Right now, the United States is deeply divided.  There are two Americas a traditional America and an urban America and each America has its own distinct set of values and an unhealthy contempt for the other.  Both sides are polarized, and moderates tend to be frowned upon in both places.  Traditional America strongly supports rugged individualism, religious values and nationalism.  Urban America believes more in collectivism, secularism and internationalism.  Traditional America dominates old media, such as talk radio, whereas urban America dominates the blogosphere, Hollywood and network news.  These differences, and the mistrust of the other side are tearing us apart as a nation and preventing us as a country from pursuing the most rational and beneficial policies for all Americans.

I live in San Francisco, but I side more with traditional America, so the problems on both sides are clear to me.  More than anything, urban liberals have a deep seeded fear of religion and religious people.  Their sense of morality is systemic rather than religious, and it prods them to try to institutionalize remedies for past injustices.  Their fear of repeating those injustices leads them to advocate for, and often pass, legislation that gives preferential treatment to those who were once downtrodden.  Affirmative action, bilingual education and "affordable housing" programs (many of which led to subprime mortgages) are past examples.  Current examples include the DREAM Act, universal healthcare, gay marriage and opposition to laws against sex offenders such as Megan's Law.  Close to dogma among urban liberals is the woman's "right" to abort, often taken to the extreme so as to allow late term and partial birth abortions, to the point of denying treatment to babies born during intended abortions (as Obama did in the Illinois State Senate).  Also close to dogma is the idea of comprehensive sex education in schools.  In many respects, urban America has more in common with Western Europe than with the middle of our country.

Traditional Americans typically respond very adversely to these types of "progressive" ideas, and often their responses reflect this backlash.  Worried about the diminishing role of religious values in public life, traditional Americans try to preempt progressives by institutionalizing these values.  Examples include support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, English only policies and creationism being taught in public schools.  Rather than comprehensive sex education in schools, traditional America tries to make "abstinence only" sex education the law of the land.  In essence, in order to heed off unpalatable "progressive" values, traditional America has committed the sin of using the government and the law to impose their values in order to prevent those institutions from being used to impose upon them "progressive" values.

At the heart of the problem is big government and the fact that both sides are actively using government to impose their values on society.  The left started the ball rolling in the 1960s, and over time, the right has learned how to use the government in exactly the same way.  In both cases, this type of big government intrusion is a bad thing and it's polarizing our nation.  At the heart of the problem is the Pandora's Box that was opened by judges making legislative decisions from the bench.  Roe v. Wade is at its root a terrible decision because it judicially created a Constitutional right to abortion, a right that is written nowhere in the Constitution.

 The idea of a "separation of Church and State," has been argued in courts and taught in schools for so long that most believe it is a First Amendment right, a right which is at the heart of the secular-progressive movement.  However, the Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  In other words, everyone can worship freely, but the State will not establish its own religion (as did England with the Church of England) or be subservient to the interests of a religious leader such as the Pope.  How does that cover whether there can be prayer in schools or if "Under God" can be in the Pledge?  These judicially imposed, subjective standards have clearly led to a backlash.

The problem here is not that people have different views and philosophies, its that they try to impose them on others.  The left fears Sarah Palin because they think she will impose her "crazy religious values" onto society.  The right is equally fearful that Democratic victories will lead to the imposition of more progressive values onto society.  It is clear as a country that on both sides, big government is the problem.  People in this country should be allowed to live, wherever they are, according to their own values.  Government at all levels, needs to return to the role that the founders intended for it, to make laws and protect us from enemies while staying out of our daily lives.

Amid much fanfare John McCain and Barack Obama held their first debate tonight at Ole Miss which was a spirited exchange, but will likely produce little movement in the polls.  The enduring image for me in the debate will be the contrast of the two candidates, McCain as the experienced old hand and Obama as the eager up and comer.  McCain came across in the debate as a stable leader, measured, experienced, trustworthy and understated.  Obama came across as very eager to prove that he is a credible leader, with change at the heart of his message. 

