So we bring forth our reason. Call those inspired beyond such reason "cultish." Call his eloquence "good grammar." We bring forth our cold discernment. We aren't about to hear a flute now and start dancing toward the river, after all! We compare his speeches to speeches in the first half of last century to find holes. We look at his ads and hope to shoot down the entirety of his campaign based on a typical low-blow ad. But what is the implication in these types of comparisons? It's like getting a new car and looking at it and saying after a beat, "Sure it gets eighty miles to the gallon and looks beautiful and is cheap. But it has 15 inch tires, like my old one! 16 inch tires would make it perfect. No way. I'm keeping my old car." Even the negative comparisons forget to keep the mundane and tired and utterly non-hopeful competitor in context. Or where we've been! Those critics call loyalty to Obama "halo polishing" as if Obama has to be either

1) a Saint
or
2) rejected.

Talk about false dilemmas! This is because they, too, see the greatness in his approach, in his ability to lead. So even when they get negative, their criticism implicitly acknowledges that. Oh SNAP!

• THE YOUTH VOTE is a jazzy jazzy thing! Until it votes against what "wiser" folks know to be true. Don't be fooled "youth." Green and undeservedly cocky or dumbassed as you are half the time, another portion of the time you see what needs to be seen. So go with it.

• I HAVE A FEW THINGS that I don't like in Obama. As I've always stated. I don't care for his nonsense about the 60s and 70s. Saying that they were too "Divisive" is a terribly naive view. It does push the rest of what he is saying into some silly sort of idea, as if nobody should fight. Ever. The divisiveness was caused by war. And a generation trying to foist fear and violence on the rest of the world and the youth of America. (Hear it? Four dead in Ohio!) Obama should use this in his idea of "Hope." Again, we cannot live ruled by fear!

But it's not about the fight. Because it's not really the leukocyte's fault if a splinter is infecting the skin and the area is flooded with leukocytes in response.

However, I'm just picking up the "divisiveness of the 60s and 70s" from articles quoting here and there. Fair to admit I haven't seen or heard the full text of that speech. And even if that part bothers me, remember, I'm not saying I think I'd ever agree 100% with ANY candidate the system allowed this far. I know I would not. So it becomes a matter of placing these things in context. Against the rest of the entire package as well as the practical alternatives.

Another thing I'd like is for him to be more definitive about immigrants. Although he does say good things in general, and he is for licensing all driving people, the Democrats really should stand with migrants. Keeping in mind who made this nation at all times. All of us. Chinese, Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Chilean, Guatemalan, African American, Native American, Polish, German, Jewish, Romanian, Japanese, French, English, Russian, others.

The perfect ride would be yanking out the wiretaps. The perfect ride would be talking investigations.

Pero, por ejemplo, when a young black man hops up into an Escalade, he can't be tearing ass through town. Or if he does, he should be ready to see a flashing light real quick (and often will anyway.) That's my take. I know some worry about this line. About the "he has to tread carefully here and there due to being a black man running for president." But while I'm young enough to be idealist, I'm old enough to be pragmatic. And if you can't see that a black man running for the most powerful office in the world can not now in 2008 run on a fiery, "throw out the bums" platform like, por ejemplo, John Edwards, due to nothing more than race perception and the level of threat it can bring in much of the populace's underground well of historical imagery and emotion and resonance, then we shouldn't be at the same table. Because no level of fight or argument is going to bring us eye to eye.

No, that shouldn't be used as a crutch. But to ignore it is not to see the entire picture honestly.

Yes, I am hoping we get to certain issues not mentioned much by either Democratic contender. I would be disappointed if not. Perhaps "disenchanted" is a better word. And today's hope may well be unearned or misplaced in the end. But as always, those who refuse to try again, to hope and risk after failing; those who choose to avoid hoping and risking are really only relegated to one place. And it is a place you will not find progress.

• NOW that we are down to Obama or Hillary (with none of my impractical dreamboatier candidates available) I do not think in terms of anything but Obama or Hillary. (Just like the newspapers wanted it!) It makes no sense to hold on to other candidates in my comparison. This changes the tenor and range of my critiques, as it changes the entire context.

• REMEMBER when you (imaginary anti-Obama person) knock Obama's ability to rouse people—Republicans, Democrats, black, white, young, old, poor, rich—as superficial and somehow devious, that it is not just you and I that this will work on, it is others in the world. THAT is the point. Just as Bush sows revulsion and lack of respect, Obama could do the opposite. And would. In the name of America. Imagine that.

• IT IS TRUE that people don't so much remember what you said to them, but how you made them feel while you were talking with them. And HRC Inc™ can talk about Hope and Change all they want. But they don't make you feel it. Not an iota. HRC Inc™ do not feel like change. Hell, how can they be? Bill is back. Except this time, he's not running as the black President.

• Jacob Dylan, Chris Rock, Black Eyed Peas and friends did a kickass video for Obama; HRC Inc™ plays canned Celine Dion. HRC Inc™ is Vista, and Obama is Mac. Bottom line, baby, I'm just a Mac guy. Even when they cost more, and people deride them for being prettier. We consume and purchase and elect on personal and experiential and emotional issues more than anything else. No matter how much we bring in our reason. They are interdependent. And if that's how it is, maybe that's how it oughtta be. When people rise up it is because of deep passion. Not well reasoned theories or policies. Pasión, bebe. Rememer that. Nothing else inspires huge change. For or against, but passion both ways.

• CAN YOU SAY "Zeitgeist"? As I wrote, we've been terrorized for years now. Abused for years. Handled by the underside of our ugliest fears. The person who not only comes forth and talks but feels like Hope? And change? And a better America? It reminds me of 1990 or so when NIN and Nirvana and Alice in Chains got big. Pick one. Kurt Cobain had a wounded rage that frizzled on the edges of his powerful throaty scream. And they called him the voice of a generation. Because that was the feeling back then. And we've gone further. And odd as it is to compare Obama to Kurt Cobain, I see it as similar. You can't argue with Cobain's voice. It just speaks to you. It summed up a collective disdain and contempt and rage. We are at a different chapter, we are at a different age. We see a long line of power-trading scions and well-deserved despair, and we want to turn the page.

• I am someone who for most of his life, didn't care about politics, and didn't believe in our government. I still think it's a rigged system, I still want to see our international presence altered drastically, I still see our priorities as being way off, I see law used as a weapon of conquest and control and suppression and ethnic agenda. I think our electoral college is a joke, and I think the vote is often stolen and manipulated. I am always an inch away from turning my back on the whole thing. And even I have to admit that a populace that adopts this attitude is in danger. Obama makes me want to give it a shot, a real shot. The thought of HRC Inc™ up in there again makes me want to return to disengagement. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Perhaps that is where the hope lies.

Just thoughts.