W

W

Media...bias?

Amazing.

Thoughts on the first day of school...

9/11 was brought up a couple of times in my Fundamentalism class today at school, and it was the first time I had thought about that day in awhile (suck on that, Rudy).

To be very honest, it evoked a lot of thought and feeling. Much more than I could have anticipated.

It then occurred to me that I had heard "9/11" countless times throughout the course of the election, and never had it warranted such a response.

In retrospect, that is deplorable. The way that 9/11 has been utilized for the past year and a half makes me nauseous. To put it frankly, 9/11 has become a pawn in the right-wing's cultural and ideological war against the values that make our country unique. It is used to distract the public from the issues; to make this all-important election about mere rhetoric. The speeches throughout the RNC appealed to sentiment, not reason. They were ridden with empty patriotic remarks and huge applause lines. They all possessed a void that the American public should demand be filled with constructive solutions and truth.

Friends,

Let us focus on the issues that are really devastating our nation like our failing economy and wasteful war. Let us vow to not let John McCain usurp the role of the issues as he has done with his nomination of Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, the focus of this election has digressed to an unresolvable argument; a subjective one of culture and faith. This is not what this country needs. We can debate these matters amongst ourselves. We must implore the John McCain campaign to remain focused on what is real and contemporary.

So when 9/11 rolls around this year, respect the day for what it is. Whether it is 9/11, an irresponsible Vice Presidential nomination, or any other remark based on ideology and sentiment, do not dignify it with a response.

Holy Guacamole!

If you don't think Palin is crazy yet,

read this

and then watch Palin's video on this website: http://www.wasillaag.net/all.html

Don't Be Economic Girlie Men!

Ever the boss, Schwarzenegger has decided not to attend the RNC, due to an ongoing budget issue in home state. He had said earlier that he would not leave until the issue was resolved, and he has stayed true to his word.

I, for one, am heartbroken at not being able to see him speak at the RNC. I listened to his 2004 RNC speech today, in his honor.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/arnoldschwarzenegger2004rnc.htm

It's so good.

C is for Cookie, but that's not good enough for me!

Well, to start with, if I called for the pick, I'm hardly toeing the party line-- rather seems like the party is toeing my line!

Let's begin, for the sake of comparison, by having a look at your words about Ms. Palin a month ago, when you most probably weren't too worried about McCain selecting her:

"Palin is young (44), conservative, and tough: three things that John McCain could use some of on his ticket. Her sky-high approval ratings in her homestate, and her image as a reformer, would also greatly boost McCain's argument. Her age, unlike Jindal's, isn't a great concern, but she's relatively inexperienced, and recently gave birth, making it unlikely she'll want to spend a great deal of time away from home."

Now that, for the most part, is some astute analysis. Admittedly, you did mention in passing that she's relatively inexperienced. Actually, rather to the contrary, she could be seen as inexperienced-- but NOT relative to Mr. Obama.


I'm surprised I have to defend her reputation as a reformer, since you yourself didn't seem to express any doubt in your analysis above. Nonetheless, she's clearly taken risks beyond fighting the former Governor, who, as you say, was unpopular. When you're interested in running for Governor, joining a Democrat in exposing the State GOP Chairman for corruption isn't always a great idea. Nor is resigning from the State Oil and Gas Commission because of rampant ethics violations by its leaders. (And Harry, that’s what I’m talking about when I say “energy experience”, too). The point about Ted Stevens is moot. As you say, no one could be certain he was corrupt in 2006-- the point is only that in a state with a clearly questionable history of political ethics, Sarah Palin has fought her own party-- at times, to her own political risk. She just happened to be vindicated every time.


Now to experience. How Democrats have the chutzpah (forgive the Yiddish, as well as the cheesy title of this post) to even bring up experience in this campaign is ridiculous, but anyway, you've made your point-- let me respond to it. Barack Obama has missed 54% of senate votes since April 2007. If you really expect me to count Senate years in which he hasn't even showed up half the time, that's ridiculous.If you had that kind of attendance record at Dalton... you'd be thrown out. He’s served in a serious capacity for one year—and so granted, he’s had a year’s more experience at the national level.


More to the point, now would be an appropriate time for a discussion about the difference between EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE experience. Despite the fact that Obama represented a few more people as a State Senator, he didn't have decision making authority. In other words, he didn't have any power without his fellow legislators. As a Mayor, Sarah Palin had CONTROL over a city-- and, it should be noted, used it very wisely; that’s how she rose politically so quickly. She hasn’t done anything with her experience? You don't get approval ratings of 90% by doing nothing-- and building oil pipelines, rescinding political appoitments made by a corrupt Governor, and creating the largest operating budget in the state's history generally helps.

I don’t think I need to delve into what categorizes legitimate political experience, but the argument that being a State Legislator (and, it should be noted, doing remarkably little to fight a famously corrupt Chicago/Illinois political machine) should count but being on a City Council shouldn’t strikes me as being a little weak.


The only reason this is all really important is because Gabe, you don’t get the cookie. In general, it’s about even in terms of experience. I think being a Governor gives one far more experience to be President than being a Senator (which is probably why 2008 will be the first time since 1960 a sitting Senator wins the Presidency). But regardless, it’s about even. The point is only that it’s ridiculous for someone whose owes his entire bid for the Presidency to a very good convention speech he gave to criticize anyone for having a lack of experience.


And the dumbest thing you could possibly have done was try and make a case against her using GOP quotes. Cause the Dems… ummm… haven’t always been such lovers of Mr. Obama. And not just random State leaders from Illinois… Since Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton seem to be the two people in fashion right now, so how about the latest offerings?

Hillary: "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."


Biden: Have a look! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDVUPqoowf8


Gabe, you lose credibility when you start contradicting yourself the way you have just in your posts on this blog. You’ll notice I didn’t come here to hate on Biden, because he was a solid pick. I didn’t bring up the plagiarism thing (though I’m still not getting your “accidental” qualification), or the gaffes, or anything like that, because it was clear that he was a good pick.


There are a few good reasons not to like Palin—her flip-flop on the Bridge to Nowhere baffles me, and I’m not thrilled with this hockey mom nonsense. But when you’ve got a guy like Obama as the nominee, attacking anyone for a lack of experience is ludicrous.

this shit is crazy

think what you want...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137

On another note

Today, Italy agreed to pay Libya $5b as compensation for a five year occupation that ended in 1943.

Glad to see world leaders are thinking ahead with a keen mind towards the future.

Cookie time

Ah Jeremy. Of course you're going to toe the party line; nobody expected anything less than that. But aside from the fact that you picked Palin about a month ago, nothing much goes right for you.

You allege that Palin's "not someone McCain picked off the street." Yes, this is true. However, he did have 270 other elected officials to choose from (the number of Republicans in the House, the Senate, and Governor's mansions combined), to say nothing of the former officials and businesspeople. So if he had picked, say, Congressman Tim Walberg (R-MI), who was elected in 2006, it wouldn't be a completely random pick, but it would be questionable, experience-wise.