In a way, the debate reminded me of the movie "In Good Company" where a hot shot 24 year old took over an advertising job from an older guy who'd worked in that job for decades.  The hot shot had some pretty interesting ideas and strategies, but he was out of touch with the industry and eventually had to rely on the older guy's experience.  Obama in the debate was awfully eager to defend himself at every turn and get the last word, and he came across as someone trying to desperately prove that he belonged on the stage.

In terms of how the debate went, Obama was stronger on the economic point of view because McCain failed to challenge Obama's tax and spend policy and his notion that 95% of the people would get a tax cut.  McCain cannot cede that point in future debates.  On foreign policy, McCain clearly was the stronger candidate, but he allowed Obama to get away with repeatedly saying that al Qaeda is strengthened.  Both of these points, unchallenged, allowed Obama to score points with undecided voters, enabling Obama to get away with a push in the debate.

Forget about debates, ads and interviews, the 2008 Presidential election will be decided by the outcome of the battle over the bailout plan.  As President Bush said, we are currently facing an economic crisis of potentially disastrous scale.  Right now, the US economy is like Humpty Dumpty because if it breaks, which it's teetering on the edge of doing at this point, it will be impossible to put it back together again.  Failure to act swiftly by the Federal Government will lead to a domino effect that will end up wiping out people's jobs and life-savings, spiraling us into a depression.

While polls suggest that the American public believes that something should be done, they balk by nearly 2-1 at Paulson's bailout plan.  Conservatives are particularly wary of the 700 billion dollar price tag and the accompanying increase in the size and scope of the federal government.  Aware of the polling data, the bailout has been treated like a political football, both sides acutely aware that a deal must be made, but neither side wanting to "take credit" for passing such an unpopular bill.  Senator Reid even said earlier in the week that there is no way the bill would pass without McCain's approval.

The two candidates have staked out polar opposite strategies on this issue.  Obama has taken the safe route, trying to distance himself from the process, and its inevitable result, and maintaining focus on his campaign.  McCain has dropped everything and injected himself into the crisis.  In doing so, McCain has bet his entire campaign on his ability to get a working bill passed in short order that will be palatable to his base, the American people and Wall Street.  The rancor at the White House meeting reinforced the notion that McCain, almost alone now, is in charge of the crisis.

The House GOP split at the White House, and McCain's apparent endorsement of that split essentially means that McCain will essentially be able to pass his own bill.  The Democrats currently have the ability to push their amended Paulson plan through, but doing so would hurt them politically because they would have to own up to such an unpopular plan.  If the GOP plan seems more palatable to the people, they would have to support it, lest they block a popular bill at a time of peril, or worse, if nothing happens, the point would be moot because we will have lost the patient.  If a bill gets passed, McCain will be seen as a leader, coming in and refusing to accept an unpopular bill and bringing people together to pass a more palatable relief bill.  If the market collapses before a deal is reached, McCain will be seen as someone who blocked needed legislation for political expediency, and finally, if the plan fails, so will McCain's campaign.

The likely result?  Tomorrow a bill will get passed that combines the Paulson approach and the GOP approach, one which infuses capital into the market, but not 700 billion dollars and bridges the gap by extending insurance benefits.  We will likely see a cap on executive compensation while at the same time some of the tax breaks and regulatory reforms asked for by the GOP.  Both sides are too extreme ideologically, let's hope we get a working bill somewhere in the middle.

The absolute hatred of Sarah Palin by the left officially got out of control yesterday when Alcee Hastings said, "If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."  So essentially, Representative Hastings, a black Congressman speaking to a Jewish audience basically warned that Palin, on the basis of her cultural background alone, would endorse the mistreatment of black and Jews.

Hastings' comments are an example of race-baiting at the lowest level based on stereotypes.  Given that Sarah Palin's story reflects that of most ordinary Americans, Hastings is essentially saying that all traditional Americans are racists.  It further represents the increasing reality of leftist thinking, that tolerance is a one way street, that mainstream America, in order to be tolerant has to shift to their point of view.  Finally, it shows the utter contempt that Hastings holds for middle America.

