My mom and I had a political chat tonight that left me feeling enlightened and thinking more about a line from a book I’m reading called American Creation. Near the beginning of chapter five, the author states the following about some of the founders’ difficulty in grasping the feasibility of an overtly partisan government:

“…one of the ultimate implications of the two-party system that was so hard for most of the founders to accept was the realization that different versions of truth could coexist alongside one another and both claim, with considerable plausibility, to be true. Unlike mathematics, in politics there was no agreed-upon solution reached by sheer brainpower and logic, but rather an ongoing and never-ending struggle between contested versions of the truth.”

This statement resonates profoundly in today’s charged political climate. As we get caught up in our debates and inspired opinions, our investment in our candidates, the chosen torch-bearers of our beliefs, we often overlook the effective and resilient principle our government operates on.

Truth vacillates. People whose truths disagree with ours are not enemies, they simply offer different perspectives. The political process does not help us see this fact; political campaigns smear one another, parties lash out and blame the other when mistakes happen, and because of this polarization at the top, we, the people, lose sight of the objectivity that works so well in a system like ours.

Near the middle of our conversation, my mom stopped and asked: “Tell me the top 5 reasons why you want Obama in office.” I, in my typically wordy way, rattled off technology, political adroitness, bipartisanship, rejuvenation of the American image, and analogous personal beliefs–including pro-choice–as my top 5. My mention of abortion led to an, at times emotional, follow-up debate about the benefits and detriments of a woman’s right to choose.

Though the discussion wasn’t novel, it highlighted the fact that parallel truths, as perceived so perplexedly by the founders, can and do exist side-by-side. My mother and I deeply believe in our points of view, living our opinions through our daily actions. And in this country, we are always fairly evenly split by our coexistent truths, which explains the rareness of the ever-elusive “landslide” political victory. We battle competitively, yes, but respectfully, too. That’s what I love, that’s what we all love, about America. We can exist as ourselves even in a world where our truths may not be those of the majority. It’s an amazingly successful experiment in the existence of multiple realities.

I know pictures often misrepresent the moment, exaggerating or downplaying what truly is going on. But this picture of Joe Biden, posing with the #74th most powerful woman in the world, Irish President Mary McAleese, portrays an interesting encounter–one I find myself hard pressed to write off as trick photography. Check it out:

An interesting article on CNN: “Obama and Bush not so far apart.” I think it’s a great premise for an article (juxtaposing Obama’s own actions with his accusations of McCain’s tight alignment with Bush) but I think the majority would agree with Bush on many of those points. Here is a bullet-point summary of the issues mentioned:

• Abstinence: They both agree on contraception plus abstinence education.
• Affirmative action: They both agree it needs to focus more on impoverished people in general as opposed to people of a certain race.
• Budgets: Obama voted for 19 of Bush’s spending bills.
• Capital punishment: They both believe in it.
• Education: They both support charter schools.
• Economics: They both support the $700 billion bailout bill and tax cuts for the middle class.
• Energy: They both back alternative energy investments.
• Faith-based initiatives/fatherhood: They both support expanding these initiatives (hopefully not too far, Senator).
• FISA: They both supported, in very similar language, the purpose of the FISA bill.
• Gay marriage: They both are against it.
• Global AIDS: They both see it as a huge problem (Obama commended Bush on his investment in combating the issue as President).
• Health care: They both think current problems are a result of rising costs.
• Middle-class tax cuts: They both fundamentally support them (though Obama wants to fund them by taxing the richest, smallest class of our nation; a stark difference between him and Bush).
• Minority homeownership: They both believe in increasing the number of minority homeowners to shore up equality and increase lasting wealth among minorities.
• National security: They both supported the PATRIOT Act.
• Offshore drilling: They both support doing this (Obama having switched sides on this one only recently).
• Racial profiling: They are both against it, Bush having mandated his Attorney General to ensure it wasn’t occurring within the U.S. Government.
• Religion: They are both openly men of faith.
• Supreme Court ruling on gun ban: They both support the decision.
• Welfare reform: They both want to refocus the system on children and families.

I don’t think the author accomplished what she wanted to (painting Obama as Bush-like, too). These points, as I mentioned, are ones a majority of Americans would agree with. The disagreements Obama has with Bush–and McCain–are on matters of present consequence, where difference matters.

What the article did accomplish (for me, at least), was to highlight that Bush wasn’t a total failure–only on the issues most pressing to our nation.

I think Palin won it. There, I had to say it; I couldn’t hold back anymore. With her expectations ankle-high, a horrible string of interviews pressuring her every answer, Sarah Palin managed to prove she is not, in fact, an idiot. And that’s all she needed to do to win.

The Republican supporters were losing faith in the McCain campaign. A poor reaction to the financial crisis, controversies with McCain’s campaign aides, sheltering the Vice Presidential candidate, these all contributed to a poor showing at the polls for John McCain. But tonight, Sarah Palin breathed a breath of fresh–albeit hot–air into her embattled ticket-mate’s attempt at the presidency.

She said very little of quality (though she did speak eloquently about certain issues of personal concern to her), but managed to exceed the low bar set for her. John McCain must be spreading that wry, Cheshire Cat-ish grin across his face right now. No K.O. punch tonight; this race isn’t over.

Update 10:30pm: I just want to make sure I note that I do believe Biden won on merit and quality. But, as far as politics goes, I think the McCain camp can call tonight a victory, as well.

It appears the McCain campaign has a new tactic for validating Palin’s candidacy: reduce expectations to a bare minimum and appeal to mediocrity. To be clear, I do not believe that mediocrity should be stigmatized. Even mentioning the word in such a context betrays how I feel. But, this new approach again highlights America’s misdirected issue with intellectualism.

Why on earth should the President of the Senate, second-in-command of the United States, be a Joe six-pack? Joe six-packs are fine, but can we stop raping intellect and acting as if the leaders of our country shouldn’t be elite? The argument has been retold ad nauseum: Why do we expect elitism from our athletes, artists, and CEOs while demanding simplicity from the leaders of the free world?

Palin should be intellectual; she should be well-versed in foreign affairs; she should understand the nuances of our domestic issues; and she should be able to demonstrate these competencies at any time to the public. She will make mistakes, no one expects perfection. But we should not encourage simplicity as a characteristic of our representatives on the nationl stage. Our international relations are not simple. Our country’s problems are not easy.

At this point in history, we do not need simple ideas from simple people. We need grand gestures and brilliant strokes of genius. We need creative, eclectic solutions, which aren’t likely to come from Joe six-pack Americans. We all want to be president when we’re young, but there’s a reason almost all of us fail in that ambition: It’s the toughest job on earth.

This once again proves that the McCain campaign will pander in any way they can to the American people. Campaign tactics like these reflect desperation and irresponsibility. Now, I will argue that if they decide to pose Palin as a plainspoken person to connect with the American people, they have a leg to stand on. But, as they have not done that, and as it dawns on the McCain team that their Vice Presidential choice has failed to bolster their candidacy, they are falling back on stunt after stunt to try and climb out of their political trench.