There's an article circulating around called: Made in the USA: Spoiled Brats. It's been mistakenly attributed to Jay Leno, but was written by commentator Craig R. Smith. It talks about a poll that states that 67% of Americans are unhappy with with the direction the country is heading, and 69% are unhappy with the performance of the president. The article begins by asking what people are so unhappy about: their cars? the abundance of food? Their great education? And this, I feel is legitimate. A lot of Americans have no idea how blessed they are and how abundant their lives are. They are quick to complain about rather petty concerns without realizing how many people would die to live here--and do every day.

But then the writer goes on to lump ungrateful Americans (the spoiled brats) with political dissidents--basically, anyone who disagrees with the current president and the direction the nation is headed. This is an oversimplification. When people say they are unhappy with where the country is headed, it is not necessarily because they are ungrateful or unhappy with what they have. That would imply that people only think about the US in terms of their experience of living here, and not also in terms of the role we play internationally.

Let's take an example: I am very happy with my ability to have a car, but I'm not happy about the United States' role in global warming. And I know that our fuel consumption has lead to wars in the Middle East (let's be real about why we're really there; we knew they didn't attack us in Iraq, and there are horrible dictators in Africa that no one is complaining about or going to war over--what's the reward?). It's lead to rising global temperatures, and huge use of fresh water and materials to make our vehicles. And I also know that our president denied that global warming existed during his first term, and still refuses to abide by Kyoto protocols to this day. I know that he'd like to drill in pristine eco-preserves in Alaska instead of creating sweeping measures to switch to other energy sources.

Americans have a huge impact on the rest of the world--we're a super-power, essentially--and we have a responsibility to be a positive model for the rest of the world to follow. Many of us are disturbed by the huge drop in respect we've had globally, the anti-American sentiment that has nothing to do with our discontent and everything to do with our senseless wars, wasteful lives in the face of deep poverty, our ruthless border laws, our reckless consumption, and our rogue mentality.

This is why international citizens have "disdain" for American citizens, not because we don't like our president and are unhappy with where our nation is headed. I've traveled all over the world and spoken to people living in trash dump communities in the Philippines, single, starving women in Tijuana, and orphans begging on the street. I've also heard this from the wealthy elite around the world. I am not merely speculating--I know.

Smith's article ends with a rather disturbing call to arms:

Stop buying the negative venom you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.

This statement has haunting echoes of comments Bush made shortly after 9-11 which were that we should basically forget about what happened and get out and shop. Remember the shopping bag with the American flag posted everywhere? Here was an opportunity to reflect on what we have become as a nation, to reflect on how we want to respond to the terrorism, to talk with our neighbors and engage in creating a new nation. But instead we were encouraged to bury our heads in the sand and shop. To ignore what our government was doing and just get back to work and let them take care of it.

Smith's comment above does the same thing. We should, essentially, burn alternative media sources (I didn't see him tell us to turn off Fox news), and stop caring about what's going on. While I believe in positivity and gratitude, but I don't support chosen ignorance. A balance must be made.

We live in a nation whose choices have a huge footprint on the rest of the world, politically, socially, and environmentally. Unfortunately we don't have the choice to be disengaged. We don't have the option to stick our heads in the sand, and we do a great disservice to the world if we go down that path. Instead we need to choose the path of educated engagement while coming from a place of gratitude for all that we have.

Ultimately, I hope Smith--and those who think like him--would open their minds to another, greater possibility. Many of us are deeply grateful for what we have in this country, but we don't feel that we should have it at the expense of others. I think that those of us who are unhappy with where the country is headed are unhappy because we don't need America to be better for ourselves, we need America to be better for the world.

The Denver Rally was incredible yesterday, though I understand it was also bittersweet with so many who were not able to attend. Who knew there would be such an incredible turnout? And then there were so many who wanted to come but turned away or never drove out in the first place because of prior commitments, jobs, or the travel distance.

After the incredible talks--both at the rally and at the precinct captain strategy meeting afterwards, my friends and I sat around talking about our experience and feelings. We were all so "fired up" after hearing Barack's message of hope, change, and unity. My boyfriend and I mentioned we might attend Bill Clinton's rally later that evening, just to check him out and compare. We're committed Obama supporters, but also committed Democrats that feel we are responsible to listen to both candidates. We were also just curious what it would be like in contrast to the Obama rally.