This type of race baiting is very dangerous for our country given that a black man is running for the Presidency.  The worst thing that can happen to this country at this moment of financial crisis, is for the seeds of doubt to be planted in the black community that this election is fixed.  Mark my words, if McCain defeats Obama, there will be a backlash in the black community, and if people start hinting that the fix was in, there will be riots.  That's why Hastings' comments are so irresponsible, as was Obama's "funny name" bit as they stoke the flames of a potential inferno.  Given that Hastings was impeached and removed from the Federal bench for corruption, it's hard to believe he has any credibility on this issue, but he does.

This evening, I went out for a couple drinks with my fellow baseball coach after a meeting. He and I are polar opposites politically and personality wise, which is probably why we work well together. He is a photographer, a blue collar lifelong liberal Democrat who despises everything Republican, meanwhile, I'm a Republican living in San Francisco who voted for Bush twice. The topic turned to politics after I made a ubiquetous reference to Sarah Palin, something along the lines of, "Only in America could someone like her rise to become a VP candidate." The mere mention of Palin ignited a firestorm of vitriol from my friend, directed at Palin, and it was at a level that I could not comprehend.

The conversation, as well as the general animosity on the left toward Palin frankly astounds me. At face value, Palin is an everyday mother, not a polarizing figure, and she seems very relatable to the American people. So to hear my friend go on about her being a religious zealot who "speaks in tongues" didn't make sense.

At the heart of the matter, though, my friend's hatred of Palin is rooted in the fear of elitism. He's very wary of the religious folk who will preach and tell him what to do, and he views Palin in that light. By definition, he views her skeptically and as a hypocrite. Essentially, he doesn't want someone to tell him that they know better and to tell him what to do and how to live his life.

Ironically, I have the same base fears about Obama, I feel that Obama believes that it is government's role to tell the people the right way to live their lives, and that he will enforce his creed with an ever expanding, intrusive government. Living in San Francisco, I experience a heavy handed government everyday, telling me what bags to use at the supermarket, what's acceptably "tolerant" to do and even where to put my garbage. They tell me, through resolutions, what I should think about politics and what the moral side of the gay marriage debate is. I view Obama as a national extention of that type of politics.

While my friend and I are on different sides of the argument, the root fear on both sides is of government interfering in our daily lives. Ronald Reagan got it right when he said the issue at hand is "whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Reagan was fundamentally correct, the people, not the elites should rule and plan their own lives and his message resonates with all Americans on both sides.

Every election we always hear it, and every time it sickens me to hear the whining about how negative campaigns are.  The whole idea of lamenting "negative" campaigns seems awfully haughty and elitist to me, and it seems like with every election we "scrape the bottom of the barrel."  How do these people expect us to run elections?  By holding hands, singing Kumbaya and hoping we pick the right candidate?  And how exactly is it that you can differentiate yourself from your opponent without "going negative?"

The idea of negative campaigning has gotten muddled with the notion of a dirty campaign.  To set the record straight, a dirty campaign is one in which one candidate takes cheap, personal shots at his opponent or creates an embarrassing scandal.  An example of this was when George Mathers campaigned against Claude Pepper by saying "his sister is a well known thespian."  Swift Boating has become the term for a modern dirty campaign tactic, but the Swift Boat ads were not dirty at all as they spoke to a relevant issue in the 2004 campaign: John Kerry's ability to lead.

The press is having a field day, once again calling this the dirtiest campaign ever, and Obama is quick to accuse McCain of being a negative campaigner.  Seriously, though, what has McCain done wrong other than to effectively raise questions about Obama's biggest weakness, his lack of experience.  He pointed out that celebrity doesn't qualify someone to be President, a legitimate point, and not negative at all.  The talk about Obama's associations?  Very legitimate, as your associations help to define who you are.  Attacks on policy issues, how can they be considered negative in any way?  Ironically, the centerpiece of Obama's strategy against McCain is an association, as he claims McCain is Bush's 3rd term.

Is this a dirty campaign?  No way.  Both candidates have, for the most part raised legitimate questions about the other and pointed out the flaws of the other.  That is the nature of politics.  Now please everyone, stop whining.

