You know that the traditional media is in a sorry state when you have to turn to a travel writer to learn something new and informative about a country which our president has listed as part of an "Axis of Evil".  I was surprised and encouraged to hear Rick Steves discuss his upcoming show on his recent visit to Iran during a PBS pledge break.  Steves dared to do something that I wasn't sure I would ever see happen on American television - humanize Iranians.

In his words the traditional broadcast media would never air something like this because it "wigs out" advertisers.  He went on to talk about how Iranians are people with a different point of view, and a different history from our own, but that they are people who at their core have many things in common with us.  He talked about the fact that our perception of Iran goes back to the 70's and the hostage crisis, but that for Iranians their perception of us goes back to the 50's and a CIA led coup.

Although I enjoy his travel programs and have found his books on navigating Europe extremely helpful in previous travels, I can't say that I've ever considered him must see television.  I certainly never thought that I would ever look to him as a strong voice with political implications.  Even so, I am looking forward to watching his show about his trip to Iran.  Our country will not be able to dig itself out of the mess that it is in without stopping its tendency to demonize those we disagree with.  We must, of course, be cautious when dealing with those who claim to want to do us harm, but it does us no good to assume that there is no room for discussion without trying to reach out.  I never thought I would say this, but I can't imagine a better person to communicate between cultures than Rick Steves with his dorky glasses and all-American accent.  If he can be accepted by the "evil" Iranians, then perhaps the divide between our countries is not as great as we are all being told.

The first thing I need to say is that I had previously voiced my opposition to Hillary being Obama's VP.  I take that back.  Her speech today was gracious and I think Obama could benefit from having such a strong competitor by his side.

That being said, I think that Hillary could accomplish more without being VP.  I would like to see her follow Al Gore's example.  In the past seven years he has accomplished more and earned more respect around the world than Bush even without the title "President of The United States of America."  From his Oscar winning film, to the Nobel Peace Prize he has worked tirelessly to promote awareness about global warming and our need to do something about it.  The problem might not be solved yet, but I feel a lot more confident that something is going to be done about it than I did seven years ago when Bush was pulling out of Kyoto.  Gore has also been an independent voice which had the freedom to speak out against the war and other Bush policies when others were frightened to do so.

I would love to see Hillary follow a similar path.  I had a lot of respect for her when she and Bill first came into the White House.  I loved the way she basically told everyone with traditional views on gender roles to shove it because she wasn't just going to sit around and bake cookies.  I thought the way she was treated was unfair, and hated watching the way she changed in order to deal with it.  One of the reasons that I chose to support Obama in my primary was because I felt like she traded some of her core values for possible political capital in some of her votes in the senate (I know many disagree, but that's my opinion).