbye to all that.

Mr. Obama is a kind, loving, and compassionate man. He cares about his family, and he cares about his country. He is a man who would mend his shoes before replacing them, a man who would take time off from his campaign at a critical moment to visit a dying loved one, a man who is clearly deeply in love with his beautiful, talented, powerful wife. He was worked tirelessly on behalf of the poor, he has advocated for his constituency, and he has proven himself to be poised, calm, and collected throughout the campaign. He is a powerful speechwriter, and a skilled presenter. He is the man I want representing America to the world, and he is the man you should want representing America to the world.

Is Barack Obama a perfect man? No, of course not, and I have fundamentally disagreed with many of his decisions, such as the support of FISA, his stance on same-sex marriage, and the noted decision to vote “present” on controversial legislation. I do not pretend that Barack Obama is a flawless God, and I say, as an American, that we are obliged to speak up when we disagree, and to criticize that in which we do not believe. This is what makes our country stronger, and I genuinely believe that Mr. Obama will respond to his critics, rather than silencing them. I think that he is the right man for this moment, and that we must take incremental steps if we want to make change in America. Mr. Obama is a very critical incremental step.

I have already made my choice and mailed in my ballot, and I hope that my fellow Americans will join me in the making the right choice for each other, for the generations of Americans in the future, and for the world. Let’s come together to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency in 2008.

My opposition to Proposition 8 has already been filed and noted, but I wish to expand, briefly, upon why I think that a no vote on eight is important, and to urge you to vote no on this proposition. A no vote on eight is, quite simply, the right thing to do, whether or not you believe in same sex marriage. This proposition is fundamentally about elimination of a right, and that alone should give you pause.

This proposition is simple: it eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry, and it amends the California Constitution to do so. Both of these things are very dangerous. We should not be toying with the California Constitution to make it align with our personal beliefs and values.

If you are opposed to same sex marriage, I respectfully disagree, but I do not see any reason to belittle you for it. You have your reasons, and I have mine, and I think that both of us deserve respect. It is not for me to tell other people what to do. However, I would like you to think about Proposition 8 as a civil rights issue, because that is what it is.

This proposition is about gender discrimination. It wants to deny people a right on the basis of their gender and sexual orientation. This type of discrimination is banned under numerous laws in California, and the Supreme Court of California seems to agree that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Even if you don’t support same sex marriage, I think you would probably agree with me that the California Constitution is a document which should not be meddled with, because the same clauses which provide protection to same sex couples provide protections to many other people who need them.

I totally support the right of religious officiants to refuse to perform same sex marriages, and that is in no way impacted under the current system. Gay and lesbian couples cannot force religious officiants to carry out marriages for them, and this is as it should be. To force the church to perform rites it does not agree with would be a gross violation of the separation between Church and State.

I do not support proposals for “civil unions” for same sex couples, instead of marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long again weighed in on the “separate but equal” issue, and it has determined that there is no such thing as “separate but equal.” To force same sex couples into civil unions is to deny them equal rights under the law. It also denies them many of the rights and privileges associated with marriage, and it raises a complicated legal tangle, since the status of civil unions is as-yet unclear.

Proponents of Prop 8 have put out a great deal of misinformation about this proposition, and I want to take the time to address some of these lies, because they are important.

Granting same sex couples the right to marry paves the way to polygamy! No, it doesn’t. Polygamy is an entirely separate issue which is clearly banned under the law.

If we let gays get married, then people will start marrying animals! Or children! No. No. No. Same sex marriage is not equivalent to bestiality or pedophilia. Humans cannot (and will never be able to) marry animals because animals do not have the ability to give consent. People cannot marry children under the law because children also lack the ability to give consent. Most gay and lesbian couples fully support age of consent laws, and pretty much everyone is opposed to pedophilia and child molestation. To suggest that gay marriage is equivalent to polygamy, pedophilia, or bestiality is insulting and specious.

What about the children?! Yes, children will probably learn about same sex marriage in school, just like they learn about heterosexual marriage and other aspects of human life and culture. Teachers are not going to be forcing children to swallow the “gay agenda” or embrace same sex marriage for themselves. School is about providing children access to information, so that they can make their own choices.

Marriage and building a family is also about children in the eyes of many people. Clearly, same sex couples can and do have children, and being married provides those children with greater financial, legal, and emotional security. To claim that same sex couples should not get married because they can’t have children is incorrect. Same sex couples can adopt, use donated sperm and eggs, and use surrogates, just like heterosexual couples do by the scores every year.

Same sex marriage is an insult to the institution of marriage. Denying love in any form is an insult to the institution of marriage. Entering into a sacred covenant with someone else and divorcing them is an insult to the institutution of marruage. Same sex marriage may offend your personal morality, but that’s your problem.

Californians, say yes to protecting civil rights in this state, say yes to love, and say no to bigots. Vote no on 8.

Proposition 4, for those of you who are not aware of it, is yet another parental notification proposition. These seem to come up on the ballot repeatedly, and they repeatedly get voted down. However, you should still go out and register a resounding “NO” on four, because it is a bad proposition, and because a lot of conservatives are going to be out and about in this election, which means that every vote counts.