Also, she has only fought against corruption when she needed to. Back in 2006 Ted Stevens wasn't indicted, and it's easy to say now that she fought against the machine. To be clear, she fought against Governor Frank Murkowski and his 19% approval rating. Here is an ad Palin aired during her 2006 campaign, after she had already disposed of Murkowski in the primary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46YdvT3lwQ. Yes, she sure is fighting hard against corrupt Ted Stevens.

But the most baffling part of your argument is that "this all proves that even Democrats feel Obama is entirely unqualified to be President." First of all, being mayor of a town of 9000 isn't a spectacular achievement. A 19-year old college student can be elected mayor of a town of 38,000, yet nobody would ever say that he is ready to be president. To get my cookie, I'll say this: being on the City Council of Wasilla, AK is a nice jumping point to higher office, such as mayor, but it in no way helps one prepare to be President, let alone Vice President. And to say that her thin executive experience somehow trumps Barack Obama's semi-thin experience is a joke. Two years ago, she was the ex-mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Two years ago, Barack Obama was still a U.S. Senator.

She and Barack Obama both got elected to semi-legitimate office in 1996 (no, the Wasilla City Council still doesn't count). I think everyone, with the possible exception of you, Jeremy, will agree that being in the Illinois State Senate, representing a district containing much of the South Side of Chicago, is more impressive than being mayor of a town of 9000. In 2002 Palin retired for four years, while Obama served for two more years in the IL Senate. In 2004 Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, the highest legislative body in the country, while Palin continued to do nothing. Finally, in 2006, she was elected governor of Alaska, and has served in that capacity for one and a half years. And Obama has only missed 23% of votes over the past three and a half years, meaning he has "really" served in the Senate for two and a half years.

So on to the math.... Palin: 6 (years as mayor of Wasilla) + 1.5 (years as governor) = 7.5
Obama: 8 (years in the IL State Senate) + 2.5 ("Ruch" years in the U.S. Senate) = 10.5

And this isn't even including Obama's years as a community organizer and law professor in Chicago. What was Palin doing during those years? She worked as a sports reporter in Anchorage, and then worked in commercial fishing with her husband. As for Paul Begala, I was very interested to read what he had to say about the subject on CNN.com: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/begala.palin/index.html.

One doesn't definitively need 20 years in Washington or 8 years as governor to be ready to be president. But what you do need is to be able to convince people that you're able to serve. Obama can intelligently speak at length about all matters ranging from the housing crisis to the War in Iraq. He has led on many important issues in the Senate, and has a unique ability to communicate with voters and understand their problems. He has proven that he is ready to be president. Sarah Palin is nowhere near that. Jeremy, you even admit that she doesn't have foreign policy experience, but does have executive experience. But what good is any amount of executive experience when you haven't done anything with it?

Her approval rating now stands at 64%, she denies that global warming is man-made, she was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it, her non-Alaska related political views put her only slightly to the left of Pat Buchanan (a man whose presidential campaign she supported in 1996 and 2000), and she is currently caught up in a hiring and firing corrpution scandal. It doesn't seem like she's made much good use of her one and a half years in office.

There are still many problems with the Palin pick, but to avoid rambling any more, I'll save listing those for another post. But until then, I'll leave you with a few quotes from Alaskans about their governor:

• "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" --Alaska GOP Senate leader Lyda Green, who hails from Wasilla
  

• "She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land." --The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

• "If you took a poll of reporters and legislators I expect her approval rating would be down in the teens or twenties." --Anchorage Daily News columnist Gregg Erickson

PS: I would like mine in chocolate chip please.

PPS: Can you also mail a cookie to this person?: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/102718/819/638/580087

A brilliant pick

Okay, so I'm a little biased (in an act of sheer genius and extraordinariy foresight--as well as exemplary modesty-- I called for this exact pick a few weeks ago).

Truth is, after hearing a day of Democrat attacks, I'm even more convinced. First things first-- energy may well be the defining issue of the campaign. McCain's running (rightly, I think) on the principle that energy must be found in any way possible, regardless of environmental concerns, and picking someone from Alaska cements that idea (although he doesn't, as she does, support drilling in ANWR).

Palin has been a fantastic Governor-- she's not someone McCain picked off the street. Her approval ratings are in the 90's-- I think even Putin's here in Russia are lower than that. She was elected Governor by lambasting Republicans for corruption (Ten Stevens, anyone?) and calling for ethics reform, and has made her living trying to root out rampant corruption in her state.

But more importantly, far from undercutting McCain's message, this all proves that even Democrats feel Obama is entirely unqualified to be President. How? Yesterday, an Obama spokesman was quick to criticize McCain for putting a "former Mayor of a town of 9,000" on his ticket. Problem is, she has as much, if not more experience than your presidential candidate has-- more to the point, executive experience. I'll give a Mrs. Fields chocolate chip cookie to the first person who offer me a reasonable explanation as to how two years as Governor, and a few more as mayor of a small town, somehow qualifies as less than two years (since he started his campaign in 2007 and has been pretty absent in the Senate since) as a Senator and a few more as a State-level legislator. Maybe he has Foreign Policy experience, but she makes up for it with executive experience. When the point was made to Paul Begala-- who called McCain "nuts" for the pick-- on Larry King, the best thing he could come up with was that 18 million people voted for Obama.

Ridiculous. It was rightly pointed out to him that he doesn't need to be one of many more people who will vote for the ticket in November.

Who's Running Alaska?

As I'm sure you all know Sarah Palin is the current Governor of Alaska. She is the executive power in charge in Juneau. However, as of today, she has been chosen by John McCain to be his running mate.

Okay!

With the Governor away campaigning, at least the great state of Alaska can rely on their Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell.

Uh-oh!

Currently, Lt. Governor Sean Parnell is campaigning for a seat in congress this year!

So I pose this question: Who is running Alaska?

Not me!

My First Post

Now that I am out of camp, it's time to start blogging. It's been a pleasure to catch up on the past summer's posts.
I love Obama, but I spaced out during parts of his speech, and read this.

Any way you look at it, Georgia has become a divisive issue for the United States and Russia. I still believe that the tensions surfacing now are a result of the eastern expansion of NATO and American missile defense systems. At the same time, I do believe that recent talk on TV of a second Cold War is bogus. Any Russian retaliation over the missile deal, such as a threatened attack on Poland or Ukraine, seems highly improbable; however, it does make sense that the Russian government would flip-out over the deal. It creates an interesting parallel to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

To close out, a 1987 quote from Mikhail Gorbachev sent to me by my father:

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. "

I love it.

Clinton Overdose

Is it just me, or is the name "Clinton" getting too much airtime during this convention?

A quick disclaimer:
Never before have I appreciated the service and dedication of Hilary Clinton more. She is a true patriot, and, despite what many Obama-Zealots believe, genuinely fights for what is in the best interest of all Americans. There is no denying that we will need her leadership and ability on the Senate floor throughout the Obama administration's time in office.

