Historic.

Lately people have been throwing around the "historic" qualities of Barack Obama's bid for the White House. Jon Stewart poked fun at it pretty recently, and I had to agree, it did seem a little silly the way people were ready to depend so heavily on Senator Obama so early.

Don't get me wrong, I was at the DNC in 2004, I stood on the floor and watched Barack give the keynote speech. I was 14. I said that day "I hope he runs in 2008" knowing that doing so would mean challenging President Kerry, who I thought was sure to win.

Everyone knows how this ends. The Democrats laid down and took it where the sun don't shine and we did what we do, twittering our thumbs until the senate elections. (Not that we sprang into action even after that...)

The past four years have been a lesson in apathy for a kid who was 14 in 2004 and 18 now. Since then, I've been bombarded by the most politically bipolar actions a country can manufacture. I've been doused with terror, threats, war, flailing economic conditions, gas prices, legalization of assualt weapons, and a president who takes pride in his ability to ride a horse. Likewise, I've witnessed utter and complete lack of faith in the executive branch from my party, wimpy and flaccid pokes from "activist groups" whose mission it appears to be to alienate everyone who doesn't agree, and a overwhelmingly large percent of the population who would rather worry about the winner of American Idol.

I was offered the chance to write for OffTheBus and have it appear on The Huffington Post. That's quite an offer for a kid who just voted for the first time this year and still has yet to properly use the parking brake. But the words wouldn't come. What was I going to write about, how Senator Obama was so superior to Hillary Clinton? Look, she got a little nuts towards the end of her campaign, but I mean she was a Democrat and she would have done a lot to make this nation better and it would have been sad to see her win the nomination over Barack, but it wasn't worth ripping the party apart for.

Basically, what we had was shaping up to be another 2000's election. Both of which were action packed and full of inane promises and ended with the Republicans teaching the definition of political domination to the Democrats.

I was ready to call it quits. I was ready to believe the system was broken. A system that has functioned for more than two centuries, and has gone from a series of pathetic colonies demanding equality to the single greatest power ever seen in the entire history of humanity.

I was ready to do that because what had made us great was not our ability to compromise. Not our extreme polarity. Not our intra-national squabbles and political battles, it was the moments in history when we as a nation united and raised our fists and took a stand. When we risked everything we had to further advance the human race. We've done it countless times before, in thousands of different ways.

And as a kid who took the American History advanced placement test and got a pretty stellar grade on it, I felt that that era was over.

I felt that in a decade or two, I would be telling my kids about "the old America", one in which we were great and full of potential, given to us by our fathers, and how we squandered it on gasoline and plastic. I saw a nation dying in slow motion.

Until I saw the front page of the Huffington Post this morning, and saw this.



Those states might be blue, but in truth, they're purple.

They're not Democratic states, they're not Republican states. They're American states. They're dedicated not to the petty politics that have plauged this nation for far too long, they're dedicated to the great American way, and hope, and change.

Sure, they're hypothetical, but the thought is there. In 2004 when Senator Kerry was campaigning, did anyone speak of a fifty state strategy? No. Because he was a Democrat, hell, they barely spoke of a 25 state strategy.

John McCain is weak. He's old and a little senile and completely clueless. He's playing a different game than Barack. He doesn't represent the Republicans, and Barack doesn't represent the Democrats, albeit in different senses. If Mr. Obama represents that shade of purple, a hybrid of the beautiful ideals that make this nation so fantastic, McCain is the pitchest black we've ever seen. He runs a campaign centered on national security, insisting we're hated for our freedom, and that everyone who isn't like us, wishes to kill us.

For the first time in AT LEAST 8 years, we have on our hands an ideological election. (I wasn't really politically conscious before that, so I'm not too sure what went down).

We have an opportunity, as Democrats, to invite the Republicans, politely, to invest in a candidate who may run under a Democratic ticket name, but is, at his core, an American. We have a chance to affect the nation in a truly visceral way. These moments have come before, but never in such a violent storm of apathy.

These contemporary apathetic days combined with a society that can reward men and women with superficial happiness through elaborate toys have mixed to create a nation that isn't in a proper position politically, yet has no desire to revolutionize or even amend it's way of life.