Under the terms of Proposition 4, abortions for unemancipated minors are put on hold “until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.” There are a few key exceptions, and there’s a clause that the minor must consent to the abortion (the very thought of forced abortion is just repellent to me, so I guess it’s good to have that in there), and it includes mandatory reporting requirements. Big Brother wants to keep an eye on your uterus.

So, there are a couple of reasons why I think this is a bad proposition, and why I think that even people who are opposed to abortion should vote no on it. I think that both sides of this debate can agree that abortion really sucks, and it is something we would all like to see less of. However, if abortion is going to happen, I think (and I hope anti-abortion advocates agree) that it should take place in a clean, sterile, safe environment. Mandatory reporting requirements are going to drive minors in search of abortion underground (or across state lines) and into some potentially very dangerous situations. Including suicide. Teenage girls will die if Proposition 4 passes, and that’s a cold fact.

I would love it if all minors could discuss their abortions with their parents or guardians, and receive support from their families. But mandatory reporting is not the way to do it. What if the minor is trying to abort the result of incest or molestation? What if her family is extremely conservative, and they throw her out of her home?

I wish that we all lived in a world where teenage girls had open, safe relationships with their parents and guardians. A world where teens felt comfortable talking about the issues going on in their lives, and could feel confident going to an adult authority figure for help. But, unfortunately, we don’t live in that world, and I think that we need to think about girls who are not fortunate enough to have a good relationship with their parents.

Proponents of Proposition 4 want you to think that it protects teens, and they are marching out a tired old story about “Sarah,” a 15 year old who died after a botched abortion, to support their argument. What they didn’t tell you about Sarah is that she was in Texas, not California, and she was married, and therefore would have been exempt from notification laws. What happened to Sarah was tragic, but a notification law would not have prevented it.

They also tell a story in the voter guide about a girl who was abducted, abused, and taken for a “secret abortion,” claiming that Planned Parenthood didn’t report the abuse. Medical providers are mandated reporters, people. If a doctor treats a 14 year old girl who is obviously being sexually molested and held captive, that doctor must report it. Proposition 4 doesn’t change that, because doctors are already obliged to report suspected cases of sexual/physical abuse of children.

Proposition 4 is also a slippery slope, because anything which undermines safe and legal access to abortion is something which undermines women’s rights and control over their own bodies. After parental notification, are we going to see spousal notification? Rapist notification?

What we need is better sexual education for young women, and a focus on providing safe spaces for women to talk with counselors about sexuality, birth control, and other issues. We could cut down on teen abortions by empowering girls with the information they need to make better choices, but instead we want to treat them like property.

Vote no on four, people. It’s wrong for California, and it’s wrong for women.

I’m not going to do this for every proposition on the ballot, but I am going to do it for a few key props that I think are important. Two is important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it will set a bar which other states can use as a standard. By voting yes on two and saying that we support more humane conditions for animals raised for food, we are sending a message to the industry, and to other consumers.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Proposition 2, is “requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and move around freely.” There are some exceptions written into it, of course, but there’s also a fine for violators (which would offset enforcement costs).

Before I get into why two is important, I want to dispel two myths about this proposition.

It is not mandating free-range conditions. I wish it was, because that would be awesome. But apparently people are under the impression that two throws out the cages altogether, allowing animals to live in a happy, natural way. No. It sets out some mandates, which are still less strict than those used in the European Union.

It will not “increase the risk of bird flu.” There’s a lot of misinformation about this, coming primarily from the meat lobby. Scaremongers want voters to think that a yes on two is a yes to bird flu, and it’s not. In fact, it’s a no to bird flu, because the more cramped and confined the conditions are, the higher the incidence of disease. I still can’t understand why people believe the lies being put out by the opposition, but apparently they do.

So there are three primary reasons to vote yes on two: animal welfare, human health, and the environment.

From an animal welfare perspective, two greatly improves the atrocious conditions on factory farms. Animals raised for food should at least be able to move. A lot of people worked very hard to get two on the ballot, and while I would like to see more stringent welfare protections for animals, it is a very good start. By forcing the meat industry to create more humane conditions in California, we will pave the way for better conditions all over the United States. And remember, the European Union has even tougher laws, and their meat industry is clearly doing just fine. So don’t let people tell you that humane treatment is “too expensive.” Preventing cruelty to other living beings is never too expensive.

From a human health perspective, a two vote is obvious. The better the conditions animals are raised in, the less incidence of zoonotic disease. Less cramped conditions mean less use of antibiotics, which means that antibiotic-resistant bacteria aren’t going to be bred along with meat animals. I really don’t know how to map this out any more clearly, people: two will decrease the risk of zoonotic disease.

Two is also good for the environment, because confined animal feeding operations make a big, gross, stinky, harmful mess. The more confined, the more gross things get. It’s that simple.

So, if you care about animals, human health, or the environment, you should vote yes on two! Yes to more humane treatment of animals, yes to reduction of zoonotic disease, and yes to preservation of the environment!

