It’s been a tumultuous week for me, personally. Ever-increasing anxiety until election day, elation the day of, depression for the two days following, and, finally, time for reflection. I’d imagine many California (and Florida, Arkansas and Arizona) voters went through the same emotional roller coaster.

First, having Barack Obama elected to be our 44th president is a milestone that all of us should be cherishing, for a number of reasons. The fact that he is both African-American, and the product of a mixed-race marriage (illegal until just a couple of generations ago in many parts of the country), is testament to how far we’ve come as a nation. The fact that he is the grandson of a Muslim, grew up abroad for a time, and has a non-Western European name are milestones unto themselves. They defy many of the unfortunate stereotypes that grew about the United States in the previous eight-year absence of good news.

But in a few underreported ways, Obama’s ascension to the presidency points to triumphs of a different sort. First, the era of divisive, identity politics has, at the very least, taken a hiatus. The religious right’s strangehold on electoral success and its influence on domestic legislation and foreign policy stance have also taken a backseat to a more broad coalition of groups interested in greater inclusiveness, cooperation and dialogue. The electorate is now more likely to give the president-elect reign to take a different approach with respect to health care, financial sector regulation, foreign relations, and other matters, when trying a different approach was previously considered anathema (”appeasement”, “socialism”, etc).

In two important ways, though, Obama crossed the Rubicon. First, he was able to raise a majority of his campaign contributions from 3 million contributors across the country. We’re talking small, $25, $50, amounts. What this means is that the largest “lobbyist group” he is beholden to are, effectively, the American people, who will be holding him responsible to his entire platform, not just a set of pet interests. If he doesn’t deliver? The largest, by far, source of reelection revenue will dry up.

Second, Obama is going to draw on the strong wellspring of support that was granted him from the very start, domestically and abroad. The perception of our country, by its own citizens, and former critics outside the country, was turn on its head after almost a decade of having almost every negative stereotype of Americans confirmed by the actions of an irresponsible government. Sure, with high expectations, there is bound to be disappointment, as unrealistic expectations are confronted with realpolitik. But I firmly believe that Obama’s judiciousness and his surprisingly consistent message and refrain from hyperbole on the campaign trail will suit him well as he sets out to make tremendous changes in the way our government does things.

The fact that he will be working with strong Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress won’t hurt, either.

Moving to a more specific struggle, that of marriage equality, in the midst of a streak of bad news in four states, there is an ember of optimism. Despite the continual passage of anti-equality legislation, each subsequent election and poll shows the gap narrowing. With even Republicans and evangelicals saying that gay couples deserve equal protection under the law, with only the institution of marriage itself something they are defending for heterosexual use only, the debate has taken on a different tenor than it had when gay people were routinely described as perverts, deviants, and sick, by those opposing the granting of equal rights. If the predominant debate is one of nomenclature, then we have also come a long way on the sexual orientation civil rights front.

Finally, in the aftermath of an unusually long campaign that involved record numbers of (especially young) people, one wonders if the momentum of political engagement will continue and spread into both local and international awareness and involvement. Should be an interesting couple of years (you do know that the 2010 elections are just 24 months away?).

The New Yorker had a fantastic piece on the Keith Olbermann phenomenon, one that Olbermann himself agrees wouldn’t have existed if it weren’t for its diametrically-opposed counterpart, the O’Reilly phenomenon.

Olbermann’s success, like O’Reilly’s, is evidence of viewer cocooning—the inclination to seek out programming that reinforces one’s own firmly held political views. “People want to identify,” [MSNBC Vice President Phil] Griffin says. “They want the shortcut. ‘Wow, that guy’s smart. I get him.’ In this crazy world of so much information, you look for places where you identify, or you see where you fit into the spectrum, because you get all this information all day long.”

It’s an interesting development, and one that dovetails with the viewership march from the mainstream media to the blogosphere to get news. Is this a reaction to information overload? When confronted with an overwhelming onslaught of news items from an increasing number of global sources, do we turn to someone to follow the news, digest it and parse it for us in a form more easy to assimilate?

I know that Timothy Ferriss, the Four-Hour Workweek guy, says that he doesn’t follow politics at all, and just asks a friend or two that he trusts to tell him whom to vote for each election cycle. He’s an incredibly busy guy, he has his own dreams to follow, and doesn’t feel that following each detail of the lengthy political process gives him any more necessary perspective than his friends’ advice give him when it matters.

The Information Age has given those of us with access to the internet’s resources freedom to go both broad and deep on data as never before. But, at a certain point, each of us has to make some choices as to what to limit our exposure to - we don’t have the time or mental energy to dig through everything and still have time to get work done. Might it be fair for matters of politics to turn to our favorite partisan blogger or “news analyst” to both inform us on what’s important and also shape our opinion?