So why 50 states? Because this needs to be an American movement. This needs to shed the layers and layers of political hatred that has been bred by the few to keep us under control. This needs to be about putting aside our differences on issues of abortion and gun control and freedom of speech (while respecting the need to find a fair resolution) and taking a look at the big picture.

We're still stuck in a Cold War mindset for the world, only now, the Communism is Terrorism, and everywhere, especially non-Westernized societies, seems to be a breeding ground for this terror. Well, we think we can fight the terror, declare war on it, and that's ridiculous.

We need to take the helm in world politics again. We need to send people and money to areas where there is nothing. We need to spread happiness. That's the way to fight terror. We're not going to do this with McCain. We're going to continue the same mindset. Barack and his staff have noticed this, and they're ready to show the world what America can really be.

In times of great struggle, we have united as a nation, and really, really, fixed things. We have an opportunity to do it again. My grandparents, and perhaps your parents did it for you, now, here's our chance.

Thank you, Barack, you have my full and complete support.

-Max Rosenbaum, age 18.

The (pseudo)politics of America

I'm in high school. I spend my days reading textbooks and essays about the past. Every era in history has been compartmentalized, especially American history. The country, as a whole, has had a theme for every generation. For some its the era of revolution. For others, civil rights or peace, love, & understanding.

However, once you get into a few of the more recent decades, things get foggy. It's hard to figure out what the future will think of you when you don't know how successful or unsuccessful your political strivings will be.

So here we stand, at what seems to be a pivotal moment in history, a moment in which the post Cold War America still needs to be entirely defined. And yet we stand here with our hands in our pants and our eyes shut tight.

The circumstances demand revolutionary resolve, yet we're more worried about the outcome of Dancing With The Stars and Britany's newest accident. We're sipping our lattes and guzzling our gas while the world flings itself ever forward in the name of progress.

And the circumstances aren't kind, either. China is tip-toeing into first place, which could cement totalitarianism as the defining government of this planet. Millions are dying all over the world from preventable causes, and here we are, investing in our own private game of paintball in Iraq.

I know, I know, you've heard this before. It's just another silly liberal complaining about things he doesn't understand. Fine. Well, here's my problem: no one ever understands!

When Americans feel passionate about an issue, understood or not, they still make loud noises. They protest and complain and rally and amass themselves and demand to be heard.

That doesn't happen anymore. There hasn't been a protest worth going to in four years here in New York City, and there's nothing on the agenda. There are no buses shipping out to Pennsylvania to throw our weights behind our respective candidates. Even the most passionate political thinkers seemed stunned.

It's like they're living in suspended animation. They wait for the next primary, then the next, then the next. Then there's an election, and hey, maybe our guy wins, then we do it all again in 4 years.

THAT'S NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE!

We're supposed to be shaking the fence of the White House, we're supposed to be holding sit-ins and walk-outs and causing a general disruption, instead, we're all waiting, distracting ourselves with our coffee and our cars and our gadgets.

So I know you care about your country, and I know you'd be willing to show it. I also know the country's being hijacked by the current administration. So where's the disconnect? Why aren't people in the streets? What's unbalancing the equation? I want to know! We need to fix it, lest we become the new British Empire, under the rule of the all-powerful, all-knowing People's Republic of China.

Apparently Glenn Beck and I can agree on one thing.

So, look, I'm going to be entirely honest here. Until about thirty minutes ago, I didn't have any idea who Glenn Beck was.

I read an article by him and connected on a very deep level with him.

I'd heard the name and all, but it didn't strike a "Democrat" or "Republican" chord with me. But, see, this is what's nice about my generation, all I had to do was type his name into Google, and within a second I had his entire life story. Every single controversial statement, every viewpoint, every circumstance, was sitting in front of me in the form of a wikipedia article.

So I read it. Pro life, pro war in Iraq, anti gun control.

Yikes.

Did I really agree with this guy? He seems awful creepy.

Well, before I pass judgement, let me show you the article.