However, after hearing that more and more delegates at the convention refuse to vote for anyone other than Hilary during the roll-call vote, I'm beginning to doubt the efficacy of having Hilary Clinton's named plastered all over this convention.

She absolutely deserves to speak at the prime time spot tonight. However, the focus of the convention leading up to her speech is not "Renewing America's Promise" as the DNC promised us. Instead, it is, "Will Hilary swallow her pride, or will this speech be a prelude to her 2012 campaign."

And don't even get me started on Bill. To be honest, the same can be said of his service to our country, and he was an inarguably incredible President. However, it has become very clear throughout this campaign that Bill's emotions can get the better of him. He is yet to say that Barack Obama would make a good president. One would assume that in order to get a time slot at the podium during this convention, you'd need to have the ability to support the nominee!

Don't get me wrong, I love the Clinton family. They're brilliantly pragmatic, and it's absolutely impressive. However, I think it's time they stepped out of the spotlight. At the rate we're going at now, there will be Democratic primary debates for th 2012 Election next summer, anyways.

It's Biden!

In case anybody hasn't seen (and if that's the case, then you need to get out more), Obama will apparently name Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) later today (link here). In my mind this is a good pick, but, as with all people, it's a two-sided coin.

Pros:

• Biden was elected to the Senate in 1972 (at the age of 29), which brings a lot of experience to counter McCain's argument that Obama is naive and unexperienced.
  
• He is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which counters the argument that the Obama campaign lacks foreign policy knowledge and depth.
• Born into a working-class Catholic family, Biden has always stayed true to his blue-collar roots, and has constantly been ranked one of the poorest senators (and yes, he only has one house).
  
• In 1972, shortly after he was elected to the Senate, his wife and infant daughter died in a car crash; to ensure that he would always stay close with his family, Biden made it a practice to commute from Washington, DC to his house in Wilmington, DE every night, a tradition that he still continues.
• Biden is a quick wit, and will be a formidable attack dog, both in the debates and on the campaign trail.

Cons:

• He tends to run his mouth, leading to boring, drawn-out answers to questions that could be answered in a sentence or two.
• Similarly, Biden has committed a series of high-profile gaffes in his career, including: accidentally plagiarizing UK Labour leader Neil Kinnock during his first presidential run in 1988; saying, on the topic of Indian-American relations, "You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent;" and, on Obama's run for the Presidency, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man."
• He doesn't add much geographically, nor does he reinforce the "change" image that the Obama campaign has worked so hard to perfect.
• He made some comments about Obama's lack of experience, while he was waging his own campaign for the Democratic nomination last year, that the Republicans have already started to use against him, such as "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."

So those are all the pros and cons I can think of (granted it's 3am and I am quite tired). Later today Obama will formally introduce Biden at a rally at 1pm EST in Springfield, IL, where Obama launched his campaign a year and a half ago. Be sure to watch, it should be highly interesting.

Fivethirtyeight.com

Not to toot the horn of other political blogs, but fivethirtyeight.com is a pretty good one.  It's operated by Nate Silver (an editor of Baseball Prospectus) and brings a surprisingly and frustratingly rare mathematical and research-based approach to interpreting political polling.  Just as Baseball Prospectus is the best source for baseball information in a world filled with ridiculous conventional wisdoms and opinions based on no research, fivethirtyeight.com is a beacon of saneness in an otherwise confusing and difficult to navigate political world.  I urge you to check it out.

Veepstakes: 8/15 (GOP)

Not to post four straight posts here, but I'm going to post four straight posts here. Yesterday we looked at the Democratic VP possibilities; today the Republicans!

10. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) [Last: 9]
9. Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) [Last: 5]
7. Former OMB Director Rob Portman (R-OH) [Last: 6]
6. Senator John Thune (R-SD) [Last: 8]

5. Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) [Last: 4]
Jindal's stock has dipped a bit over the last month, largely due to the McCain campaign's realization that Jindal is a) too conservative; b) too young; and c) too weird. Also, saying he is "staying as governor whether you like it or not" doesn't really leave much room for McCain to name him to the ticket. Still, nobody's stock was higher than his about a month ago, and the base does love him. But does McCain actually have base problems like we thought he would? For more on that, see picks 4 and 2.

4. Senator Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT) [Last: 10]
Ah, Senator Lieberman. Democrats hate him with a passion, Republicans love him. That in and of itself is surprising, considering Lieberman has a "Liberal rating" of 57.5, which puts him more to the left than six other members of his party. But Lieberman probably tilts even more right than that. Excepting the War in Iraq, Lieberman votes squarely with the Democrats on everything; yes, that includes the always popular issue of abortion. Lieberman is popular with the Republicans for the sole reason that he makes Democrats' heads explode. Would they like him on their ticket? Not likely. But everybody likes bipartisanship, and the story of McCain having Al Gore's VP nominee on his ticket would be a press coup. Lieberman's a masterful fighter dog, the running mate's primary occupation, but he seems more likely to assume a Zell Miller-esque role at the Republican Convention than be the VP nominee.

3. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) [Last: 1]
Romney's stock hasn't fallen, it's just faded. It's no secret that Romney and McCain don't like each other much, and the common wisdom at the beginning of the veepstakes was that it would take a miracle for Romney to be named to McCain's ticket. His negatives (flip-flopper, slick politician, Massachusetts roots) are glaring, while his positives (he's conservative?, he brings in money) are more questionable. Romney's main draw was always his fundraising prowess, something that the McCain ticket no longer needs so much of. And, while Huckabee might not be the VP, he and his base still have some say, so stories like this aren't so favorable to the Mittster's chances. But, as much as people may rant and bluster, Romney was good in the debates (especially when attacking the other candidates), and is able to effectively portray the role of a conservative, even if that's not really him. He, like Pawlenty, is a safe pick, but the safe qualities he embodies might not be needed anymore.

2. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge (R-PA) [Last: N/A]
Ridge has it all. He was the popular governor of a swing state that the Democrats so desparately need to win; he was the first secretary of homeland security, which would beef up the McCain ticket's foreign policy credibility; and he has spent the past few years in business, which only highlight his already impressive economic knowledge. So why wasn't this guy named to the ticket months ago? The answer is very simple: he's pro-choice. When McCain floated the idea a few days ago that he would consider naming a pro-choice running mate, the religious right doesn't like (and see here) that concept much. There are plenty of adequate pro-life candidates, they say, so why name a pro-choice one? It is well known that, if McCain had his way, Ridge would be on his ticket. And he just might be, but he'd have to be prepared to deal with the fallout from the voters that elected (and re-elected) George W. Bush. Is it worth it?

1. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) [Last: 2]
Pawlenty's somewhat of a safe pick, which is why his name has kind of faded recently. While the Democratic buzz has been all about the boring guys (Bayh, Biden, Kaine), the GOP buzz has turned to the edgy picks of Ridge and Lieberman. But recent developments don't cancel out the fact that McCain and Pawlenty are good friends, and the recent statement by McCain that Republicans are "really going to like Pawlenty." The one problem with Pawlenty is that he doesn't really bring much geographically, although the GOP thinks he does. Contrary to their thinking, neither Minnesota, nor Iowa, nor Wisconsin are in play this November. Michigan might be, but it's hard to see how Pawlenty helps there (Romney's the guy if the aim is to win the Great Lakes State). Still, he's conservative, fairly popular, and wouldn't hurt the McCain ticket one bit. But one wonders if, in light of Obama's lead in the polls, it would help the McCain camp if they shook things up. Picking Pawlenty would certainly not do that.

A thought

This probably isn't anything, but I was musing around the Democratic National Convention's announced list of speakers (seen here) and noticed one very glaring exception: former Vice President Al Gore. Granted, the full slate of Thursday speakers hasn't been announced, and Josh rightly points out that Gore would be a prime person to introduce Obama, but it's still something to think over. You would assume that somebody who apparently is "likely to star at [the] convention" (c/o Reuters UK) would be one of the first announced, and most publicized, speakers.

Yet here we are, exactly two weeks before Obama is to accept the Democratic nomination, and one of the party's elder statesmen is not on the agenda. In 2004, former Georgia Senator Max Cleland introduced John Kerry. This appearance was announced at least 12 days before the start of the convention (see here). The start of this year's convention is but 11 days away, and an announcement has to be made soon.

If Gore is not slated for any of those Thursday spots, that would lead me, and probably many others, to the obvious conclusion here. It's unlikely, and has been denied by Gore himself before, but could an upset VP pick be in the making?

Veepstakes: 8/14 (Dems)

It's been a month since we took a look at the potential VP candidates on each side, and a lot has changed since then. John Edwards admitted to having an affair, Russia invaded Georgia, and the energy crisis turned into a GOP sideshow. To see what kind of an impact those events had on the veepstakes (Democratic today, Republican tomorrow), let's turn to the rankings:

10. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) [Last: 10]
9. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) [Last: N/A]
8. Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) [Last: N/A]
7. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) [Last: 8]
6. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) [Last: 3]

5. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) [Last: 7]
For the 99.9% of all Americans who haven't heard of Senator Jack Reed, he is a quite liberal senator from Rhode Island. Those last two qualifications alone would seem to dismiss any chance he has of landing on the backside of "Obama/," but think again. He served in the Army from 1971 to 1979, is one of the leading Senate voices on matters of both foreign and domestic importance, and, as a Catholic, has strong roots to the working class demographic that Obama has had trouble tapping into. He also accompanied Senator Obama on his highly publicized trip to the Middle East, for what was widely seen as Reed's VP audition. The fact that he doesn't immediately add any new state to the Obama column is certainly a drawback, but then againLyndon Johnson (1960) was the last VP pick to actually swing any state, so geography might be a tad overrated. Stay tuned, he could be a major sleeper pick.

4. Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA) [Last: 4]
Ever since his name came out as one of Obama's VP hopefuls, Governor Tim Kaine has played the veepstakes in a very odd way. Instead of dampening buzz, as per usual, Kaine has made no pretense that he's not interested in the job, stating "[Obama's VP list] seems to be getting shorter. And I'm still being mentioned." This has widely been seen as a headfake to get the mediat to run to Kaine, only to be completely be surprised by who Obama actually picks. But if he is seriously up for the job, his good looks, youth, and hailing from a swing state are pluses. His poor record as governor and rather moderate views on a number of key issues (labor relations, faith-based opposition to abortion), however, make him a risky pick.

3. Former General Wesley Clark (D-AR) [Last: N/A]
After Clark made some not-so-false (but oh so controversial) comments in early July, he went from veepstakes darling to somebody Obama shouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole. So it is with great surprise that, with an announcement from Obama seemingly less than a week away, Clark now resides near the top of this VP list. The first clue, which may even be too obvious, to Clark's ascension (not just here, but within actual political circles as well) is the fact that the DNC has announced that the theme for Wendesday of the Convention, the night the VP is announced, is "Securing America's Future;" three words which just happen to also be the name of Clark's political action committee. Although he's short on elected experience, and his only field of expertise is foreign affairs, Clark has proved his mettle as a more than capable attack dog. The recent Georgia crisis has just accentuated the need for foreign policy gravitas, and finally people are remembering why Clark was such an ideal pick in the first place.

2. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) [Last: 1]
After the much ado about nothing that was Obama's joint appearace with Senator Bayh on August 6th, and many false predictions about that event, moderate Evan Bayh of Indiana finds himself slipping a place in these rankings. It was widely seen that, if Obama was going to pick Bayh, that date last week was the time to do it. Since then, the Bayh speculation has surprisingly not dampened, but rather grew. There is word out now that Bayh's chances are "better than 50/50," but that should be taken with a grain of salt. A major backlash from the liberal blogosphere, combined with a rather biting New York Times article that does not paint Bayh in an all-too-positive light, seem to have excluded Bayh from serious consideration. Yet here we are in mid-August and he's still hanging tight. The #2 ranking might be more of a perception thing than what will actually happen, but Bayh is certainly not to be counted out.

1. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) [Last: 2]
It is surprising how little coverage Biden's VP chances are getting in the media, be it blogospheric or mainstream. After over thirty hugely respectable years in Washington, with two unsuccessful presidential campaigns under his belt, nobody knows the ropes more than Joe Biden. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Biden's authority on foreign policy matters is unquestioned, and his longtime chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee gives him serious knowledge of domestic issues. He's one of the most talented debaters and speakers around (see: Noun+Verb+9/11=Rudy Giuliani's sentences), and would absolutely serve as the aggressive attack dog that Obama would need him to. And unlike Bayh or Kaine, Biden is the one frontrunner with truly progressive views, so he would be palatable to both the base and independents alike. He's not a sure thing at this point, but he is certainly the frontrunner.

People don't do such things!

Yes, the title is a reference to Hedda Gabler, but rest assured that the rest of this post won't be spent dissecting Ms. Elvsted's relationship to Hedda. No, the topic of discussion here is much more interesting and, frankly, much more important. In case you haven't heard (and you probably haven't, thanks to the media), John McCain said on national TV the other day "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations." Some might be thinking that McCain here is reversing his policy on Iraq, or American might in general; but that would be too easy. Senator McCain is admonishing Russia, a favorite pastime of his, for their seemingly unprovoked attack on the Republic of Georgia.

I'll give you a second to chew this one over.

Done with that? Okay, good. Just to break it down, Russia is one of the largest countries in the world, and is a key ally (or cool partner in peace, at least) in the diplomatic world. Vladimir Putin, the de facto head of state, is know for being a brilliantly calculating politician; someone with whom the next president will have to work productively.

