The Democratic Party is broken. In fact, I don’t think too many people would disagree with me if I were to say that, right now, the entire country is not in particularly good shape. Ever since that terrible September morning in New York — which had the most shockingly beautiful blue sky I ever remember seeing in my city — I’m not sure we have even gotten close to being who we were or, at least, who we hoped we were. What makes that even more sad is that, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, today should be a truly glorious day. After last night, America really never will be quite the same — and that’s a good thing. I would even argue that it’s a great thing.

But, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have been a supporter of Senator Clinton throughout the primary season. Her tactics have often annoyed and sometimes even disgusted me, but I still thought she would be the most effective president during a time when the country seems to need grit and determination and the grinding tedium of hard work to get ourselves back on track. Unfortunately, I think she and Senator Obama have been caught up in a bizarre maelstrom of non-stop punditry and over-analysis and media-fed miscommunication — most of which has just made me feel like going somewhere and lying down with a cool cloth on my forehead.

Everywhere I have gone today — both in the real world, and in the peculiar, highly charged environment known as the Internet — instead of celebrating the fact that we’ve been catapulted into a new era, people seem short-tempered and tense and confused. When you think about it, that’s really quite heartbreaking. And, day after day, the division between the two competing halves of the Democratic Party seems to be growing even more ugly and intractable.

One often hears the question “What can Senator Obama do to unify this vast sea of wildly opinionated, intensely involved citizens?” I have a very simple suggestion, which — at first glance — will sound rather banal and meaningless. I respectfully ask anyone who happens to read this to stop and take a second glance.

There is simply no way for the deplorable wounds of racism and sexism to be erased during a single campaign season, no matter how groundbreaking it truly is, in so many ways. But, I have been waiting for Senator Obama to do something — anything –that would make me say, okay, it isn’t just pretty words, or the fervent wistful projections of a battered populace, but that he really is capable of bold, transformational action.

I would love, for example, for Senator Obama to be able to take Al Gore’s graceful and elegant position on gay marriage, but I recognize that it would not be an act of wisdom during a heated election. But, there is actually a different, long-dormant issue that still lurks, privately, as a tremendous disappointment to millions of Americans — myself among them.

It’s a blast from the past, but remember the ERA? There are many people who will probably think, oh, please, that is such old news — but, you know, it isn’t. It mattered then, and it matters now, even though no one ever mentions it anymore. What if Senator Obama came out and said that one of his first acts as president would be to do everything in his power to bring the ERA back, and try to get it ratified, once and for all? Yes, I suppose it seems like ancient history, but the words are very simple: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” At the time, many people found the entire concept irrationally terrifying, but does it still seem scary and radical? Or does it just seem — logical?

And is it within the realm of possibility that if Senator Obama took that position, openly and proudly, a statistically significant percentage of Senator Clinton’s most devoted and intelligent supporters would suddenly feel much more comfortable with — and maybe even enthusiastic about — his candidacy? I will be honest — it would certainly make a difference to me. It would be a symbolic gesture, but an important one.

Would those 24 words end the war in Iraq, fix the economy, or provide universal health care for one and all?

No. But, those 24 words matter.

They always have.

They still do.

**This piece was originally published at The Huffington Post/Off The Bus

(The direct link is here; they will be adding my full name ASAP, for what it’s worth)

Senator Obama did not ask for my advice. Surprisingly, his campaign rarely calls me, and almost never writes. (and when they do, they just want money.)

But, tomorrow–today, actually, as I look at the clock–the Senator should, in my opinion, not opt for lofty rhetoric, or defensiveness, or repudiate anyone. He should not prevaricate, or obfuscate, or even hesitate. It will, no doubt, be tempting to try and walk down the road Dr. Martin Luther King so brilliantly paved, and I’m sure Senator Obama could deliver an inspiring speech, albeit an inevitably less ground-breaking and indelible one. But, with the Democratic Party–and, in too many ways, and for too many reasons, the entire country–currently teetering angrily on the edge of despair, I think he should channel Harry S. Truman, instead.

Be honest. Be direct. Be humble. Tell the truth. Don’t mince words. Shoot straight. (And one must never forget that President Truman was a man who abruptly made history with a single bold signature on a vital document.)

I will quote the crucial passage: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.” (Would I like to see gender and sexual orientation in there, too? You bet. But, life is flawed, and in recent years, the formerly glorious concept of a sweeping executive order has been egregiously abused.)

America has a tangled, and distressing, racial history. It is endlessly confusing, and complicated, and infuriating, and it is hard to believe that there is anyone who has ever even been to the United States, who doesn’t have strong opinions about race–and the other categories and concepts which are used to try and put people in tiny little boxes, and limit and diminish us all. People hear coded words where they don’t exist–and sometimes miss them entirely in what appear to be benign remarks. Everyone, invariably, feels as though they have to walk on those proverbial eggshells–and I daresay that most of us bitterly resent it, on the occasions when we feel as though we are being pushed in directions where we don’t want to go.

