It seems so obvious to write about President Barack Obama right now, whether you’re a fan or not, that I think I’ve been avoiding doing it. I was in Washington, D.C., on Inauguration Day. I saw the camaraderie of the crowds. I watched in amusement as CVS clerks and CPK waiters tried their best to cope. I hummed along as Wyclef Jean sang a sweet but less than Grammy-worthy freestyle presidential tribute. I applauded the honesty of the Inaugural address, I held my breath as the new President got out of the car, and I thanked goodness that no one had gone tiger, in the words of the immortal Chris Rock, in this capitol circus. And as the first blush of love faded — confirmation hearings will do that to any relationship — and the real work of rebuilding began, I hoped that the young people who’d been so energized by “Yes We Can” wouldn’t be enervated by “Yes We Did That Already, And Now We Have To Do All The Other Way Tougher Stuff For Which There Will Be No Uplifting Slogans.”

Then Superbowl Sunday came around, and President Obama — chatting with Matt Lauer and smiling that easy smile of his — put my fears to rest. As my friend put it, “It’s kind of amazing to have a President who can say ’shoutout’ credibly.” Don’t get me wrong: His vetting game is clearly far from airtight, and I, unlike him, have never been a huge fan of Steeler football. But what stood out about the President that day — and more recently, when he admitted he “screwed up” with the Tom Daschle nomination, and even when he called Wall Street bonuses “shameful” last week — is that he can and will talk to us, about subjects heavy and light, and in a voice we can both relate to and respect. (After all, his shoutout wasn’t to his boys back home; it was to the troops.) It may be calculated — and it probably is — but I for one appreciate a little strategic thinking in my politicians. And if they use it to keep me in the loop, all the better.

What may be even more striking, though, is Obama’s seeming desire to behave both like what I imagine a President ought to be and like the nice, cool, more or less sincere young man about campus I’m always hoping the President was at some long lost time in his life. It’s no small feat to be both youthful and presidential, and it’s even harder when you’re admitting mistakes and promising fixes. But what it communicates, whether the President means to or not, is that — for the generation of young people who will call Obama a role model — you really can do it your way. Yes, we all have to be accountable and work hard, for instance. But who’s going to have to work harder or be more accountable than Obama will? And if he can still tell jokes and enjoy a good game while he’s doing it, well, maybe we can, too.

All of this — the dialogue, the insight, even the inspiration of a grown-up guy with just about the hardest job around laughing like he means it — fosters an inclusiveness that is ultimately more empowering for young people at this moment than “Yes We Can” could ever be. Because now we are part of a conversation that’s happening not on the fringes, but in the most hallowed halls of power. And we’re talking to a man who, whatever you think of his politics, seems willing to listen.

What a day, right? I’m on my way to vote and, frankly, I look a little crazy because I’m so excited that I hardly slept a wink. And it isn’t difficult to see why. So much of the Gen Y discussion we’ve had over the last year or two has been about our entitlement, our coddled youth, our lack of accountability, perspective, and work ethic. Our generation, I’ve been told so many times, hasn’t really been through anything. (Sure, there was 9/11, but could that one day compare to  prolonged coming-of-age crises like Vietnam or the Great Depression?)

Well, I think it’s about time we put that argument to rest. Maybe two wars and $4-a-gallon gas this summer weren’t enough to get us the generational street cred, but surely the last few months have finally elevated us to that highest echelon of suffering. As Thomas Friedman put it in his column on Monday, “Never has one generation [i.e., them] spent so much of its children’s [i.e., us] wealth in such a short period of time with so little to show for it as in the Bush years.” Thanks, Mom and Dad.

And for the record, it’s only just beginning. Whatever entitlement we have exhibited will, I think, be quickly quashed by the rapidly approaching obligations of our future. Not only will it cost far more (and be much more necessary, given the competitive landscape) to put our kids through college and beyond, we will also be caring for parents who are living longer and saving less, often because of the circumstances they’ve faced, like layoffs, rising healthcare costs, and of course, the high price of raising us.

All that to say, please, for the love of goodness, go vote. Whatever the immediate stakes for our country, the long-term significance of this day for us simply can’t be overstated. When sociologists look back at the formative moments of our lifetime, will 2008 be the year whose financial crisis began all our troubles, or the one whose election set the tone for our country’s recovery? Every election, there’s big talk of the youth vote, and just about every election, it amounts to a big pile of hype. (Howard Dean, anyone?) So this year, think of it as a life vote. Whatever your views, whomever you support, you actually do have a chance to shape the rest of our collective life today. Take it. Or don’t — and your friends (and I!) will hold you personally responsible for every calamity that befalls us forever more.

Not since the Reagan administration allegedly classified ketchup as a vegetable to save money on the federal school-lunch program, have the Democrats found such a potent symbol of Republican callousness. But Republicans insist that this latest purported gaffe is a complete fabrication.

As many blogs have reported, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have sued the Macomb County (Michigan) Republican Party, the Michigan Republican Party and Republican National Committee to prevent them from pursuing an outlandishly unseemly “voter suppression” tactic which Republican officials have already disavowed ever having contemplated: a plan to challenge voters’ residency qualifications if their homes have recently been foreclosed.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Detroit, is here.