To vote, that is. Well, are you? Today is the deadline to register to vote in California, so I thought it would be a good time to talk about voter registration, and one of the ways in which you might be prevented from voting. As I hope most of you are aware, county clerks routinely purge their voter rolls. The idea behind purging is that duplicate registrations, dead people, and so on can be removed from the list, ensuring the “one person, on vote” rule holds true.

However, as numerous news stories have shown, thousands of Americans are being illegally purged. Which is why you need to check your registration.  Let me give you that link again: check your voter registration at VotePoke. It’s a very easy interface to use. Just enter your name and address, hit enter, and it will tell you if you are registered to vote.

If VotePoke thinks that you are not, it will show you how to re-register, or how to appeal a purging with your county clerk. Please, please, please pass this link on, especially to voters in swing states, since they are most at risk of being purged. People who have lost their homes due to foreclosure, minorities, and registered Democrats are most at risk of being purged in the swing states, so make sure that they don’t get left out of this critical election.

Deciding not to vote because you’re too cool and hip to participate in the democratic process is pretty lame. Not voting because you didn’t register is just stupid. Not being able to vote because you’ve been illegally removed from the voter rolls is terrifying, so please do not let it happen to you, or anyone you know. Or anyone you don’t know, for example. Let’s try and make this election as impossible to steal as possible, ok?

So there’s a section of the debate that I wanted to address in a more in-depth fashion, because I think it was pretty important. It’s the part where the moderator asked about Supreme Court justices, and the discussion devolved into a conversation about Roe v Wade. (Which, while an important Supreme Court decision, was far from the only decision, although it is on the line.)

Specifically, let’s take a look at this selection of quotes from John McCain (I was going to excerpt the whole section, except that it’s very long. To see the quotes without editing, here’s the debate transcript.)

I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do…I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications.

Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it’s got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who’s facing this terribly difficult decision..I don’t know how you align yourself with the extreme aspect of the pro- abortion movement in America…Just again, the example of the eloquence of Senator Obama. He’s health for the mother. You know, that’s been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That’s the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, “health.” But, look, Cindy and I are adoptive parents. We know what a treasure and joy it is to have an adopted child in our lives. We’ll do everything we can to improve adoption in this country. But that does not mean that we will cease to protect the rights of the unborn. Of course, we have to come together. Of course, we have to work together, and, of course, it’s vital that we do so and help these young women who are facing such a difficult decision, with a compassion, that we’ll help them with the adoptive services, with the courage to bring that child into this world and we’ll help take care of it.

So, there are a couple of issues going on here. The first paragraph I excerpted above is part of his discussion of “litmus tests” for the Supreme Court. He actually went a whole long thing about how you can’t use a “litmus test” to judge qualifications, yet states that support of Roe v Wade would make someone’s qualifications questionable. Doesn’t that kind of mean that you are, uhm, imposing your ideology onto your choices for the Supreme Court?

The second paragraph has a whole lot of things going on, and all of them need to be talked about. First, he says that he wants to give women “courage” to make a hard choice, yet he actually supports abrogating that “choice” altogether by making abortion impossible to obtain. How is that a choice? How it is courageous to be forced to keep a baby you don’t want? Including, yes, a baby that threatens your own life, which is when we get into the health of the mother issue.

You don’t see it in the transcript, but in the debate, McCain put the word “health” in quotes, scare quotes, with a huge sneer on his face, as though women’s health isn’t something which needs to be protected. He blathers on about the rights of the unborn, and apparently has no respect for the already born. He belittles the horrible situations in which being pregnant is, in fact, a health threat, and a woman must indeed have the courage to make a difficult choice. An incredibly difficult, awful choice. Women do not wake up and decide not to be pregnant when they get late term abortions.

How is it compassionate to belittle women’s health? How is supporting women’s choices not compassionate? How is encouraging women to think about all of their options lacking in compassion? You know what’s not compassionate? Forcing rape victims to have babies. Forcing young girls who have been raped by their fathers to carry the results of that rape to term. Telling women that, in a time of medical crisis, the life of the very much wanted and loved baby inside is worth more than theirs.

To say that caring about women’s health is “extreme” or that the pro-choice movement is “pro-abortion” is awful. Caring about women’s health, or anybody’s health, is a great, natural, human thing. It’s a good thing. We should be all about caring about women’s health. And, as someone who is very proudly pro-choice, let me tell you that I am most certainly not pro-abortion. I think that abortion is a very difficult, awful, and ultimately personal decision, and I would never tell a woman that she should or shouldn’t get an abortion. I’ve accompanied women on abortions, supported women during abortion recovery, and talked with women about their options, but I don’t promote abortion. And most people in the pro-choice movement feel the same way. Abortion is just one choice on the table.

Which made it all the more awful that when Mr. Obama said that both sides could probably agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies was a good thing, McCain interrupted and was incredibly snide and rude. Because, you know what? We should be reducing unwanted pregnancies. I think that this is something both sides of the movement should be able to come together on. I would love to live in a country where there were no abortions except in cases where the pregnancy threatened the life of the mother because all babies were wanted babies, and women were never raped, and women were never victims of incest. That’s probably not going to happen, but we could at least try. Hey, we’ve reduced the number of unwanted dogs and cats radically, why not do the same for people?