It's called "The $53 trillion asteroid" LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

I'll admit, it doesn't touch on anything other than the economy, and I'm no economic scholar, but it says some important things.

It suggests that in just a few years our economy is going to fall apart. That scared me. It used an asteroid analogy, which as an 18 year old, really got to me.

So this guy, Glenn, and I obviously disagree on a lot of things, but we agree that a couple things in our economy don't add up, and someone's going to have to pay for that.

...Ahem, right guys?

...Me?

...Yeah.

So, rarely do I say this, but maybe, in this particular isolated case, it's time we remember that there are other issues, issues that don't involve military quagmires or sex scandals. And maybe we should listen to what this conservative has to say.

That actually makes me pretty happy, though. To know that there are still things that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. That there are still issues to tackle together, as a country, as Americans. Keeping in mind of course, that as I say that, I stare down an asterioid coming directly towards me.

We wouldn't be Americans if we didn't tackle the hard stuff. But we won't be Americans if we value ourselves above the other half of the country. The Democrat-Republican relationship is a symbiotic one. And that's something we need to remember even when this hellish war reaches it's apex. Because eventually, in a best case scenario, one day this country will return to "normal", and when that happens, the dust will settle, and we'll have to remember what "American" really is.

I guess when you're 18, the "experience" line just doesn't hold water.

Everyone's been throwing around "experience" like it's the holy grail of the presidency, but I've got a few questions as to the viability of that campaign strategy.

See, maybe it's because I'm 18, and maybe it's because I haven't been properly disillusioned with our country's political system, but I can't help but cringe every time Senator Clinton brings up "experience".

Experience implies this is some sort of carpentry job. The kind one only gets better at as time goes on. The presidency, therefore by it's very nature, excludes new thinking and spirited initiative, instead leaving a bulking, slow motion train wreck of legislation where there should be world changing going on.

Our greatest presidents, both Republican and Democrat (and Whig and Federalist, etc) were not the "experienced" ones, but the strong ones.

George Washington's only experience when he took office was leading troops. He took office only to raise morale, and left pretty quickly afterwords, yet he dictated some policies that have completely shaped the backbone of our country.

Likewise, Abe Lincoln was many things when he entered office in 1861, but I'm not too sure "experienced" was one of them. He had never been married to a president (as far as we know) and yet he still somehow managed to preserve the union (okay, so it's more complicated than that, but I think we can all agree he was a pretty fantastic
president).

FDR's experience? Governor of New York and Secretary of the Navy. Kennedy's? Well, he was in the military for a bit and served in Congress for a long time. Neither man had the first hand executive branch experience that only the president's wife could attain. (Which begs the question of precisely how much experience the first lady even has...)

If you voted on a platform of experience, instead of electing John F. Kennedy in 1960, we would have elected Hubert Humphrey.

Or, if we had voted for experience in 1935, James A. Reed or John N. Garner would have been elected rather than FDR.

How would they have handled World War II?

The notion that "experienced" candidates are required is dangerous because it excludes so, so, much. It excludes revolution and revision. It excludes new solutions and hope. It excludes any notion that we can radically change the world for the better. Something Americans have been known to do before, and could do again, should we elect the proper person to office.

The following sentence might put Hillary and I on bad terms, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The presidency is whatever the candidate brings to it. If he or she brings mediocracy and compromise, then expect nothing less. However, if a candidate promises to bring a new age in politics, one in which neither Democrat nor Republican is the focus, but instead American, then expect greatness.

If you vote mildly, expect mediocracy.

Why this 18 year old's voting for Barack.

Here's what I love about Barack Obama... he has the ability to take a step back in a way no other candidate can. Even Kucinich, my long lost love, couldn't pull this off.

The first speech I ever saw Barack give was his keynote speech at the 2004 DNC. I was standing on the floor. I was 14. I don't remember the entire speech, but I remember one part of it perfectly.

It was Barack's assertion that we weren't Democrats and Republicans, we were AMERICANS.

I know, I know, it's cheesy. But hey, guys, we need some cheese right now. We're wrapped up in a war that defines quagmire, our healthcare system is a mess, and Exxon Mobil just saw their highest profits ever. We've got some serious problems. But let's focus on foreign policy for a moment, then we'll address everything else.