The suit was triggered by this controversial article in the Michigan Messenger, an online political daily published by the nonprofit Center for Independent Media.

In the article, which came out September 10, writer Eartha Jane Melzer quoted James Carabelli, the chairman of the Republican Party of Macomb County, Michigan (a northeastern section of the Detroit Metropolitan area), as saying, “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses.” The plan, according to the article, was to mount challenges to voters who’d lost their homes on the theory that they might no longer reside within the precincts where they were registered. (According to RealtyTrac, a site that monitors foreclosures nationwide, Detroit led the nation in foreclosures in 2007, with close to 72,616 filings, reflecting almost 5% of all households.)

Carabelli responded a few days later with this press release, asserting that “The story is not true. The Michigan Messenger made it up.” He also demanded a retraction.

The state Republican party chairman, Saulius Anuzis, condemned the story in the same release, saying: “What we have here is a liberal blog funded by a liberal billionaire pushing a fabricated story that supports a liberal agenda. Never in my 30 years in politics have I seen the mainstream media pick up such a completely false and utterly ludicrous story as this one and run with it with such glee.” (The Messenger describes itself as “As a coalition of long-time progressive bloggers, freelance writers and professional journalists,” and the Center for Independent Media is partly funded by George Soros’s Open Society Institute.)

The Messenger has stood by its story. Reporter Meltzer’s editor, Jefferson Morley, wrote here that Melzer’s “notes show that she asked [Carabelli] about plans to have election challengers at the polls on Election Day. As they spoke, she typed a question about Republican voter challengers: ‘How will they know if the addresses match? How will you know which addresses to check?’ Her notes show that Carabelli responded, ‘We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses.’ Melzer’s notes then show she asked a follow-up question: ‘How will you know people are who they say they are?’ Carabelli responded, ‘I would rather not tell you all the things we are doing.’”

It is, of course, not unusual for Republican Party officials to organize “election integrity” or “ballot security” challenges in what they say are efforts to prevent voter fraud; Democratic Party officials routinely decry these efforts as voter intimidation and voter suppression, and they have from time to time sued to stop them — sometimes successfully. Melzer’s story quotes two additional Michigan Republican Party officials as confirming that the party is, indeed, “gearing up for a comprehensive voter challenge program” for the upcoming Presidential election, and nobody has disavowed that portion of the story.

During the last presidential election, the DNC sued to stop a Republican attempt to challenge the residency of 35,000 voters in Franklin County, Ohio (around Columbus), two weeks before the election. In that instance, party officials sent letters to voters, and if the letters were returned to sender the voter’s residency was challenged. A federal judge in Columbus enjoined the effort, finding that the “timing and manner” of the challenges likely violated the voters’ constitutional and statutory rights, and an appeals court affirmed.

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, attorneys for Obama for America acknowledge that Macomb County Republicans now deny having ever planned to use foreclosure notices to mount voter challenges, but they characterize these protestations as “public relations maneuvers under pressure” which provide “little comfort when compared with the Defendant Republicans’ clear statements on the record of their plans and their long history of voter suppression tactics.”

Chris Taylor, a spokeperson for the Republican National Committee says, “The RNC would not, has not, will not use foreclosure lists as a basis of any challenge lists.” He continues, “The Democrats have hung quite a bit on this one quote in a liberal blog post that’s been challenged as inaccurate, and we need to know what else they have to support their claim.”

(Foreclosure proceedings, even if they force a homeowner to move, will not necessarily affect his or her voter registration, but the precise rules vary locally. According to a press release issued by the county clerk for Macomb County: “A registered voter who moves from one precinct to another within the same city or township may vote one last time in the precinct where registered. A registered voter who moves from one Michigan city or township to another can vote one last time in the precinct where registered if the move was made within 60 days of the election.”)

I’m on the road this week in *freezing* San Francisco and there isn’t much time for sleep, let alone thought, but I had to share this piece of brilliance – the Onion News Network’s “Study finds young people remain apathetic about office politics.” (And here I thought we’d explored all the substantive issues with “Politics in the office: Worse than office politics.”) Hilarious examples of this youth apathy? Our lack of concern for such pressing issues as the rules of the color copier, who we used to date, and parking spaces. Of course, the really interesting part of the spoof is the parody of the over-40 crowd: “Just 32% of employed men and women under the age of 25 said they were concerned about the size of coworkers’ expense accounts and who makes a new pot of coffee if they finish it, as opposed to 74% of employees over 40.” Fair to grown-ups? Not really. But an accurate representation of how those of us on the other end sometimes feel? Completely. As the piece’s Yer puts it, “I feel like the entire office political system is just corrupt, so why should I care?”

Every time politics comes up in my household – especially these days – it ends up being a very long conversation. It was no different the other day, when a colleague stopped by for a visit. Except that the discussion wasn’t about John McCain or Barack Obama or even a policy question; it was about how uncomfortable we are talking about the candidates in the office – and how much more comfortable others seem to be.

We’re both in media, both Gen Y, both cool-enough downtown girls (we hope). Yet based on the venting going on in my living room that afternoon, we also seem to have deep-seated issues with how the exciting general political climate has translated into what should be the less-dramatic workplace.