Insulting his [Putin's] foreign policy moves, blunderous as they may be, with a statement that reeks of hypocritical self-righteousness is not the way to go about cementing the important US-Russia relationship. America is viewed internationally as a brutish, pompous, mean superpower: an image that is not ill-deserved. By continuing to further this stereotype, Senator McCain does not do any favors for the USA's worldwide approval.

If Senator McCain really does not believe that, in the 21st century, it is right for one country to invade one another, then perhaps he would like to take an admirable lead on quickly and safely ending the conflict in Iraq. But, of course this will not happen. Instead, he will go back to the campaign trail: a place where he can make all the arrogant and dangerous statements he would like, and never once get called on them.

John Edwards

I'm sure everyone knows just what happened with regards to the recent outing of his affair.

I am simply starting a thread of discussion on the matter.

Personally, this episode has just reinforced my belief that politicians are such egomaniacs that they believe the rules of society simply do not apply to themselves. Now more than ever, we are seeing politicians succumb to the lure of promiscuous sexual activity. Do these men truly believe that they are above the potential scandal created when they go ahead and fool around?

Heres a question that many of our congressmen should ask themselves before diving into anything mischievous (and this includes shady political decisions as well, not just sex [cough..ted stevens...cough]): is the risk worth the reward?

McCain's New Ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mopkn0lPzM8

And thus, the McCain campaign becomes a parody of itself. And of so many other things...

Last 5 years...

Hmmmm......, I wonder why someone would choose the last 5... OH! It's the years the Republicans have been in power! Let's look at a similar list from the 1990's, shall we?

Have a look here.

There's no difference. Politicians are politicians.

Let's Compare!

In wake of Alaska Senator Ted Steven's indictment on seven felony charges, it may be prudent to look at the other members of Congress who've faced criminal charges in the last 5 years.

Democrats:
William Jefferson (Rep-LA) - indicted on charges of racketeering (and hiding $200,000 in his freezer).

Republicans:
Stevens
Larry Craig (Sen-ID): Pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct regarding a sex sting in a men's bathroom.
Bob Ney (Rep-OH): Sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for bribery with regards to the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Duke Cunningham (Rep-CA): Sentenced to 8 years in prison for taking more than $2 million in bribes.
Tom Delay (R-TX): Charged with money laundering and conspiracy - the case remains ongoing.

This doesn't include near-encounters with the law, such as Senator David Vitter (R-LA)'s involvement with the D.C. Madam. But it's clear, just from this list, which is the more ethical party - John McCain (ironically, a member of the Keating 5)'s protestations to the contrary.

Uh-Oh Indeed

Yeah, a two point lead in Florida and Ohio - both states which the Democrats lost in 2004 - is really cause for a lot of weeping. It's a lead, we'll take it.

Uh-oh!

Look, Josh, even your cherished electoral lead is dwindling quickly. Looks like Obama's gonna have to do more than just make nice speeches...

Dennis the Menace

It is now Dennis Kucinich's(D-OH) time to shine.

His claim to fame (and most controversial platform throughout his bid for the democratic presidential nomination) is finally being bought in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Notable Quote:

"It is my judgment that President Bush is the worst president that our country has suffered."
-Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)


atta girl.

Not to switch teams...

but if McCain really won't pick Jindal, can he please choose Sarah Palin-- another responsible Governor who'd be an unexpected choice but could spearhead the new Republican party as a group of responsible people who know how to lead? Apparently she's one of six finalists (see here)

Here Comes the Story of the Hurricane!

In an effort to steal some press time from Sen. Obama whose current Middle East tour seems to have a monopoly on the headlines, Sen. McCain planned a picturesque helicopter landing atop an oil rig; a seemingly unbeatable photo-op.

This may seem original, until you recall W's 'mission accomplished' fighter-jet stunt.

Not a good way to distance yourself from the current prez, Johnny Mac.

Nooooooo!

Not great news. More and more people, including The Economist, seem to join Gabe in predicting a Romney ticket. I am convinced it would be a disaster; I like Romney, but he cannot add anything to a ticket. 

Hate to "beat the dead horse"...

Another gaffe-for-thought

I don't really think these errors mean an awful lot, I just feel as though a man running for president should have these minor details (e.g. the name of the country you're discussing) down pat. It doesn't say much about his ability to govern over time, but it does say plenty about his overall awareness and competence on-the-spot.

Jindal!!??

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/mccain_to_meet_with_jindal.html

Wow

Look at this!

Rudy Giuliani Can't Take a Hint

An article in the New York Post today mused about a potential Rudy Giuliani candidacy for governor of New York in 2010. The first emotion that I felt when reading this was ecstasy, for Rudy would surely lose, and then confusion. Why would he subject himself to yet another losing campaign? He ran for Senate in 2000 and dropped out due to health-related issues (plus a divorce, and being 10 points down in the polls), and, of course, he ran for President just this year and dropped out after winning a grand total of 0 delegates, and only coming in the top 3 in one state: Florida. Why would he now mount a campaign for governor?

Polls taken just before Super Tuesday this year showed Giuliani and McCain in a tight battle. Now, Giuliani ended up dropping out before then, so we'll never know how he truly would have done, but the result probably wouldn't have been favorable to him. To quote Peggy Noonan, "On 9/10/01 [Giuliani] was a bum, on 9/11 he was a man, and on 9/12 he was a hero. Life can change, shift, upend in an instant." Yes, it can, and his failed attempt at the Presidency shows that it does. Time Magazine's 2001 "Person of the Year"'s approval rating plummeted from 64% (2/07) to 45% (1/08).

Look, if Rudy Giuliani needs to fuel his already enormous ego by mounting yet another failed bid for an office for which he is so underqualified, that's fine. If he really wants to put himself through another year or so of endless flip-flopping, running of the mouth, and performing badly in debates, that's his choice. But he isn't in the heartland anymore, where people only know Giuliani for his heroism after 9/11, which I'll grant him, and his supposed cleaning up of New York, which I won't. He's back in New York, where people are mad at him for a variety of reasons. And does he really want to relive his seven-and-a-half years of poor mayoring, and one year of poor presidential campaigning? Probably not.

Veepstakes: 7/17 (Dems)

After examining John McCain's possible running-mate options yesterday, it's time to look at who Barack Obama could choose as his #2. Just to clear things up, these rankings aren't who I think it'll be, but what I think the order of preference is at this point in time. For instance, if McCain picked his VP today, I think it would be Romney. But in a month? We'll have to wait and see. To the rankings:

10. Former Vice President Al Gore (D-TN)
9. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
8. Former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA)
7. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
6. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

5. Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC)
Well, there are a lot of incendiary picks in 6-10, but I shan't delve into them. Instead, coming in at #5, is a guy who has actually run numerous national campaigns before. John Edwards might have finished a distant third in the primaries, but his endorsement of Obama was important in assuring working class whites, for whom Edwards is a well-known advocate, that Obama would be a good fighter for them as President. However, he horribly mishandled being John Kerry's running mate in 2004, and one wonders if he wouldn't rather be Attorney General.

4. Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Kaine, who was one of the first non-Illinois politicians to endorse Obama, is seen as one of the Democratic Party's rising stars. The fact that he has only been in office for three years hurts in that he doesn't have any foreign policy experience, something Obama sorely needs. However, his youth (50), popularity, and geographical location make him a prime pick, and somebody who Obama will have to consider.

3. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
Speaking of governors who endorsed Obama and are appealing, yet have no foreign policy experience, here's Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. It's unclear as of yet whether Obama putting a non-Clinton woman on the ticket would help him or hurt him with the disaffected Clinton supporters, but she would help with moderates/independents. She hails from a deep red state that will give its six electoral votes to John McCain in the fall, but that midwestern appeal would surely come in handy.

2. Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
Biden has been in the Senate since the 1970s, made two runs for President, comes from a blue state, and has a tendency to run his mouth. That said, his foreign policy expertise is virtually unmatched in Washington and, despite his long tenure there, he still can convincingly play the part of a reformer. His off the cuff remarks can be cringe-inducing, but they can also be funny. It seems that he's on "Meet the Press" every week, so his visibility isn't a problem. While he seems more likely to be a Secretary of State candidate, Biden as VP wouldn't be a complete surprise.

1. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Evan Bayh is known in Washington circles for being boring. So then why, you may ask, is he #1 on my list of Barack Obama's possible running mates? Well, he doesn't need to be exciting. That's taken care of with the top of the ticket. If you can look past Bayh's lack of charisma, he has everything Obama could hope for. He's a young (52), handsome midwestern moderate, yet was governor of Indiana for two terms and has been in the Senate since 1999. He is quite popular in his homestate, which is shaping up to be a swing state in November, and has broad crossover appeal. The fact that Indiana and Illinois border each other would be a concern, were not Arkansas (Bill Clinton) and Tennessee (Al Gore) border states. Speaking of the Clintons, Bayh was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, and would ease the HRC/BHO divide. Bayh wouldn't be an exciting pick, but he would definitely get the job done.

Veepstakes: 7/16 (GOP)

As most of you know, I love the "veepstakes": the process of picking running-mates for each party. Between the end of the primaries and the beginning of September, those two important selections are the only two variables in the presidential race. Today, my rankings for McCain:

10. Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
9. Former Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
8. Senator John Thune (R-SD)
7. Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina (R-CA)
6. Former OMB Director Rob Portman (R-OH)

5. Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK)
Palin is young (44), conservative, and tough: three things that John McCain could use some of on his ticket. Her sky-high approval ratings in her homestate, and her image as a reformer, would also greatly boost McCain's argument. Her age, unlike Jindal's, isn't a great concern, but she's relatively inexperienced, and recently gave birth, making it unlikely she'll want to spend a great deal of time away from home.

4. Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA)
Jindal is a conservative darling who the GOP sees as being a large part of its electoral plans in 2012 or 2016. However, his age (37) disables whatever attack lines McCain could use against Obama's age (46). He's also has a past of weird habits (such as performing exorcisms), and Jindal's hard-right stances on most issues might make him too conservative.

3. Governor Charlie Crist (R-FL)
McCain's big win in the Florida primary can be almost wholly chalked up to this man's endorsement. In November, as in January, Florida will be close, and having its governor on the ticket almost assures it stays in the GOP column. But rumors have persisted for awhile that Crist is gay, his engagement to Carole Rome notwithstanding, something that would certainly hurt him with the base.

2. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN)
Pawlenty was one of McCain's highest profile supporters during the primaries, and his ability to win elections in Democratic-leaning Minnesota is certainly not overlooked by McCain's staff. And, unlike many other blue-state Republicans, he's a veritable conservative. However, Pawlenty reportedly isn't being vetted, although you can take that with a grain of salt.

1. Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)
Romney, ever the opportunistic politician, has taken to doing every thing he possibly can to become John McCain's running mate this November. Although they didn't agree on much during the primaries, with the two reportedly hating each other, that gap seems to have been closed. What seemed unthinkable about a month ago seems more and more likely by the day: McCain/Romney.

Tomorrow: Barack Obama's choices

New Jibjab

Not as good as they used to be, but decently funny

Bush-McCain Economic Differences

Much as I hate to disagree with Harry's last post, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) has thoroughly disabused me of the notion that Bush and McCain are similar on issues of economics. I'd watch the clip - it's rather edifying.

4 More Years of Bush Economic Policy?

Bush/McCain Overlap #763

Our fearless leader has killed the 27 year old moratorium on drilling offshore of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.





Bush's Announcement can be watched here.



All we can do now is sit tight and hope our congressmen and women have a spine. This will be tough, considering finding oil in the OCS could lower the already astronomical gas prices for their constituencies.

The definition of irony: The original moratorium was started by none other than Papa Bush.

Environmental agencies are up in arms about the risk that offshore drilling poses to the waters surrounding the US. However, some people aren't as convinced. For example:

'I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita. Those rigs in the Gulf, there was not a single incident of spillage that anyone reported.'
-Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

That is a lie. Here is the truth. And here. And here.

You know who else is on board with these lies? None other than Johnny Mac!

Here's his position (that is wrong).

Four more years of Bush. Makes me nauseous.

P.S. McCain supported the moratorium during his presidential bid in '99. Flip. Flop Flip. Flop.

About That Poll...

More about the recent tracking poll that showed Obama and McCain tied:

If a student had 4 Bs and a D in a class, everyone would agree it was absurd to call him or her a "D student," based on one grade that, everyone would agree, was probably an outlier. It might show that the student was slipping slightly in the class, or it might show, as of late, the class had gotten too difficult, and that the student would continue to get Ds. But we wouldn't know either way, and therefore, it would be absurd to say that the student will get a D in the class.

Similarly absurd was Jeremy's claim that the one Rasmussen Reports poll showing McCain and Obama tied was indicative of the fact that the race is now even. He would have been better off to consult a set of polling averages, such as this rather excellent one from RealClearPolitics, where he would have noticed that 2 other polls conducted in the same timeframe as the RR poll both showed Obama ahead by 3 points. So claiming, based off that, the race is tied is, well, suspect.

This was made even more obvious by the fact that today's RR poll has Obama up 2 points, a 2-point "gain" over the weekend. Now, mind you, it's unlikely that anything that happened this weekend had enough influence to move 2 points - which is why this poll, like the poll that showed the candidates tied, is just random noise - Obama remains, it seems, ahead by about 1-3 points.

Now I do think Jeremy has something when he claims that McCain has some momentum, however slight, in this contest - if the polling averages continue to tighten, his theory will be born out. For now, though, not so much.

Too Witty for Their Own Good

Yesterdays New Yorker Magazine cover depicted Barack and Michelle Obama as fun-loving Islamic terrorists, rejoicing in the oval office under a portrait of Osama.