And I would like to note that abortions declined during the Clinton Administration, and rose in the Bush Administration. Why? Because Clinton focused on women’s health, sexual education, and benefits for low-income pregnant women. Bush took that all away and replaced it with shrill rhetoric about abortion.

And yes, by all means, let’s provide the support for women who want to carry their children to term. Let’s overhaul the foster system so that it actually works, allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt, provide pre-natal care for all women for free, support post-partum care and benefits for women who want to keep their babies. Let’s promote healthy babies, and adoption as an option, and healthy mothers. Let’s provide all those benefits you and your cronies regularly deny, Mr. McCain, and make women’s health a priority.

McCain, and his radical anti-choice running mate, are not pro-woman. As Obama rightly pointed out, McCain opposes equal pay for equal work. His running mate believes that abortion should be banned, even in cases of rape and incest. Mr. McCain thinks that women’s health is “radical.” His running mate thinks that being pregnant as a teen makes you “grow up real quick,” and that women should throw their potential and lives away to fulfill some sick, twisted religious belief.

The McCain campaign thinks that working for equal rights is working for the “liberal feminist agenda.” Feminists have an agenda all right, but it’s not liberal or conservative. The desire for equal treatment under the law, equal rights, and equal access transcends partisan lines. I would fight to the death for a woman’s right to vote Republican, carry an unwanted baby to term, and put it up for adoption, just like I’d fight for a woman who votes green and sues her employer for equal compensation.

You might not agree with me on the abortion issue, but I’d like to imagine that you can agree with me on these poits:

1. Women deserve equal pay for equal work.
2. Women’s health is not a “radical” issue, but in fact a very basic right.
3. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is a good thing.

Dear America,

I think we need to talk about our relationship. I’m sorry to be saying it in a letter like this, but you’re so busy with the election and all that it’s hard to get in touch with you these days. I figure, this way, you have a chance to sit down when you really have some time. And you can be kind of intimidating in person, you know. I mean I’m sure you get that all the time, but I feel like I can be more honest in a letter than I would be to your face.

The thing is, I’m getting a little worried about you. I think that a lot of your friends are. I understand how it is when things are crazy stressful, but I really think it would be a good idea for you to sit down and evaluate what you want to do, as a country. I’m not sure that you’re going in the right direction, and, as your friend, I feel like I should point this out.

I’ve been hearing some nasty rumors about you lately, and sometimes it’s hard to tell how much is true, but it does seem like you are straying far from the terms of the constitution. You’ve got political candidates condoning violent behaviour among their supporters, overseas “detention centers,” a seriously faltering economy, candidates who refuse to give the press access to their campaigns, morality-based legislation on a bunch of ballots, people struggling to keep their jobs and stay in their homes, two wars going on, several looming foreign policy issues, a growing health care crisis, and some serious environmental issues going on. I’m sorry to lay it out so bleakly like this, but I think it’s something you need to hear.

I know that you were founded on a premise of equality, America, and that as you have matured, you’ve evidenced a growing interest in diversity, but I don’t feel like that’s reflected in your actions. I know that sometimes it’s hard to make the right choice when you are surrounded by people with conflicting ideals, but the Constitution and the basic founding principles are pretty simple. And, quite frankly, I’m afraid that you’re promoting things like tyranny, which you claim to stand against.

I really think that we can work this out. I have a lot of faith in you, and we have a long history together. I’m not saying I want to throw all that out, at all. I just think that you need to get your priorities straight. If you can’t, maybe we should spend some time apart. You know. Date other people. I don’t want to jump to breaking up or anything here, I’m just warning you. And I don’t want to pressure you or anything, but a lot of your friends have told me that they feel the same way.

So get your act straight, America. We’re rooting for you, and we’re there for you if you need us, but there’s only so much we can do, you know?

Love,

s.e.

I saw two things recently which reminded me of an exchange from my childhood. The first was a toddler in an “Obama for Change” shirt, being pushed down the street by a yuppie mother. (Who, incidentally, ran me off the sidewalk and into oncoming traffic with her stroller.) The second was a photograph from a McCain rally of some parents and their young children, waving pro-McCain signs.

And I couldn’t help but wonder how much choice those children had in those situations. Toddlers don’t usually dress themselves, and even if they do, how many support Obama? Do seven year olds really ask to be taken to McCain rallies to wave signs like mommy and daddy?

When I was a kid, my father gave me every possible chance to turn into a conservative, though he himself is quite liberal. I don’t know if he did it because he felt that I deserved balance and a chance to make my own choices, or if he was secretly just wondering what would happen. He was assisted in this by a very conservative friend of our family, whom I will call the Birdwatcher. The Birdwatcher is a very bright man, who is very good at arguing politics, and he is very conservative.