The war in Iraq: a terrorist stricken country needed our help toppling an evil tyrant and is now in the slow and painful process of rebuilding, but continues to need our help.

The war in Iraq: we unilaterally invaded a country for oil and world domination, and now trapped in a quagmire of epic proportions, but have a president who couldn't care less.

Whichever flavor of Kool Aid you're drinking, it doesn't really matter, because once you see beyond the political picket-lines, you realize we're basically arguing about the same thing.

Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, Neo-Conservatives, we all love America, we're all Americans.

We're all looking for the best way to keep our nation safe on a civil, physical, and mental level. To "Conservatives", the best route is the "strong" one, the "valiant" one, which obviously hasn't worked out quite as well as they hoped.

The Democrats, on the other hand, aren't quite sure what the correct strategy is, but because they (we) suck at P.R., they've gotten backed into a corner and now are forced to choose between "hate America" and "kill innocent people".

Enter Barack.

Look, this guy isn't the holy grail or the messiah, but he's great because he couldn't care less about the non-sensical and temperamental political position this country has found itself in. He's made it abundantly clear he's ready to take action, but NOT a moment before.

As a liberal New York democrat, I don't particularly like the concept of killing people, but if there were a nuclear missile aimed at New York with a guy behind the trigger who hates me, I'm not particularly comfortable either.

The problem is, that's a precarious place to be, lean even a little too bit left or right, and I'm suddenly on a side.

So back to Barack. He's ready to take action, but for every moment up until that moment, he's ready to dole out Aid and diplomacy. Now that sounds more like it, right, Democrats? I read a speech of his yesterday that made this all abundantly clear. I'd like to share it with anyone reading this who better wants to understand why Barack is a solid guy under all that idealism.

it's right here.

Many of our problems stem from issues that are resolvable on a level that leaves neither side feeling like the "loser", which breeds more anger, and distances us even more.

Look, we all fly the same flag, we all live under the same constitution, we all watch the same superbowl ads, let's stop this mindless fussing and get to the worldchanging.

Barack, you're up.

Barack Versus Apathy

The below article was written recently for my school paper, and I figured I'd post it up here too.

It's a letter by a kid, to kids, about 2008 and Barack Obama's part in it. I hope you like it.

--------------------------------

Awhile back I heard someone say that our generation was the "apathetic" one. Our parents and grandparents were hippies, and we're the counter-reaction to their reactionary instinct. We go a step further than trying to change the system, we opt out. That's all well and good, but when it comes to the real world it doesn't work.

Enter Barack Obama, a guy unrivaled in his ideailistic optimism and hopeful nature. I saw Barack speak in 2004 when I was at the DNC, and I gotta say, he carried the same charisma he does today. The energy he exudes does not exist solely to win the presidency, but is an intrisic part of him.

Okay, okay, so here's how I see it. The approaching elections are going to be our chance to decided between Barack and Hillary. The optimistic hopeful and the compromising politicker. I feel like the comparison of political ideaologies corresponds perfectly with the candidates. Hillary's approach reeks of compromise and sacrifice, of ceding specific points to win others, and of maneuvering her way through legislation. Mr. Obama's, on the other hand, is a bright, optimistic, political movement. Barack's campaign is about changing the world, Hillary's is about winning the White House. I'd like to make that abundently clear.

So, long story short, here's how I see it. It's not about Barack versus Hillary, it's Barack versus apathy. When the few of us who can vote go to vote, they won't be making a choice between Barack and Hillary, but instead a choice between Barack Obama and staying home. For the rest of you, you may not be able to vote yet, but to suggest you have no influence is absurd. Voting happens in a million ways a million times every day, just take your pick.

So, what I ask in this column is that anyone avoiding the polls do it consciously, as a political protest, and understand that while your lack of voting may be understood for the political protest it is, it won't stop the bad guys from winning in lieu of your political protest.

