"Sometimes the other side has a point."

This quote above is a small, hopefully harmless soundbyte from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."

The Obama campaign has been criticized (since the primaries against Clinton) by some democrats as not being aggressive enough in its attack, feeling that one has to fight fire with fire, and arguably, evil with evil. While Obama certainly has gotten his hands dirty in the campaign process, I think an honest person can say that he has set a new precedent of decency and respect we have not seen from either side in a long time. More significantly than any other presidential candidate that I can remember, he has chosen to fight fire not with more fire, but with water.

More recently, he has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for saying "John McCain was right" several times during a presidential debate. The McCain campaign even ran a TV ad highlighting these occurrences. But in my view, I think reasonable Americans are ready for a leader who understands that the measure of true strength and leadership should not reside in one's ability to villainize dissenters and draw bold, divisive lines between us ("the good") and them ("the bad") as we have seen recently from the McCain campaign. For me, the true measure of strength and leadership lies in one's ability to consider ideas from both sides, think thoroughly about a decision, and come up with a solution that provides for the common good. I think John McCain, as evidenced by his record in the senate, is capable of such leadership. But I would also say that since 2004, and certainly since the general election, he has been willing to sacrifice these ideals of true leadership to pander to his base. Does Obama also pander to his base? Certainly. But the difference is that Obama has upheld a basic decency while doing do. (Admittedly, where the line of "basic decency" can be drawn is very subjective, but in my mind, McCain has crossed it and Obama has not.)

In stark contrast to McCain/Palin ignoring (at least initially) the disrespectful and downright horrific statements made by supporters at their rallies, Obama chose a different approach as reported here in an article by the New York Times regarding his expanded economic plans:

"Mr. Obama reprimanded his audience when people started jeering at the mention of Mr. McCain’s name, declaring: 'We don’t need that. We just need to vote.'

Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal to waive the rules that penalize retiree withdrawals from 401(k)’s, saying: 'I want to give credit where credit is due.'"

Some say that campaigns should not be taken too seriously, as we should prioritize a candidate's record over his rhetoric. But I believe that campaigns have historically set the tone for each president's term and are the true beginning of a candidate's presidency. In addition, I believe a candidate's choices in governing his campaign provide significant insight into his current capacity for sound judgment. Even more, in a democratic process, campaigns should be taken more seriously. Campaigns are where candidates make their promises to the American people, provide their plans, and set the tone for the direction of our country's next chapter. In my view, misdirection away from the issues, using tactics of fear and polarization, are not only an attack on American decency but on democracy as a larger ideal.

Our next president must work to take the higher road for the common good. I have been disappointed for most of my voting life watching candidates run for the highest office in our country by reaching for the lowest ground in a win-at-all-cost contest. This year, I think we have two candidates who are capable of leading differently. The difference is that one candidate has shown us that leadership in the past while the other is showing us that leadership now.