This Presidential election has been a roller-coaster ride and the events this week on Wall Street have led to yet another shift in the polls, reinstalling Barack Obama as the leader in the race for the White House.  Obama's lead has resulted primarily from the change in focus to the state of the economy, but more importantly, highlighted perceived failures of the Bush Administration.  Whether or not blaming Bush is correct, this market turbulence is happening on the GOP's watch, and has reinforced Obama as the agent of change in the election, at least temporarily.  In essence, the public is blaming Bush, and McCain as a fellow Republican is feeling the heat for it.

Although Obama does have the lead at this point, it is built on a house of cards.  Polls show McCain and Obama neck and neck on who they trust to fix the economy.  While Gallup's latest poll suggests that independents side with the Democrats in seeing the current economic conditions more bleakly than Republicans, they still don't trust Obama more than McCain to deal with them.  That suggests that Obama's lead is built almost solely on the weariness of the Bush Administration, and thus, by virtue of being a Democrat, has taken the lead as the agent of change.  In other words, there is nothing substantive upon which Obama has taken the lead, he has not gained the trust of the electorate nor does he have a credible policy mandated by the American people.

The McCain campaign has taken a beating this week because they were slow to react to the crisis and still talking about Sarah Palin.  The first thing that McCain needs to do is to change his tone about the economy to match the feelings of the rest of the country, and acknowledge the sentiment that things are not just humming along.  Failing to "feel the pain" would be lethal to McCain as it would reinforce the point that he is out of touch and suggest that he's burying his head in the sand.  The second, and most important thing, is to substantively attack Obama's economic vision of more spending, higher taxes and bigger government.  McCain needs to line up economist after economist after market analyst to outline the impact on a sagging economy of raising income taxes (even, as Obama says, to 5% of the population), business taxes, hiking the capital gains tax by 10 percent and eliminating the cap on FICA.  Further, he needs to expose the impact of the spending programs that Obama outlined at the DNC if Obama adheres to his "I will lower taxes to 95%" pledge.

I am working for a small company in the technology sector in the VC stage and looking to grow and turn profitable.  My CEO is a lifelong Democrat who has admitted that Obama's policies will be devastating to our company, companies like us and to the US economy in general.  Finally, McCain needs to carry on his populist message that he will clean up corruption on Wall Street.  The fact that the majority of independents are very wary of the economy at this point should help McCain, as Obama's plan, if given proper scrutiny, will be shown to only further damage the economy.

I am currently in New York City at the Web 2.0 Expo and among the various products and assorted companies, I came across a very interesting non-profit called Donors Choose.  Donors Choose is geared toward educational funding and linking donors directly with teachers, allowing good teachers to bypass bureaucracy to get needed funds for educational projects.  The teachers can post a specific need and solicit funds for that need, and a donor can choose to donate money directly to that teacher with full tracking of funds and no accountability.

The needs for educational funding in public schools are very evident and government funding is not the answer.  Government funding largely gets tied into bureaucracy, leading to a cost per student to the taxpayer that is often higher than the tuition at most private and religious schools.  Additionally, government accountability standards serve to increase the cost, while blunting the creativity of teachers.

We need more independent programs like Donors Choose in education.  Accountability is personal and the funding is direct, eliminating wasteful bureaucracy.  Most importantly it is effective because it reduces the role of government and gives teachers more freedom to teach.  The key to improving schools is less government, more local community control and the empowering of teachers and principals, and Donors Choice proves that there is a 3rd way beyond simply increased taxes.

These past few days here in San Francisco, I have observed a rather stunning change of attitude toward the Presidential election.  I recall back in March, the day of the primary, the level of fervor, particularly among Obama supporters was higher than anything I'd seen politically.  Of course, I am not including the radicals like Code Pink, ANSWER and the anti-war nut cases, but among regular Democrats.  I coach a high school baseball team and live practically on a college campus, the the enthusiasm of the youth for Obama was off the charts, particularly among people normally apathetic toward politics.