I’m not so sure. I personally find myself turning daily to the Drudge Report, a right-leaning news page, even though I’m left-of-center myself. Why? My other purviews into the world of politics are decidedly mired in a Democratic/left political ethos, and I wonder what else I’m missing out there. And although Drudge doesn’t provide any of his own commentary besides the shaping of his headlines’ titles, he does exert an editorial bias on which stories he publishes (and how long he keeps them up).

I feel it’s important to keep a pulse on the sentiments of people who you might not necessarily agree with, but whose line of thinking you can at least consider rational enough to respect. But this is just one man’s opinion. In today’s politically-polarized atmosphere, maybe true neutrality is something that’s too much to ask for.

Although it’s not exactly news anymore, Obama’s issue with Jeremiah Wright is not behind us, not least because another preacher from the same church bashed Hillary recently. But I think there’s a tremendous amount of significance to the entire matter.

Obama knew that his pastor was prone to making controversial outbursts (although wasn’t apparently present at the sermons that have been getting so much coverage on YouTube and on the news). However, he chose to stay with the church, only recently distancing himself from Rev Wright, arguably for political expediency. Hillary Clinton said very forcefully that she would not have stayed with the church had she heard Wright say the sort of things that he said after 9/11.

Forgive me for getting on the soapbox here, but I suppose that’s what Dyalogues is for, anyway. I side with Obama on this.

First, I don’t think language critical of the U.S. (”God damn America”) is something profoundly evil to say. The United States is an institution that, like any institution can be condemned. If this country weren’t open to severe, biting criticism, it wouldn’t be the country that it is. Countries that forbid self-criticism either through law or officially-fomented nationalism are, well, not exactly the kinds of countries that inspire envy. (I’m thinking of North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc.) Unsurprisingly, the U.S. has indeed survived Wright’s criticism, and doesn’t seem to have borne any permanent scars.

Second, as an adult, I’m sure Obama can sort out what he can seek spiritual guidance from his reverend on, and what to politely dismiss and ignore. It is not as if he were a child that can’t make those sorts of judgment calls. And it’s clear, from many, many long-time parishioners’ accounts, that, for the most part, Rev Wright was an inspirational, uplifting figure, that spent decades doing good work for his flock and thousands of suffering people in the Chicago area.

The fact that Wright made a number of outbursts seems to have come as no surprise to either Hillary Clinton’s pastor nor John McCain’s; both actually defended Wright. They know that delivering a sermon can be an emotional experience, and occasionally prone to stirring eruptions on the pulpit.

But the most important issue, in my mind, is this: How can we bridge the divides that separate us in this country if we turn our back on people we disagree with? This is something I feel very strongly about, and it is the main reason we started Dyalogues. Engagement with people that you disagree with is the only way you ever have any hope of finding some sort of compromise or understanding that you can live with. Refusing to engage at all with people unless they see things the way you do is a quick way to end things in a hopeless stalemate.

As a gay person who has strong feelings about gay rights, including the right to marry, it can sometimes feel infuriating to argue with someone who doesn’t feel like we’re entitled to the same rights that they enjoy. But, provided they’re simply not an unrepentant bigot, it would be a mistake to write them off and not understand at least where they’re coming from. You can only guess at what a person’s reasons are for holding a different position from yours until you actually talk to them.

So this is where Obama’s argument that he can bridge the divide in Washington, ironically, gets a little substance. And this is where Clinton’s similar claim tends to ring empty.

The dustup over Obama’s “bitter” comments made at a San Francisco fundraiser a couple of months ago brings up an issue entirely different from Obama’s feelings about small-town folk. But the story itself was broken by an unusual persona - a blogger/citizen journalist whose presence was allowed at an event excluding members of the press.

Mayhill Fowler, who had participated as a citizen journalist on the Huffington Post’s Off the Bus subsite, published her story several days after the fundraiser, and with the heavily editorial and highly familiar style common to bloggers. She had already donated the maximum $2300 allowable to the Obama campaign, and was probably perceived as a strong Obama supporter. But her scoop was clearly critical of Obama, and has been seized upon by Clinton, McCain and the mainstream media.

Blogs present some game-changing characteristics:

• publication can happen immediately - there is no wait for an editorial scan or for the printing presses to warm up
• syndication via RSS is almost immediate - popular blogs’ entries can show up on readers’ iGoogle, NetVibes or other start pages, often showing up alongside headlines from mainstream news outlets
• prominent bloggers are after the scoop as much as reporters are - they are often the first point of contact when someone wants to break a story, and timestamping allows easy embargo compliance

This sort of blogger is an entirely different sort of animal than the guy who runs his small Obama fanblog, and most politicians know it.

But with blogs like Huffington Post, the line can get blurred. HuffPo arguably has its own proclivities (obviously towards the left, maybe more subtly towards Obama), but its growing clout also gives it greater access to newsmakers and increasing incentive and ability to scoop a story. Which, paradoxically, makes it a tougher invite than the smalltime fanblogger, which the Obama campaign thought they had in Mayhill Fowler.