Pretty much any time the Birdwatcher was over, the conversation devolved into politics. He has since moved out of the area, but every time he comes into town, politics inevitably comes up. The last time he visited, we argued for three hours straight about nationalized healthcare and taxation rates. Initially, like most children, I pretty much parroted my father’s political views. Eventually, I started engaging more, and the Birdwatcher started providing me with all sorts of fodder, including books, magazine articles, and so forth. It got to the point where I demanded a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, a paper which was not delivered up here then, and my father made arrangements with a friend in New York who would buy the paper and mail it to me every day.

But it was the Birdwatcher who was responsible for the following exchange with one of my schoolmates in middle school:

Schoolmate: Hey, do you want to come over after school?

Me: No, I’m expecting the new National Review.

Yes, the Birdwatcher did indeed buy me a subscription to the National Review, and I really did give up social engagements to come home and read each new issue. My father absolutely refused to read the National Review, although he usually ended up reading most of it anyway, just so that he could argue more effectively at the dinner table. I even brought in a National Review article for class discussion about a controversial ballot initiative (I ended up getting in hot water, and being rescued by my father, who pointed out that the National Review was a respected publication, whether or not the teacher agreed with it, and I was therefore entitled to bring in articles from it). After said show and tell, “bring in an item of news to share” was disbanded in favor of “craft like the Egyptians,” and I was permanently disinvited from several of my classmates’ homes by their parents.

I have to give the Birdwatcher credit. He really tried. He paid for my National Review subscription through college, when he called me a “pinko Communist queer,” a turning point which filled me with immense pride. I still have a number of books which give my houseguests room for pause, courtesy of the Birdwatcher. And I have to give my father credit. He never pushed me into liberal politics, and in fact never pushed me to get into politics at all, which made it kind of amusing when I went to college with the goal of studying political science.

My father figured, I think, that if he gave me access to information and conversation, I would come to my own conclusions about life, and I did. Our politics are not identical, although they are closely aligned, and we have had some fairly vigorous arguments about politics. I wonder how much information that toddler is going to get as he grows up? If those seven year olds will get The American Prospect or Mother Jones and read with the same avidity I dedicated to the National Review.

I suspect not, since independent thinking is not encouraged in this country by either the left or the right. It’s a pity, really. I think that if I had ended up a rabid Republican, my father would have liked me just as much.

I’m gearing up for the debate, which you can watch on Hulu, among other places. I’m fully stocked with a full Nalgene, a RitterSport Dark Chocolate with Marzipan, and a fresh pair of action pants. As I did last week, I’m liveblogging it, with the most recent entries at the top of this post. Please jump in in the comments section if you’d like to join in the fun. If you get tired of my blathering, 538, Jezebel, and Slog (among others) are all liveblogging as well.

7:32: Ok, so, first hit before poisoning myself with the punditry. I think that this debate went back and forth. McCain really did score some strong hits, and Obama missed some easy shots that he could have taken, which was a major bummer. That said, McCain’s puerile behavior really detracted from his performance in the debate. Obama seemed much more cool, collected, and on point, although he did get a big snippy a few times. McCain, on the other hand, was behaving like a petulant child being forced to eat broccoli. The end result: I think that Obama “won,” but that he could have done a better job. Obama’s close in particular was great, though, very nice.

7:32: Cindy looks like a fire engine.

7:31: Michelle, always classy. That dress/pearl set is just gorgeous.

7:31: Nice closer from the moderator.

7:29: Obama: attacking the Washington establishment, ok. Highlighting the economy, ok. Not so sure about the rehit on McSame; I think McCain has really tried to distance himself from Bush in this debate. Nice way to stress the “fundamental decency and generosity of the American people.” I’m starting to get into this. It’s beautiful, simple, and clear. (Although I don’t agree that being in the middle class is something to aspire to, but that’s another issue.) Loving the stress on working together as a nation, “spirit of service,” turning the speech onto US, rather than himself (as McCain did). This is a really nice closing speech.

7:27: McCain: “my friends,” “new direction,” “maverick,” blah blah blah blah fucking blah. Yeah, we do need to make healthcare and education available, McCain. Too bad your plans won’t do that. Careful steward my big fat behind. Yeah, crashing planes and winding up in jail is a great way to put your country first.

7:27: Woo hoo! Obama gets the last word.

7:26: Can we just agree that vouchers are stupid?

7:25: I just noticed…where is McCain’s flag pin?

7:24: More to the point, did McCain seriously just tell Obama to pay attention?

7:23: Why do people say “Warshington”?

7:21: Hehe, nice NCLB joke, Obama.

7:20: Woah, McCain actually referenced Teach for America. And then suggested that people don’t need certifications to teach. “Teaching certificate? I don’t need no steenkin’ certificate!”

7:19: Yes, because capitalism worked so well for the economy, let’s just port the same model over to education.

7:18: Education is the civil rights issue of the 21st century?

7:17: Hell yeah we need more money and reform, Obama! You rock that education policy.

7:16: Hooray, education! And thank you for highlighting the fact that the American education system totally sucks right now.

7:15: Yeah, let’s mock “health” of the mother. You know what? When women have to abort children late in pregnancy for health reasons, it is devastating and horrible. So don’t you fucking belittle women who have experienced that, you pompous old white fuck.

