Yes, we can.

[Alex]

Well, he was an Illinois state senator for 8 years and had a long career of community activism before that.

I have no idea if his bipartisan-ship is shown from that time frame but my Chicago friends all feel that he did avoid the worst of the petty squabbling.

But I don't really care if he's bi-partisan. "Bi-partisan" as a political buzzword generally just means "I'm in the minority party but I want you to treat me as an equal anyway." I disagree with his policies and if elected I expected him to try an enact what he thinks is best with minimal consideration of my point of view.

However, based on what I've seen I do expect he'll be polite about it compared to the current behaviors on either side when in power.

But when offered one of these:

1. Stronger agreement policy-wise but I don't like the candidate.
2. Weak agreement policy-wise but I don't like the candidate even if for reasons completely unfair to that candidate.
3. Weak agreement policy-wise but despite myself I find the candidate inspiring.

I'm going to have to go with #3. #1 hasn't exactly worked out for me very well. I have no idea if Obama can accomplish those things he thinks he will try for. I have no idea if he'll be corrupted by the power and turn into a despised figure.

But I do know that Clinton's chances of achieving her policy goals aren't really any better than Obama's (and if hers improve with a sweeping Democratic victory in the Senate then so do his) and she's already most of the way down the path to power-corruption leading to hatred.

The process of wielding political power will probably quickly take the bloom off of Obama and he may end up being more Carter than FDR but I have to prefer the entity that may disappoint than the ones I know with certainty will disappoint.