And we’re not just talking about old-school corporate institutions here. My friend works at an openly liberal entertainment media company, which might explain why some of her coworkers feel it’s alright to do some Barack Obama organizing in the office. But even at a company that’s in the business of ideology – one where you might think you know everyone’s views — it’s almost never a good idea to take the conversation from the general to the specific by, you know, doing things like sending group invites to Obama events to the entire work e-mail list.

By now, we should all be saying, Stop it. Nobody sent out Obama fliers to their office list. That would be crazy. (Everybody knows, and this New York Times story will confirm, that even political paraphernalia in your own office is bad, never mind in everyone else’s inbox.) But that’s where, apparently, we’d all be wrong. Because this is exactly the situation that got my friend going in the first place. And not necessarily because she’s not an Obama supporter. Sending what amounts to political advertising to all your colleagues – particularly if you’re at a company of more than, say, three people, and don’t know everyone’s feelings on the matter — is about as tactful as filling their in-boxes with Scripture. Put plainly: Not cool.

Now, I have to admit that when I brought this outrage up with my sister, expecting equal amounts of ire, her response surprised me. Social justice-minded 23-year-old who she is, she went in six seconds from, “That’s an, um, conservative tack for you take,” to, “Why isn’t it okay to say, ‘anyone who thinks coastal oil drilling is a good idea is an idiot’ at work?!”

Maybe she’s right to feel that, in the face of problems we have today, your comfort or mine shouldn’t be her primary concern. But here’s the trouble: When you take that fight to a coworker, you’re assuming that they agree with you, and if they don’t, you’re forcing them to pretend they do, or admit they don’t, opening the door to a potentially volatile situation.

That’s all well and good at three in the morning sitting around the old freshman dorm, but it doesn’t work in the office. When it comes right down to it, most of us are at work to achieve our own and our company’s goals, not to have values debates. And no matter how ideological your business, if the last decade of election results are any indication, for every person with your opinions, there’s at least one other person with completely opposite views. There’s probably at least one of those people on your office e-mail list, whether they’re “out” about it or not. And every time you choose to ignore that, you risk alienating that person.

Not only is that kind of friction – be it overt or covert – going to be detrimental to achieving your career goals, it’s bad behavior. Part of being human, never mind American, is respecting other people’s right to be who they are, and when it comes to something as intensely personal as one’s vote, well, what’s more fundamental than that?

None of this should be breaking news. It wasn’t so long ago that talking politics — or religion, or money, or relationships – at the office was considered a serious faux pas. But as we’ve said before (e.g. “Your salary: Don’t ask, don’t tell?”), that list of taboos is getting shorter, and obviously, for some people, it no longer includes politics. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s so much a conscious decision as a kind of (usually) benign obliviousness. And I’d like to believe that if the people doing the political proselytizing really knew how it was perceived, they might do things a little differently.

So, by all means, talk politics. Talk about what an amazing, historic election this is, what a committed electorate we suddenly have, or what strong contenders our candidates have become. Just do it with the same decorum and care you’d use with any other sensitive subject. And realize that, even when you think you’re being careful and measured in your casual chatter, someone with different opinions might not see it that way. (It’s hard, for instance, to say you think anyone who’s pro-coastal drilling is an idiot without being just a tad pejorative.)

While it might be fine to go there with close friends, or even coworkers who are also close friends, chances are you aren’t close to everyone you work with, so better to leave the controversy at home (or at the bar, or at the local Greenpeace chapter – whatever floats your boat. Or, er, sinks it. See? This is exactly what I’m talking about.)

Even more, if you see a fellow Gen Yer – or anyone for that matter — heading into dangerous territory, consider finding a kind and subtle way to tell them so. And remember, too, that when this sort of thing goes on, it allows older folks to see us as a monolith. If you’re young and vaguely hip, whatever your actual opinions are, you’re assumed to be an Obama fan. Sure, Obama has had unbelievable success using Facebook and other Gen Y-friendly strategies, but that doesn’t mean every Yer’s a Barack booster.

And even if am a fan – and hey, I might be – nobody likes being stuffed in a box like that, especially when it comes to politics, and in an election as hotly contested as this one.

(Some of you longtime Gig fans will no doubt be thinking, But Nads, this is what we do every week: Generalize about Gen Y! Okay, but that’s in the service of understanding each other and explaining ourselves, not marginalizing each other’s perspectives. And some of it’s even based on actual observation and research! But it’s nice – and important – to be reminded that, in reality, we’re dealing with individuals. Sometimes we may act like we share a brain, but we don’t. For the most part.)

Call it my conservative (lowercase “c,” guys) New England upbringing, or just my nice-guy empathy for differing viewpoints, but we’re at work to be put upon by our bosses, not other people’s politics. And let’s be honest, the world is better that way: When I got one of those Obama blasts on our own work list, I couldn’t help but wonder what would’ve happened if someone had responded with “Go McCain” or some such. A-w-k-w-a-r-d.

So have you noticed it, too? Do you have your own tales of inappropriate office politics to tell? Or do I just need to loosen up?