7:14: Glad to hear McCain laughing at Obama when he talks about the need for common ground. That’s real mature.

7:13: I think Obama is presenting his position on women’s rights very well here.

7:12 For the record, I am proud to say that I am a part of the “extreme element” of “the pro-abortion movement” in America. My views are so extreme that I think women should be allowed to make their own choices about their own bodies.

7:12: You are seriously bringing up the born alive thing, John McCain? And please don’t use the term “partial birth abortion,” because it is NOT A MEDICAL TERM! It is meaningless!

7:11: “We have to change the culture of America…” by imposing our moral values on Americans. How unAmerican!

7:10: YEAH BABY! I am so glad to see Lily Ledbetter being introduced here, and SO SO glad to see Obama stressing that McCain doesn’t support equal pay for equal work.

7:09: Ok, I’m glad to hear Obama supporting the right to choose, but unfortunately he is not really answering the question. Interesting interpretation of the Constitution, as well, arguing that it should not be altered by state referendum. (Isn’t the whole structure of the Constitition supposed to support state’s rights?)

7:09: Glad to see Obama openly stating that Roe v Wade is hanging in the balance, for anyone who’s missed the boat on this issue.

7:08: Ah, so he’s not imposing a litmus test, but if you support Roe v Wade, you are “not qualified” to serve, so it amounts to the same thing.

7:08: Yes, Mr. McCain, Supreme Court justices are an important issue. And when you let your wacked out Conservative ideology interfere with your interpretation of the United States Constitution, that is an even more important issue.

7:07: I like how the moderator tried to put McCain back on track there. I wish I believed that McCain cared more about qualifications than morals.

7:06: REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS! OH YEAH BABY! YEAH YEAH YEAH!

7:06: Ok, seriously, can we, like, ban dogs in city limits or something?

7:05: Uhm…McCain is going off into outer space here.

7:04: Transplants are part of a gold-plated, Cadillac insurance policy? I’ll be sure to mention that to my friend who is waiting for a liver.

7:04: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THERE ARE NO FUCKING MANDATES IN THE OBAMA PLAN!

7:03: Can we please stop talking about Joe the plumber? I think we are all over it now. Also, have I mentioned how much I hate my neighbor’s dogs lately?

7:03: Hey, thanks for reading my comment, Obama!

7:02: Ok, now we’re getting into the meat of things. And I LOVE to hear him referencing the tax on benefits.

7:01: I wish Obama would stress that the McCain plan would result in MORE uninsured by forcing businesses to drop health care plans.

7:00: Have you noticed how McCain blinks in rage whenever Obama is nailing him?

7:00: No mandates, no fines. If you actually READ Obama’s crappy health plan, you would know that.

6:59: That’s right, fatties, YOU are responsible for the problem’s with America’s health care system. It makes me want to throw on my jogging shorts right this minute to FIX AMERICA.

6:58: Just for reference, healthcare for a family of four (who would get $5k under McCain’s plan) costs around $12k/year. So unless you know how to magically add $7k to the income of a family, please let me know.

6:57: Nice, Obama is laying out his health plan in a pretty clear way. Oh course, it should be a nationalized single payer health plan with mandates, not a shitty between compromise that won’t really work, but it’s better than McCain’s plan.

6:56: Oh yes, please, let’s do talk about healthcare.

6:56: Yeah, Obama doesn’t want to trade with countries that permit abuse of workers and labor organizers. I think that’s pretty reasonable, myself.

6:55: Ok, now we’re just getting random with the attacks.

6:54: Nice way to call the car companies out on lagging on cleaner cars, Obama.

6:53: As Kate just said in the comments, I feel like McCain is a little out of control tonight, careening around with the crazy high b.p. Did you notice the whistling thing he’s doing? Like his bronchial tubes are constricted from stress?

6:53: Wow, almost a whole hour before McCain says Obama “doesn’t understand” in a totally patronizing way!

6:52: How did we get from energy independence to drugs? Did I miss something?

6:51: Drill now, drill forever?

6:49: Ooooh, yes, talk about mortgaging ourselves to China. Yeah baby.

6:48: Hey, numbers. Thanks, Obama.

6:48: Donde estas el numero, senior McCain?

6:46: Hey, way to ask for hard numbers when discussing oil consumption.

6:45: Cockamamie? Dude, no one under 80 uses that word.

6:44: How about talking about how Palin cut funding to special needs children in Alaska?

6:44: Ok, so Obama talks about Biden in terms of policy, skills, and experience, and McCain talks about Palin as…a role model for women and special needs children. Excuse me while I vomit.

6:43: Sigh, maverick crap again. I am still seething over the role model to women thing. Seethe. I just ate an entire row of Rittersport.

6:43: A FUCKING ROLE MODEL TO WOMEN??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?>! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!

6:42: How do you defend Sarah Palin?

6:40: I am loving this defense of Biden. This is the kind of rhetoric that Obama is good at, when he is on point. Way to turn that fighting for the little guy rhetoric back onto McCain.

6:40: Interesting way to address the running mate issue. I think this should be an easy win for Obama if he plays it well.