I, personally, have never cared whether anyone agrees with my opinion, but I unfailingly want to be treated with respect–even on those (one likes to think, very rare) occasions when I don’t particularly deserve it. And, I operate under the presumption that, if I make my best effort to treat others with respect, too, they will be kind enough to overlook my mistakes, and I will try as hard as I can to respond accordingly.

Sometimes, I fail. That’s the way it goes. Ideally, though, you try again–and, with luck, do better the next time out.

I have many very strong opinions–about faith, politics, race, gender, sports, you name it. And I know that sometimes I make assumptions about people based upon things as seemingly trivial as whether they like cats. (Full disclosure: I like cats. It is not required for other people to like cats, but I expect them never to say anything offensive about my cats. Because, frankly, that would be impolite.)

I don’t like guns. Many other people do. I don’t get it. But, that doesn’t mean that we can’t try to find common ground. (Unless, of course, someone tries to shoot one of my cats–but, I hope not to encounter that particular situation.)

I have wildly conflicting opinions about religion, and worry about this quite a lot. Once, at a church I had attended for many years, the priest–and the congregation, as a whole–did something which offended my sensibilities to the degree that, once they had all settled down, I walked out in the most dramatic way imaginable, and even slammed the door. I like to think they noticed–but, maybe not.

I deplore a number of things that the United States government has done in my name–but that doesn’t mean that I don’t get very upset when people don’t bother taking their hats off while the National Anthem plays at baseball games. And yet, by virtue of the First Amendment, they are certainly free not to do so–and I guess I am equally free to find it extremely disrespectful.

I don’t like war; I do like soldiers. I don’t like rules, but I do like laws. I think Harry Potter is just silly, but Buffy is cool.

Life is a muddle.

I want Senator Obama to be direct tomorrow. Unflinching. Clear. Brave.

He has a chance for A Moment.

I hope he grabs it.

Yeah, I’m probably going to talk about Iraq–but first, the Patriots need some praise.  Neither team was really sharp–and the officiating crew made what seemed like an intentional effort to insert themselves into the outcome–but, in the end, the Patriots did precisely what needed to be done.  Addai nearly won the game all by himself, though–it was a very impressive day on his part.  Bill Belichick may not be the most charming fellow ever (although I confess that I find him strangely–or maybe not so strangely–attractive), but seriously, if we had to go through D-Day again, wouldn’t you want him to be the guy planning it?  And read this, if you want to see why he is legitimately furious about the NFL using selective injustice against him earlier this season.  (Welcome to karma, dude.)

For those of you who dislike sports, you may stop skimming now, if so inclined.  But, if you hate politics, resume skimming at once. 

I don’t like the war in Iraq.  I thought it was stupid when it first came up; I think it’s stupid now.  I did support taking action in Afghanistan–even before September 11th.   After all, this was happening long before that terrible day.  By “action,” I don’t mean war, as such, but I think the international community could have been convinced to try and suppress the Taliban–and this could well have changed history.  Even this country might have agreed to help out, and that would certainly have had an impact on what is happening currently.  In fact, with intelligent leadership, we might have lots of friends we don’t have right now–and may never have again.  But, that is precisely the type of leadership we did not have–not even close–and it certainly hasn’t turned out very well.  There is no way anyone will ever know for sure, but I am quite convinced that if five members of the Supreme Court hadn’t decided to appoint a President of the United States all by themselves in 2000, the world would be entirely different–and some iconic buildings in lower Manhattan would still be standing. 

But, I digress.  Because, alas, we are in Iraq, and there is a dreadful mess to clean up.  On a short-term basis, the surge may be working a little bit, but unless our soldiers stay there indefinitely, that surely won’t be sustained, and that will have a devastating impact on the country for decades to come, I fear.  Both countries, actually.  If we were going to invade, there should have been a coherent plan–and the reality, I think, is that part of that plan would have required reinstating the draft.  Charlie Rangel may be a wacky guy, but I do think that he is right about this.  If there is going to be a major war, there really must be a sense of “shared sacrifice” across the country–or what you will end up with is….a defeat.  I very strongly believe that national service (not necessarily military, of course) should be a requirement for all citizens, and while I shudder at the thought of bringing back the draft, if we had a draft–with no loopholes–I suspect even the most bellicose Administration in history still wouldn’t be able to take the country to war against its will. 

But then again, as we know, this Administration’s idea of shared sacrifice is to say: “I encourage you all to go shopping more.”  Would it be that hard to suggest–for starters–oh, say, conserving energy?  Just a thought.

It is strange, actually, that yapping about the Patriots led me into thinking about Iraq so intensely.  But, really, Belichick’s win-at-all-costs; who-cares-if-it-is-pretty attitude is actually exactly what you need to win a war.  (Ever seen this page?  It’s quite damning.)  Yeah, it’s only football, but there’s a serious mind working there, and if he had taken a different life path and had been the Secretary of Defense back in 2003, it would be hard to convince me that the war–if, in fact, he had recommended such a thing, which it’s entirely possible he would have been far too intelligent to do–would not have turned out differently.

Right now, I am reading this.  But I think I would maybe rather be reading this.

Or possibly these, which I adored as a child.