"Besides," my partner said, "Bill Clinton is one of my personal heroes."

Our friend shook his head. "You know, he's one of mine too," he said, "But I wouldn't want to hear him speak right now, not at this time, not in this context."

I thought this was a fascinating comment that shed an interesting light on the "Billary" Campaign. No bones about it, if we elected Hillary, we'd be electing Bill back into office as well. But what does that mean about our progress as a nation? What does that say about the kind of America we're trying to create?

I read a few excerpts from Clinton's speech last night, and this one struck me deeply:

"If you vote for HIllary, she will send the world a very different message about America," Clinton said. "She will say, 'We're back'."

I find this--a comment that literally made me shudder--such a different tone to a comment Obama made in his speech at the rally. He spoke about how America used to be a country that people looked up to, that people admired, and that if he's elected as the presidential candidate we can say: America is Back.

This comment inspired us so much. We used to live in a nation we were proud of. But now, (and I especially experience this as a world traveler) I feel such shame of who we've become: a rogue, bully nation with a crippled economy. I want to be proud of my nation again, proud of what we stand for and how we interact with the rest of the world. I want to be an example of what to do, not what to avoid.

That's partly what makes him so appealing. The Clintons focus on how THEY are coming back, and Barack focuses on how America is coming back, how Americans are voting for a new nation, not just a new leader. I think that's huge. It says volumes about the Clinton dynasty of the past, and volumes about the new leadership possibility of the future.

Okay, so I'm writing a lot about Obama lately. Well, he's inspired me. So, I'm going to caucus training on Wednesday, and then I've got to get in gear and start calling my precinct folks. Apparently I just have to call and try this script out, which I like alright:

1. I tell them I'm doing a survey and ask who they're voting for in the next election.
2. If they say anyone besides Obama, I tell them I'll make a note of it and thank them for their time.
3. If they say Obama, then I ask them to come to the caucus and give them the time and information that they need.

Then, I show up on caucus day and help get other voters excited about Obama and into our camp.

It's a strangely arbitrary electoral process, but fascinating as well. What I'm loving most about this campaign is learning about the election on every level. It's fascinating. I've never felt so in the loop before.

There's a slight possibility I might try to become a delegate. I hear you may have to campaign for it, but if it's light campaigning (like going door to door to introduce myself) then I just might do it. We'll see. My friend Kara is getting excited about helping too, and I'm just fascinated by the process and the power of politics.

Anyway--it's fun! Get involved. Now that I am, I'm amazed at how much we take our personal power for granted. I wish I'd known just how involved I could be long ago.

Matt and I went out to the Denver Diner (one of the select few establishments open 24 hours) around 1am Sat night/ Sunday morning. Somehow the topic rolled around to the presidential campaign, which it tends to do often, these days. One of my friends believed that Obama didn't have what it took to be the next president. Her argument was that it would come down to two things: money--of which she believed Clinton had an endless supply, and experience--of which Clinton may have had arguably more.

As for experience, Abraham Lincoln--considered by many historians as one of the 3 greatest presidents of all time--only served in national politics for one (two year) term in Congress before running for president. His experience? Law (same as Obama) and 4 terms in the House of Reps, totaling 8 years. On a side note, those top three presidents are usually George Washington, Lincoln, and FDR.

As for financing, Obama has proven he can keep up with Hilary as well. He had an immense victory in Iowa, almost a tie in New Hampshire where people had recently said he didn't have a chance, and he's continuing to go strong and gain financial and political support. Every day I read more and more accounts of politicians who have dropped out (Kucinich) and cast their votes to Obama, as well as labor unions and other large political factions that are rallying behind Obama. He inspires us, and after 7 years of desperation, inspiration is a very important thing.

My point, however, is not that Obama will win--though I really hope he does--it's that it's still up in the air. It's going to (at least from this vantage point) be a fight to the finish.

But most importantly, I just hope this doesn't end being a huge dividing factor for Democrats. Because the fact is, we have two stellar candidates, both of whom represent a real evolution in American politics: a white woman, and a man of African American descent. Both are fairly environmentally concerned, both are focused on mending our international bridges, and both are concerned about ending the wars in the Middle East and getting our economic state more stable. Honestly, I'm thrilled. So, while I'm big time in the Obama camp, and far more inspired by him: his energy, what he stands for, his vision, his political strategy, I say we're truly fortunate this year to have two very worthy candidates. So--game on.