6:39: Hey, Obama, don’t interrupt. Be nice. Be patient. Wait. Wait like a cat waiting for a gopher. You’ll git ‘im.

6:38: Ok, I am loving this. “Let me tell you who I associate with.” This is a great response to McCain’s slime.

6:37: Right, how can the Obama campaign control fraudulent individuals? Claiming that he is responsible for the Acorn scandal is just…crazy.

6:37: Way to bring in Reagan, the Republican hero, in the Ayers thing.

6:36: Yeah, and how old was McCain when Obama was eight?

6:36: Wow. Ayers? Acorn? Jesus Christ, McCain.

6:35: “Disagree without being disagreeable,” eh?

6:34: Is McCain really saying what I think he’s saying? Oh, yeah, he is. He is using the old “military as crutch” argument to pretend that what happens at their rallies is hunky dory. Also, I know those “Sarah Palin is a Cunt” shirts would come back to haunt us. Thanks, wannabe activists!

6:35: Obama made a mistake there with the “bad people” thing, since McCain actually has made a point of talking about the fact that Obama is a good guy at his rallies.

6:33: Wait…what?

6:33: Man, if I was eating a square of chocolate every time McCain interrupted, I’d be well into a second bar by now. McCain is acting like a child.

6:32: And a repudiation of the Lewis thing, with a note that the Obama campaign also issued a statement immediately afterwards. Should have happened four minutes ago, but still..improving.

6:31: Finally, Obama! And way to go on the interruption, AGAIN, McCain. Getting riled up, are we?

6:31: Ok…now we’re getting there.

6:30: Obama doesn’t seem to be doing too well here. He’s missing a few easy hits on the negative campaigning issue. He should be calling McCain out for those death threats, he should be savaging him on the palling around with terrorists bull. Go on the offensive. GO GO GO!

6:30: Maybe because your healthcare plan sucks.

6:29: Dude, you have to address the Lewis thing. If you don’t, you are going to be accused of evading. Say something. Anything. You’re right that we need to focus on the issues, but TALK ABOUT THE LEWIS THING. Right now. Go.

6:29: Oh, way to deliver the smackdown on the whining about town hall meetings. And way to point out that other orgs are funding negative ads.

6:28: Nice way to cite the poll on negative ads. And I can’t believe McCain interrupted him. Yeah, that’s real mature.

6:28: This is a key moment for Obama. He has a chance to really flip this against McCain.

6:27: Do you really want to claim that Obama spent more on negative ads than you? Oh, wait, the Republican party is buying your negative ads, not you.

6:26: Uhm, yeah Obama did repudiate Lewis’ remarks.

6:26: Ooooh…bringing up John Lewis. I hope that Obama turns that back on him neatly.

6:25: Oh, yeah baby. This is fucking great. McCain doesn’t even bother to answer the question, just whines about not getting town hall meetings.

6:25: Wow, frickin’ GREAT question calling them out on the nastiness of the campaign. Will he mention the death threats being made at McCain/Palin rallies?

6:24: Petulant much?

6:24: Wait, McCain “vigorously opposes” the war in Iraq? Or was that just a poorly worded sentence.

6:23: I’m a maverick! I’m a maverick! Look at me!

6:22: Nice response from Obama to that word vomit from McCain. And way to come up with a crisp, clear example of opposition against the Dems. I feel bad that he feels like he needs to respond to the maverick thing at all, but I can see why he does that. I’m also glad to hear him clearly disputing the claim that he wanted to raise taxes on people making $42k/year.

6:20: Great question (can you balance the budget in four years?) McCain says “sure I can,” and then “I’m not Bush.” And then goes on to say that spending freezes are the way to go. Sigh. Yes, Kate, he is babbling. Can the moderator cut in here?

6:19: The planeterium thing AGAIN? First of all, an “overhead projector” is not the same thing as a planeterium projector. Second of all, according to my top secret source, the planeterium never actually saw that money.

6:18: Ok, earmarking makes up a tiny chunk of the  budget.

6:17: Ooooh, I’m loving his moderator. That was a firm steer back on topic. And, uh, for the record, Obama does support offshore drilling (which is one of his problems). And, a spending freeze is NOT the way to fix a failing economy, dipshit.

6:16: Woah, what does home ownership have to do with balancing the budget, McCain?

6:16: “Ethic of responsibility,” nice one, Obama.

6:15: Obama claims his plan is “pay as you go,” which seems to run contrary to the claim made by the moderator. I would love to see someone reliable crunch the numbers here. (Does number crunching remind anyone else of the scene in The Phantom Tollbooth where Milo eats numbers and describes their flavor?) Anyway, back to Obama. Loving the stress on healthcare, education, and energy policy.

6:14: How can Obama make sure that the rescue plan is structured properly as President if it’s…already gone through?

6:14: Woah, calling out the economic plans of both candidates! Nice!

6:13: $455 billion in deficit? Woah nelly. That is a lot of moola.

6:12: Is that an Adlai Stevenson quote?

6:12: McCain is acting like a snotty little brat at the dinner table, man.

6:11: Oh, Obama, honey, don’t repeat yourself.

