Hope versus eristic, disingenuous politics

Eristic triangulation is what Karl Rove taught politicians how to do. It often works, but at what cost? Politicians who feel a mandate to invade Iraq while millions are hungry, poorly educated, and can’t afford health care in our own country while ignoring the environment and the economy? Is that the price we pay for equating divisive election campaigns with good leadership?

Why do I blog, (and reply to others,) hand out buttons, bumper-stickers, and yard signs, and wear Obama t-shirts? Why do I help the Grassroots Finance Committee raise funds from friends and strangers? What makes Obama’s volunteers repeat ourselves about the Madrassa smear, health care, Jeremiah Wright, “present” votes, and all the other things? Because too many people who still don’t know anything about the Bosnia story, or the differences between the candidates on NAFTA, still think Obama is a Muslim who won’t recite the pledge of allegiance.

We are forging a coalition of energized, informed voters, every day, by our actions disseminating facts. We counter the efforts and tactics of the smear-mongers without becoming mired in their negative style. We work in places like Iowa and Pennsylvania, where the odds are obviously long and polls show sentiment for other candidates may be strong, because we know that when the campaign is about issues, not just name-recognition, that Barack Obama is on the best path any politician can walk; we are millions strong walking united behind him.

We are Obamists. Yes, we can.