Here is what bothers me about the cover:
Most people won't get it. As ridiculous as they are, these are accusations the Obama campaign have been struggling with. Cartooning him next to a burning American flag, even though the intent was clearly satirical, does not help his public image. It is rather obvious that visual media and advertising excites the American people more than the substance of what is being advertised. Thus, anyone that lacks the curiosity to peruse the pages of the New Yorker, and merely glances at the cover page, may not

Here is what bothers me the most about the cover:
It's not funny. Even if people did get it, they wouldn't laugh. I believe its rather stale, in fact.

Let Me See You Move Like You Come From Colombia...

Apparently, we won't be getting our Colombian exports cheap, at least in the near future.  The New York Times reports that the free trade deal with Colombia that the Bush administration has negotiated is stalling in Congress.  Unlike most free trade deals, Democrats are not opposed to this agreement because of the (short-term) loss of American jobs.  Rather, opposition to this deal has been galvanized by reports of killings of union members and other labor injustices in Colombia

Now, it's all well and good for the US to use its economic power to ensure fair labor standards in other countries, but we also need to examine the root causes of these problems.  What is the best way to stop violence, a trade in drugs, poverty, etc.?  The answer is simple: economic growth.  Economic growth is essentially a panacea for almost all non-environmental problems.  No, change doesn't come about as quickly as we'd like, but there is no better solution for violence and unrest than rising incomes for citizens.  Think of our own country.  Child labor was legal less than 100 years ago.  Around the same time, the US often had violent labor strikes.  These occurrences, while regrettable, are essentially unavoidable in a growing nation, but they do disappear once prosperity is achieved.

If we truly seek to bring about prosperity and justice in developing nations, the only way to do it is by jump-starting their economies, and there is no better way to do that than free trade agreements.  We should, indeed, insist on some environmental and labor standards as conditions of our free trade deals.  However, we must remember that governments in these countries will become truly concerned with environmental and labor problems only after economic stability has been secured.  Governments get forced out if their people can't afford to eat.

So, we have two options.  We can either block free trade deals like this one while satisfying our consciences, or we can allow them to go through and begin the process of actually helping the global poor to prosperity.  Yes, there are some bad short-term consequences, but we can't allow this myopia to hinder agreements that would bring about greater prosperity for all nations involved.

A Sigh of Relief

The past two presidential elections have been nail-bitingly close. Luckily for us Dems, I don't think we'll have to worry about the Green Party tipping the scales in favor of John McCain this year as they may have done with W in the past.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

Cynthia McKinney!

To be quite honest, I do not see the logic in appointing an African American woman with such a rich history of congressional controversy to run in the face of the first African American democratic nominee. Is the Green Party trying to divide the solidified African American voting bloc, that has poured into voting booths in record numbers to show their support of Obama? Not to mention how very hard the Obama campaign is working to solidify the women's voting bloc? It seems as though if McKinney was to attract some sort of following (which she won't), the votes she'd be taking from the Democratic party are the votes we need the most.

As I said, I don't envision this appointment to have much of an affect on the race at this point. In fact, after taking so much heat for the '00 and '04 elections, it makes sense that the Green Party would nominate someone that will seemingly amass a fraction of the already staggeringly low .1% of Green Party voters that took to the polls four years ago.

We're actually not tied!

Ah, Jeremy, if only it were that easy. If we elected presidents via popular vote, then I would agree with you. But, unfortunately for y'all, Obama's lead in the electoral college (which, last time I checked, was the only thing that mattered) is about 100 EVs at this point. I assume everybody here has at least visited either Electoral-vote.com or FiveThirtyEight.com, but if you haven't you should. They cull statewide polls and amass an electoral projection. In any case, looking at the most recent statewide polls, it is clear that Obama has a clear lead over McCain. Let's see what polls should make all Republicans very cautious before they flaunt some immaterial national leads. I have cobbled together a makeshift table. It doesn't look pretty, but you can kind of read it. I don't know why blogger doesn't acknowledge multiple spaces. Oh well....

State EVs Obama McCain 2004 Net Bush
AK 3 41 45 27
IN 11 48 47 21
OH 21 46 45 2
MT 3 48 43 20
ND 3 43 43 27
VA 13 49 47 9
Tot 54 - - 106

This is not including 2004 Bush states such as IA and NM, which are almost certain to go for Obama in November. This is also not including states like MS, TX, GA, and SC: states in which McCain is ahead by 5-10%, but Bush won by well over that in 2004. The states above need to go Republican. Some for electoral reasons (OH), some for overarching reasons (MT, ND). If McCain loses Ohio, the ballgame's over. If McCain is losing ruby red states like Montana and North Dakota, there's a much larger problem with the Republican brand.

Obama is expanding the map, despite what national polls say. The Newseeek poll released yesterday is another example of a "tightening" race, but see here for why you should take that with a grain of salt. The fact is that the Republicans are on defense all around the country. In November the Democrats will probably gain about 10-15 House seats and 5-7 Senate seats. That kind of down-ticket support can only help Obama, especially in red states where the Democrat looks poised to win (such as AK and MS).

So Jeremy, you may crow about some national tracking poll, but it means nothing. In 1880 James Garfield won the popular vote by .1%, but won the electoral college by 59 electoral votes. History (see: 2000) has shown us that the popular vote is irrelevant, except when campaigns and supporters try to trumpet them as proof of some sort of success. Concerning Obama's move to the center, it doesn't matter. The campaign doesn't begin until the last balloon falls out of the Xcel Center ceiling on September 4th.

Frankly, what either of the candidates does now, barring a macaca moment, won't help or hurt them come November. In a few weeks, what Obama said about campaign finance will be forgotten, as will whatever gaffe McCain made on any given day. Policy changes might get noticed now, but they don't matter until the real campaign begins. National polls, on the other hand, will never matter.

We're tied!

Another poll suggesting what is beginning to become clear: Obama has squandered the lead. Here's why, I think: liberals like Gabe will argue that all Obama is doing right now is conducting smart politics-- every presidential candidate lurches to the center after a primary. The difference is that most presidential candidates have something to show for themselves besides pretty language and an unusual and advantageous (at least for politics) background. When Obama starts talking about changing Washington, he is appealing-- no doubt about it. But he has to actually stick to it. The answer is that you can't play the "nobody cares" card when you go back on your word on campaign finance and still claim the "I'm an outsider" card, too. Obama can't have his cake and eat it too, and, after all, what good is a cake you can't eat?

Away For A While

I'm off to vacation for three weeks - depending on how bored I get, I may or may not be visiting here much.

In terms of politics, I doubt I'll miss much at home while I'm gone: it seems that this presidential race has settled comfortably into a slight to moderate lead for Obama, and, barring some sort of real scandal, that's unlikely to change before the conventions. Republicans can make hay over the fact that there's a new Newsweek poll out that shows a 12-point decrease in Obama's lead from their last poll, Democrats can point to polling that shows Obama ahead by anywhere from a 1 to 12 point margin. Really, when so much of the electorate isn't paying tons of attention to the campaign this summer, the polling will necessarily be all over the place - and this isn't likely to settle down until late August (although the naming of the vice presidential candidates, expected to come in early August, should shake things up slightly). In the mean time, look for more minor scandals and feigned outrages - the Obama camp will try to use Phil Gramm's remarks as fodder, and McCain's people will find something else to use against Obama.