Here, check this out. Let's take a cross section of the "youth" vote, sayyyy, YouTube. YouTube is not exclusively associated with youth, but it could be fair to use data garnered from that to suggest that the people using it are tech-savvy youngins [and Geriatric1927 <3 ]. So what're the numbers on the "Barack Obama" channel when compared to, sayyy, the "Hillary Clinton" channel? Or perhaps the (snort) "John Edwards" channel? 750,000 people have visited the Edwards channel, a little over 1 million have visited the Clinton channel, and, get ready for it, get set, get psyched, 11 million visits are logged on the Barack Obama channel. 11 million. 11 freakin million. I'm not suggesting this is going to be precisely how the entire world elects Barack Obama, but it's really positive news that people like Barack, even if they don't necessarily take the time to vote.

So, yeah, VOTE, because apathy may be cute, but getting drafted won't be.

I've waited 18 years to vote... and this is what I get?

Can I ask a very, very sincere question?

Does anyone see 2008 turning out well?

I feel like someone needs to say this now, while we still have time.

A. The Democrats fail to find one candidate that is electable, and scatter, as they seem to be so prone to doing. The Republicans win. The second Patriot Act is enacted upon a helpless body politic by President Giuliani under the War Powers Act. The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all 17 other Amendments to the Constitution are replaced by a further modified "Patriot Act" and the country known as America ceases to exist.

B. The Democrats defeat precedent set by the past two elections, and actually manage to unite under one flag and take the White House. That one flag is Hillary, of course, and she carries out her promise to have us out of Iraq by 2013. But LOSES the 2012 election to Giuliani because, as future Giuliani will put it: "We gave the Democrats a chance to resolve Iraq, they couldn't even lose properly, now let's do this the American way."

C. George Bush jumps the gun and pulls emergency powers on November 1st of 2008 because of "newly found, definitive proof of Iran's possesion of nuclear weapons and their intention to use them upon the American people."

well, letter C is entirely probable, but for the sake of this piece, irrelevant. Let's suggest for one second that the Republicans fumble the election and give us the shot we need at the president's office, okay?

So, that means uniting. That means every Democrat setting down their differences and uniting to destroy the past eight years of American social, economic, and foreign policy. The way I see it, that leaves Hillary.

But, guys, and here's where people might disagree with me, I don't think Hillary's going to be significantly better.

Hillary seems like a politicker. A compromiser. She plays to win, but at what cost? Nothing about her seems presidential, and I don't say that because she's a woman. I think Segolene Royale, Maria Cantwell, and Barbara Boxer look plenty more presidential than Mrs. Clinton. I say it because she's done nothing to reassure me that we can make this country a better place. I have no faith.

Conversely, some would suggest Obama as a possible candidate. But he also makes me nervous. Now please don't get me wrong, I've been a supporter of Obama since the day I stood on the floor of the convention and watched Obama talk about a unified country. He spoke not of Democrats and Republicans, but of Americans. I liked that.

The other day it occurred to me I didn't really have any idea what I was supporting, though, so I did some googling.

Turns out I don't know because it's really friggin' hard to tell. Barack, in my opinion, doesn't politick the way Hillary does, but he does keep things vague and idealistic, which ends up pleasing a lot of Americans, but cheating them of answers they need.

So I guess what I had decided is that when I step into the voting booth for the first time in my life and am confronted with the choice between Hillary and Obama, I'll have to make a very difficult choice.

And pull the Kucinich lever.

My entire generation dislikes Dennis Kucinich because he kind of resembles an elf. He also, as it happens, feel strongly about a number of issues, and is vocal of his convictions. And he also happens to agree with me on a lot of issues.

Kucinich is no fringe radical. He's a true Democrat. He believes many of the things we used to. But in the past 8 years the Bush Administration has dragged the political spectrum so far to the right that we've lost any sense of perspective.

Old people: ask yourself what you would have wanted eight years ago. Ask yourself the kind of person you were, before the Bush Administration rubbed "terror" in your face until it bled. I think a lot of people would find Dennis reflects a more true American spirit than anyone is willing to admit.

But he looks like an elf.



It's time for you to decide whether you can make the mature, grown up, decision, because if not, you're going to leave a really disgusting world for my generation to clean up.