Since the announcement of Sarah Palin, and John McCain's subsequent surge in the polls, that attitude has changed and there seems to be somewhat of a resignation once again.  This change of attitude is evident in an interesting column by former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown.  In it, Brown outlines his view of the election: that the contest is now between Sarah Palin and Senator Obama.  He advocates a strong get out the vote effort for blacks in the South, but more importantly, he advocates using McCain's age and health as a political football to attack Palin.  This view is echoed by Obama's recent rhetoric on the trail and the ad that he released claiming that McCain doesn't know how to send an e-mail (he can't use a keyboard due to his war injuries).  Brown's comments also reveal the elitist view held by liberals that they are smarter, and more intellectual than the rest of us, views echoed in political satire such as SNL and the Daily Show.

Obama's charisma has been nullified and his theme of change has been countered, and his off-message responses are turning off his voters.  The primary enthusiasm was centered in a candidate who now appears, ironically, tired, old and defeated.  Perhaps the malaise being felt is reminiscent of that felt by fans of a football team that shoots out of the gate red hot, but tapers off and limps to the finish line without making the playoffs.  Obama's campaign is like that football team, it shot out of the gate with such promise and even inevitability, but as the season has played out its many weaknesses have been exposed.  As we enter the stretch run, the Obama campaign is a shell of its former self, and its supporters, like the once hopeful fans of a long-time losing team look on knowingly, and realize that the season is lost.

Now that John McCain has assumed the mantle as front-runner in the election, Senator Obama finds himself in a strategic quandary, as well as very unfamiliar territory.  While Obama has been the underdog before, he has never before trailed a Republican, and as Charles Krauthammer points out astutely in his column, the Senator can no longer rely on his biggest assets: change and celebrity.  Obama's celebrity and his campaign theme of being an agent of change have been effectively trumped by the Republicans.  Sarah Palin is now the celebrity, and by picking her, eschewing the establishment and touting his "maverick" image at the GOP Convention, John McCain has closed the change gap.  With the "agent of change" gap closed, the gap that killed Hillary Clinton, the campaign will be decided on two main factors: the issues and experience, both which favor McCain.  McCain's rise in the polls has resulted from a move to the center, and by claiming the center, McCain has boxed Obama in on the left wing, the same place where so many failed Democratic Presidential candidates found themselves.  In order to be viable once again, Obama needs to abandon his strategy, his theme and even his brand, and boldly force McCain off his perch.

The Obama strategy is materializing, they have decided to play dirty with McCain and Palin.  Obama, and much of the left perceive that John Kerry, Al Gore and Michael Ducacas were victims of "the politics of personal destruction" and he feels that he is falling victim to the same fate.  The people who invented the term "Swift Boating" don't get it and neither does Obama, the past attacks were not personal in nature, they merely served as an illustration of policies that middle America is wary of, the same politics that liberal candidates routinely support.  Personally attacking McCain misses the point entirely because there are no underlying issues attached to the attacks.  Saying that McCain is old and attacking Palin's family do not resonate, and the polls indicate that such attacks are counter-productive.

In order to win, Obama needs to recognize that the key demographic to win in November are the Hillary voters, the same populist, middle class folks who "Cling to their guns and their religion."  On Politico, John Harris outlines advice Bill Clinton would give to Obama and he makes several good points about returning to the issues.  Harris, though, misses the main point that Obama needs to re-brand, and he needs to specifically target the key demographic.  If you examine all of the issues and how the candidates position themselves currently, Obama has some problems, the war is going well, the public is strongly behind McCain on the drilling issue and tax hikes will not go over well with the American public.

Obama needs to look to the past for an issue, the same issue that nearly crippled John McCain's campaign a year ago, and that's immigration.  The vast majority of middle America wants to secure and close the borders and they remember John McCain's support of the amnesty policy.  Obama can make the border security argument the focus of his campaign, arguing that the troops in Iraq would better be used guarding our border.  Additionally, he can couch it as the centerpiece of a protectionist economic package that seeks to reduce the trade deficit with China and to protect jobs from being outsourced.  This issue speaks directly to the blue collar voters in the swing states and it would drive a wedge into John McCain's support, while reminding the GOP base of its wariness of the Senator.

Should Obama pursue such a policy, he would reclaim the center and threaten to cripple the McCain campaign.  The move would alienate the far left and prove that he truly is a tough leader and an agent of change.  More likely, though, Obama will continue to cloak himself in his far left ideology and pave the way for a very improbable victory in November for John McCain.