We have been told we cannot do this, by a chorus of cynics; they will only grow louder and more dissonant. We have been asked to pause for a reality check; we've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Barack Obama, Senator, Victory Speech Following New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Primary, January 8, 2008.

Now have a look at Ms. Clinton, fulfilling Obama's prediction while campaigning in Rhode Island last month:

This is a candidate in desperation. Clearly, you don't win votes by telling people how hard you think your job is going to be, nor by spewing such rancid cynicism towards the ideals of unity and optimism. Ms. Clinton is right: she is "not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear," because in her political paradigm special interests are more important than citizens. Evidently, she believes that hope is false -- that there can be no other paradigm, no other politics -- that we must accept the system the way it is, for what it is.

I vehemently reject this message of division and negativity. We need a new direction. We need inspiration, and a president who recognizes that "we are the ones we've been waiting for," that "yes, we can" rebuild our nation and build up the world. Hillary Clinton is out of touch with the millions of Americans who know that we can -- that we must -- not only "make the special interests disappear," but also make our false divisions disappear, and create a political climate where every American can work together towards a brighter future for our nation and for the world. Yes, we can have a functional democracy. We must. It is our calling as Americans, and our duty to the world. Keep Reading >>

Mike Gravel, a dark-horse Democratic candidate from Alaska, really rocked my world in this week's Howard University Presidential Forum. Here's why:

• He supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and an end to this bullshit war.
• He supports ending Nancy Reagan's "War on Drugs" (see my recent post regarding DPA's Incarcerex ad for some reasons that we should all support this policy).
• He supports eliminating the IRS and the income tax, replacing it with the transparent Fair Tax, a progressively-structured sales tax.
• He'd like to implement a National Initiative for Democracy, essentially creating a federal ballot initiative process1 to empower the American electorate.
• He supports single-payer healthcare, and he lambasted the other Democrats on the stage (Kucinich excluded), who all want to give more money to the broken and greedy private insurance industry.
• He's scared of Hillary Clinton.

In short, he was the only Democrat with something new and unique to say, rather than just towing the standard party line. This is clearly a man who is NOT part of the "politics as usual" crowd. Now, if only he stood a chance...

1. 1. I have mixed feelings about ballot initiatives, especially given the way they've been implemented in California, but I remain hopeful that, done right, they could be a powerful tool to re-enliven our democracy

As Jeff Jarvis points out over at the Buzz Machine, MSNBC has placed a very restrictive license on their video coverage of Thursday's Democratic primary debate.

Regardless of your opinion on the usefulness of political debates (especially at this early stage of the primary), I think you have to acknowledge that Jarvis' outrage is justified. Alexander Wolfe counters that it's unreasonable to expect for-profit news corporations to give away all of their content for free on the Internet.

While I think Wolfe makes a reasonable point, I also think that political debate must be distinguished from the everyday news MSNBC produces. Political debate is absolutely vital to our core democratic values. It is a sacred form of speech that profoundly influences the course of our nation. It is outrageously avaricious and unpatriotic for a corporation to hijack our nation's most sacred form of speech.

Yet perhaps the relevant question is not "Why is MSNBC greedy?" (we know why - because they are a corporation); but why are we entrusting our most sacred political speech to a profiteering corporation in the first place? Particularly, where is C-SPAN (which recently adopted a Creative Commons style license for all of its content)? Who chose MSNBC to televise these debates, and why?

Larry Lessig has begun a campaign to influence the chairmen of both political parties to license the video and audio of all debates under a Creative Commons license. Unfortunately, it seems like it's too late for this first debate of '08. Perhaps if we continue these demands, future debates will fare better. Our democracy depends on it - so join the call!