6:11: SERIOUSLY? CLASS WARFARE?!?!?!?!! WTF?

6:10: Oh God, Joe the plumber, again! And the redistribution of wealth! COMMUNIST!

6:10: Incidentally, here’s the Obama tax cut calculator.

6:10: Nice hit on the McCain tax breaks, Obama. Glad to hear the 95% number finally being voiced in a debate, crisply, with nice, clear language.

6:09: SINISTER!

6:08: Uhm, let’s distinguish between small businesses and the corps you want to suck up to, McCain.

6:08: Oh, McCain is going for the everyman story, only on steroids. I wonder if “Joe” exists.

6:07: Uhm…where is McCain going with this?

6:06: Jobs, tax cuts for the middle class (defined as $250k and less), helping homeowners (stresses that McCain is giving money away to banks, and that we need writedowns), and the need for long term change.

6:05: Hey, specifics from Obama!

6:05: Ok, now McCain’s talking about buying mortgages. Why isn’t he mentioning write downs?

6:04: McCain is kind of making me want to go to sleep. He sounds like he’s talking through a banana. And, you know, not really saying anything.

6:03: Just say “no” to broken hips.

6:02: I love the moderator already. “We’ve already heard the talking points…let’s try to give the public something they haven’t heard.”

6:02: Loving McCain’s tie! Very subdued, classy.

6:01: Here’s Slog’s liveblog (as opposed to just their website, linked above).

6:01: The pundit is making this sound like a cagefighting tournament. “Everything is on the line!”

6:00: Wow, the rock riffs for the introduction are AWESOME.

5:58: Vicki, the only way I can get through a debate is with Rittersport. Do they not have it out there? Need me to send you a box for fortification purposes?

5:58: Hulu feed is live.

5:37: The focus of this debate is domestic policy, which I suspect means that we are going to hear a lot of talk on the economy. I am also hoping to hear more on healthcare, and I would love to hear about reproductive rights, although I don’t have high hopes. Word also has it that McCain will be busting out the Ayers crap, which I think/hope is going to backfire on him in a major way. I hope Americans are smart enough to realize when guilt by association is being used as a political tool.

One of the topics that came up in the debate last week was healthcare, with both candidates being asked whether they thought healthcare was a right or a responsibility. McCain kind of blathered on abstractedly for a while, finally settling on “responsibility,” while Obama blathered for a shorter while, and then said “right,” fairly firmly, causing me to cheer.

In the last week, there’s been a lot of discussion (in some circles, anyway) about this question. Personally, I think healthcare is a right, and I thought I might take the time to articulate why I think that. The dictionary has a lot of definitions for “right,” including “that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.,” which is where I think healthcare falls.

Everyone is entitled to good healthcare, because everyone is entitled to lead a healthy life. By good healthcare, I mean access to qualified physicians, safe prescription drugs, and appropriately-maintained medical facilities. If a woman has breast cancer, she should be able to receive the best treatment available. If a man has AIDS, he should have access to the care he needs. I’m talking about basic, thorough treatment for conditions which threaten life and well-being. I am not talking about voluntary procedures and drugs (breast augmentation, for example, or Viagra, which I do not think should be covered by a nationalized healthcare system).

My believe that healthcare is a right is part of a larger framework, that people deserve to be healthy and happy. If we say that healthcare is not a right, we say that people don’t have a right to be healthy, and I think you can see how that’s a little absurd. And if we’re going to argue that “children deserve healthcare,” where does that leave adults? (Now, one could argue that children need assistance because they can’t make life choices, which differentiates them from adults, but I personally think that children and adults should be treated equally, which means that if I have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for medications I need, so should children/their parents.)

Is healthcare a civil rights issue? Well, sometimes. When a black woman can’t get medical treatment because of her color, economic status, or social ranking, yeah, that’s a civil rights issue. When a fat man is denied respectful medical treatment because of his weight, that’s a civil rights issue. Issues can intersect in the big bad world, and nothing exists in a vacuum.

But the right to healthcare doesn’t just benefit people on a personal level. Like other rights, it also benefits society as a whole, making a country stronger and more productive. Nations with nationalized healthcare have healther citizens, much more productive workplaces, and lower healthcare expenditures. When you focus on preventative care and encourage people to seek treatment early, before a situation becomes a problem, it lowers costs, which is good for everyone, and increases the amount of time people can spend working and being productive, which is also good for everyone. Let me say that again: comprehensive national healthcare is cheaper than private systems like ours.

Rights come in a lot of flavors. Liberty, for example, is an oft-touted right here in the States, as is freedom of speech/association. Likewise, a lot of people cite “the right to pursue happiness” as an American value. How can you pursue happiness when you are crippled by a disease you can’t afford to treat? When all of your income is sunk into expensive drugs? When you’re stuck in a job you hate to ensure that your sick partner has health insurance? Healthcare is a fundamental necessity, just like housing, education, and other “external” things, but that doesn’t make it any less of a right.

Until we recognize this, I really don’t see how we can fix the American healthcare system. Because, if you don’t think that healthcare is a right, than nothing’s broken.