What I will be following closely while I'm gone, though, is July 24th's by-election in the Scottish constituency of Glasgow East. For those interested in British politics, this is quite a big deal - a defeat for the Labour Party at the hands of the Scottish Nationalists could cost Prime Minister Gordon Brown his job. Although I tend to agree with Labour on most issues, I've become quite sick of Gordon Brown, and have come to believe that Labour would be better off without him. So, rather paradoxically, I'll be rooting for the rather loony Scottish Nationalists in this election, and for a major shakeup of the United Kingdom's political leadership. More on this later, perhaps.

Can We All Just Calm Down Now?

To all of you who truly suspect Iran is near capable of producing a nuclear weapon:

Take this!

Ah, the tell-tale sign of an administration that is truly confident in their defense policy: adding extra missiles to a photograph via a sloppy Adobe Photoshop edit.

Real Picture

Edited Picture

Ahmadinejad's administration must work on their copy-and-paste skills if they are going to be taken seriously. However, the most laughable aspect of this punchline of a news story is how serious of a threat the Bush administration (along with our Israeli allies) currently considers the Iranians to be. This isn't the first time this has happened to the US, either. Throughout the Cold-War, the USSR would parade giant (and fake) warheads around town...for forty years.

Also, the USSR had a few real ones, and had them pointed right at our backyard.

Did we invade them? No.
Did they pose more of a threat that modern day Iran. Absolutely.
Do they even pose a legitimate threat to Israel?! God no

So can someone please tell me why the invasion of Iran is still even on the table? The most insulting thing Iran has done to the United States may very well be the release of that aforementioned photo...It offends the American intellect.

However, I do hear that many Iranian officials make a mean Excel spreadsheet, so I guess they're redeemed.

FISA In-Fighting

As most of you probably know, the updated FISA passed the Senate yesterday, 69-28-3. Leaving aside my and many others' outrage concerning the telecom immunity, it seems as if many people have picked up the wrong narrative for this story. Markos Moulitsas, who is usually correct in his political analysis, has been writing about this vote in terms of givings in to the President's demands. Now, before the liberal blogosphere gets in any more of a tizzy, a simple look at Senator Obama's stance on this bill should assuage any fears of a weak Democratic caucus.

Obama voted yea on all three amendments to modify the immunity clause. Dodd's, which struck the whole clause, failed 32-66-2. Specter's, which limited the scope of the immunity, failed 37-61-2. Bingaman's, which stayed immunity cases until 90 days after the Inspectors General report on FISA, failed 42-56-2. So there were 27 people who voted for that last amendment, but also voted for the final bill. While Obama's votes might have been more in tune with the party line, it seems as if he was not alone.

With regards to the 8 Democrats who couldn't even vote for Bingaman's bill, it is perhaps just that they are more conservative than the base would like them to be. The rest of the Democrats saw an imperfect bill that they would have liked amended, but they realized that this was the best compromise that would come out. As Senator Russ Feingold astutely pointed out yesterday, Obama does not support immunity, and electing him President would almost certainly help in restoring civil liberties to the American people.

So please, while dissent is good now and then, this election is way too important to let slip away. Party activists who say they are now not voting for Obama are only killing the Democrats' chances in November. It seems as if rational thinking has gone out the window, and every bill that passes with which Bush agrees is because the Democrats capitulated to "Mr. 28%." Don't think for a minute that the Democratic caucus is running scared. A diversity of opinions is what this country was founded upon. Perhaps it is that that the Democrats are exhibiting, and not some treasonous capitulation. It's high time that the Democratic Party base stop fighting with itself, and turn to focus its vitriol on Senator McCain.

PS: How did John McCain vote on FISA? He couldn't even bother to show up.

Oh, C'mon Jesse

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4aLGkFpsdHo
Honestly.

We now know Jesse Jackson, former spiritual adviser to President Bill Clinton , is a eunuch enthusiast.

And I thought the Obama campaign was trying to emphasize diplomacy. Does Jackson want to sit down and talk with Obama? No. Maybe he'd like to explain how to articulate he's feelings towards African Americans in a more suitable way? No.

Lets skip that and move straight to castration.

McCain Gaffe #318

Dear Reader:

"He who is slow to anger has great understanding, but he who has a hasty temper exalts folly."
--Proverbs 14:29

Certainly, John McCain has made mistakes on the campaign trail before. We've seen his confusion concerning al Qaeda and regarding Sunnis and Shiites, and we've been made aware of his rather erroneous views on the safety of Baghdad. But perhaps the most emblematic mistake of all was McCain's odd choice to sing along to Beach Boys' song (a shoutout to the blog's resident enthusiast) "Bomb Iran." That gaffe was potent because it played into the deepest concerns about McCain: that he was volatile, somewhat of a loose cannon, and, most of all, a warmonger.

These notions were only reinforced on Tuesday when McCain brought his latest gem of hypermilitaristic humor to the campaign trail.

Responding to a question about a survey that shows increased exports to Iran, mainly from cigarettes, McCain said, "Maybe that's a way of killing them."

He quickly caught himself, saying "I meant that as a joke" as his wife, Cindy, poked him in the back.

Rather interesting, no? One would think that, given the political climate and the media's burning desire for a slipup, McCain's aides would be competent enough to prevent their senator from continuing this line of rather puzzling jokes. But apparently not - and this gaffe is especially dangerous because of what it reveals about McCain: that his first thought when it comes to Iranians is, well, "killing them." Troubling indeed - McCain shows more and more that he may lack the eventemperedness to serve as a peacable leader of the free world.

P.S.: Yay, I made a post! Now Jeremy can make fun of me...
P.P.S.: Major props for the smurf.

The inherent stupidity of liberals...

is baffling. More to come later.

A Word On U.S.-Russia-China Relations

After spending the day observing a round table discussion at the United Kingdom's Royal United Services Institute, one comment from a certain contributor (Director of Studies at RUSI) stuck with me:
He began with explaining how nowadays, the government and media seems to heap both Russia and China together, making them out to be allies, and a single threat to the United States. He then asked those listening to think of the manner in which Americans think of Chinese politics, calling it "schizophrenic", implying that there are many voices in our heads constantly guessing at what is going on in Beijing. In reality, however, we truly do not have a politically transparent relationship with China by any means. He compared this exact relationship to the way in which Russia looks at China, completely undermining the common view that Moscow and Beijing are on the same page.
This is a tad controversial, and I am sure it will spark a response from a fellow contributor. However, it is a bit comforting to know that our friends in Moscow have no idea what the Chinese are doing, either.

Welcome, friends!

Welcome to the new Mecca of political commentary and analysis, Straight From 607!

Hello!

Greetings and salutations!