In the wake of Superstorm Sandy, we are experiencing a potential shift in the political tides on climate change. Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement of President Obama Thursday, citing climate change, thrust climate issues into the political debate. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy have also made strong statements calling climate change a reality and calling for more preparedness and reforms in its wake. The media is becoming more willing to connect the dots and call a spade a spade.

Let’s not forget that climate change has ushered in a “new normal” for many communities around the world. Up and down the east coast, many Americans are experiencing the same sense of helplessness, and maybe some level of solidarity with people who are more vulnerable to extreme weather events than those of us who have the resources to cope and institutions able to support us through crisis. The startling images of Sandy remind us of how these crises must feel in places without the kind of support we are able to provide our fellow Americans. Places like Bangladesh, a least developed country with most of its population living in poverty, the majority living in low-lying areas highly vulnerable to floods, storms, and saltwater intrusion. Let’s not forget that Hurricane Sandy itself claimed more than 50 lives in Haiti where cholera is an acute public health threat and communities are still recovering from the earthquake that devastated that country less than two years ago.

So we should seize this temporary moment of realization about the threats all of us face to push forward towards a global response to climate change to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions levels and to direct resources those who need it most to build their preparedness. With the US election tomorrow and the next round of UN climate negotiations happening later this month, we have an opportunity to usher in a new political dynamic on this issue. The onus is now on the American public to hold our political leaders accountable for demonstrating new and sustained leadership on this global crisis. We owe it to the people who lost their lives in this awful storm, and to the estimated 400,000 people who lose their lives every year due to climate-related disasters.

Americans recognize a problem when we see it. But what happens when that problem continues to worsen year after year, and leaders are reluctant to speak its name?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of workers under the federal poverty line rose to a 20 year high in 2010, the last year analyzed. The number of working poor families in America, many who work multiple jobs, has steadily risen each year since 2005, even before the recession.

Still, after three Presidential debates, neither candidate has spoken about how to address this issue. To be fair, Governor Romney has mentioned poverty five times, and President Obama has spoken about those “who want to climb to the middle class” without being explicit. But neither took the opportunity to detail how their policy agenda will help the working poor. Thought leaders as diverse as Michael Reagan, the pundit and son of President Ronald Reagan, the USA Today editorial board, and former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Lynn Woolsey have each expressed surprise or dismay that the working poor are not a part of this campaign’s debates.

Speaking up for the working poor is not only vital, but it is a winning argument that resonates with a majority of Americans who want to find viable solutions.

Ignoring the issue of poverty is a missed opportunity according to new polling commissioned by the American Values Network. In total, 87 percent of voters, a strong majority of respondents across ideological lines, believe the working poor should be a top or important government priority.

The next Congress and President will make decisions that could significantly impact these families’ income and economic mobility. The survey tested which arguments voters found most compelling in support of policies addressing poverty and for cutting such efforts. When asked to choose between the best argument in support of government initiatives to help struggling families and the best argument for cutting those programs, 58% of respondents found the messages supporting government poverty programs more convincing. Whoever is on Capitol Hill or in the White House after this election should take note.

The poll, conducted among 1005 voters nationwide by the Prime Group between September 26-30, also found voters say candidates who address the issue of poverty as more trustworthy and authentic than those who focus solely on the middle class.

And we’re seeing renewed political interest as American s have come together across the country and online to elevate the discussion of the working poor. Earlier this month, Oxfam joined with Sojourners, World Vision and Bread for the World to launch the documentary film, “The Line”, to highlight the story of hard working American families doing everything right but still struggling in poverty. We could never have imagined the response: over 2,000 screenings in churches, community centers and homes in every state in the union, attended by tens of thousands of people since the film premiered Oct 2. People have gathered to talk about growing poverty in our communities and start a conversation they do not see their leaders having. You can still sign up at http://thelinemovie.com/ to host a screening and join the conversation.

At the film’s premiere, Rev. Jim Wallis encouraged a crowd of 400 in DC plus online viewers to encourage our Presidential candidates to #TalkPoverty and take the conversation to social media. The Half in Ten Campaign has spearheaded the response by grassroots communities who have used Twitter to ask our leaders to discuss their plans for addressing poverty. In 24 hours after the second Presidential debate, these messages reached over 700,000 followers.

Americans care about these issues and they are not afraid to act. But will our leaders listen?

It was an interesting debate. The thrust and parry.

But it was a big disappointment for those of us who wanted to hear about foreign policy. Very little beyond the “Middle East”, Afghanistan, with a little China thrown in. Heavy on the big D. Light on the lesser d’s.

“Poor” appeared twice—in the context of Medicaid. “Poverty” not at all. Romney mentioned “foreign aid” in the context of how to spur economic development.

See the word cloud:  http://www.usglc.org/2012/10/23/word-cloud/

There’s still a couple weeks, so maybe the candidates will remember the rest of the world.

Tonight’s the last debate between President Obama and Governor Romney. This one is advertised as the “foreign policy” debate.

US foreign engagement is often described as resting on a three-legged stool; the three “Ds”. Defense, diplomacy, and development. The Obama administration, and Secretary Clinton in particular, has always emphasized that diplomacy and development are equal partners of the three. In past Presidential debates, US financial contributions to foreign assistance and reducing poverty were occasionally topics. During a 2000 debate, then-Governor Bush and Vice President Gore talked about their views, prodded by a question from Jim Lehrer.

I’m guessing that the last “D”, development, will be missing this time round.

CBS newsman Bob Schieffer will moderate tonight and has announced an agenda with topics ranging from Afghanistan to the Middle East, with a bit of terrorism thrown in. Also China. But no airtime for development, foreign assistance. There’s a lot to talk about, actually; the outstanding progress made on some counts and the terrible failure on others. The fate of initiatives launched by President Bush during his term to address AIDS and new foreign aid programs for poor countries with good governance. The new initiatives launched under President Obama on food security and health.

Some politicians (former and possibly future) still think it’s worth talking about and supporting.

But, in all likelihood, issues that matter to the roughly 1.3 billion people who live in and with poverty—and to the hundreds of millions of US taxpayers who pay for these programs—won’t make an appearance.

To make the debates go better, a lot of my friends play drinking games. They’re generally designed to crystalize and shatter the clichés, pierce the banality, and give life to the predictable.

So, I’ll make a game of it. If either candidate mentions “poverty” or “poor people” or even something close, I’ll give $25 to their campaign. If either candidate makes something like a defense of foreign aid, or talks about US obligations—moral and otherwise—to the least of us, I’ll donate $100.

Should make it more interesting.

Editor’s note:  At 9 pm tonight, hundreds of Oxfam America supporters will raise their voices to change the conversation by calling attention to the fight to end hunger and poverty during the debates. How? By signing up on Thunderclap to tweet and post to Facebook. Join us.