Debt Deal?

With only 48 hours before the "deadline" (I'll explain why that is in quotations in a minute), the media hype is all focused on the possibility of a debt deal between House GOP, also read 'the Tea Party', and Senate Democrats/the President, also read 'Centrist Democrats'.

If you want to know the importance I place on a balanced budget, under-control debt, and a lack of wasteful spending feel free to read some of my past posts. This post is more about the subtle things that are happening behind the scenes that have gone under the radar with the Mainstream Media.

1. Why the "deadline"?
As Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has asked, how much money (cash) does the Treasury really have? That is a question that has gone unanswered and purposefully so to apply even more pressure on lawmakers to reach a deal.

2. What if the "deadline" passes?
If there is no deal the United States and her government will continue existing the real question comes down to two things: what will our limited funds be spent on? and how does this affect markets, domestic and foreign?

The first question is answered the same way a government shutdown would be handled, by prioritizing our needs and monies until we don't have anymore money. Comments like those made by Adm. Mullen in which he states he is unsure if the military would be paid if the debt ceiling is not raised are perposterous, irresponsible, and false. Pretty much everyone in the federal government would have to be furloughed before anyone even mentioned cutting wages to active military personnel.

The second question's answer is easy, "pretty badly." I don't know about 'disasterous' or 'depression' or any of these other doom and gloom predictions but let's just say if you knew someone had just declared bankrupcy it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in you lending that person any money soon. The problem for our foreign creditors, China and Japan, is that there aren't a whole of other good options right now.

3. Did I read right, Obama is a "Centrist Democrat" now?
Yup, Presidents always move towards the center of the political spectrum with time and I would argue democrats more than republicans. The President is almost the most right-leaning democrat right now! President Obama gave up on tax increases early which could have been used as leverage late in the game (now). Basically in desperation for a deal the President has limited his options and so far it seems he would only use his veto pen on a bill with a balanced budget amendment or cuts that he couldn't spin on certain social programs.

4. Impressions of the majority of each House of Congress?

House of Representatives: Republicans and the Tea Party

At this point there are two majorities, each with its own interests at heart. Republicans are willing to play ball to compromise to a deal as almost all polls say that this crisis is affecting Republican numbers negatively as they are seen as holding up progress.

The Tea Party is playing the "no compromise" card which is hugely popular within their own constituencies but is not in the best interests of the country, which correct me if I'm wrong here but I think that is their JOB. If you think you send a newly-minted member of Congress to DC and s/he doesn't have to compromise once then you must be living in lala land. The Tea Party is hurting their image deeply here, transforming themselves from principled patriots to infantile and stuborn fools who are acting on their own self interests instead of the nation's future. (House GOP 1994, anyone?)

Senate: Harry Reid and Centrist Democrats

For the first month and a half there was a generally open and yielding position for this group, "whatever the President says!" was their call. Now in the 11th hour they are getting a little fiesty, hoping to empower the President with the ability to use the Constitutional option to raise the debt ceiling. While that takes away from their own power and makes them look a little like last-minute objectors, it does bolster their ability to spend while a Democratic President is in office.

Anything I missed? Feel free to comment!

Known Unkowns of North Korea

It seems that international relations experts can never decide exactly how to characterize North Korea's Leader, Kim Jong-Il. Is he a shrewd, cool customer or a completely bonkers and irrational psycho?

Recently, North Korea has been feeling a little lonely. Everyone is talking about Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Swine Flu, the EU, the global economic recession, bailouts, China, a beached whale, rumors of a new phone/computer from Apple, etc... To Kim Jong-Il that translates into "everything but me", and if there is one way to get on that man's nerves it is to not pay attention to him.

In the past few days North Korea has: tested a nuclear device, launched two or three short range inter ballistic missiles, and basically called off the 1953 Truce which ended the Korean War. That's pretty drastic. The problem with North Korea which experts find most troubling is that we know so little about the nation and its internal politics that its moves make very little sense. Even its closest ally (which it still mostly despises) China doesn't know much.

That of course leads us to the questions: why they do it and how to respond?

Why do they do it?

Thankfully this one is pretty simple. North Korea is as broke as a joke. They produce nothing of value, have to important natural resources, and due to the draconian government don't even export labor. So... they use bombs and threats as their economic stimulus. It is pretty predictable behavior: 1)North Korea (Kim Jong-Il) find itself running out of money, 2) Ratchet up some press through threats and wild behavior, 3) Blow something up... preferably nuclear or in the direction of South Korea or Japan, 4) Wait for other countries to come bribing you to give up the weapons for food/money/aid, 5) spend that money... but keep some to set something off later.

That's what I call a Nuclear Economic Stimulus.

How do we respond?

Well.. there are several options, unfortunately they vary from weak to certifiably insane with no options in the middle. We, of course, can continue what we are doing - bribing the North Korean regime with aid, money, food, etc.. in the hopes they stop. This obviously is not working to end the crisis but rather just buying time.

On the other hand, we could be pro-active however this would lead to a major catastrophe of human suffering and death as North Korea would shell the living daylights out of Seoul, South Korea which is within spitting distance. If you hear anyone suggest we "nuke 'em" please feel free to slap some sense into that nutcase and let them know that international relations is not a video game, real people's lives are in grave danger.

The uptick in aggression and posturing from Kim Jong-Il and his cronies should be a clear sign that something has to change. First, aid must be more dependent on actual PERMANENT improvements. Second, China must be more pro-active in its conversations with North Korea in order to communicate the realities of a retaliatory strike. Third, much more human intelligence is required in order to make better decisions. The largest drawback to current policy is that it is based on perceptions not necessarily realities of the North Korean regime.

Hoping to Fail or Failing to Hope?

I know it's been awhile since I've posted but something has really been grinding my gears (thanks Peter!).

Recent comments made by Republicans about their desire that President Obama fail are tragically telling of the individuals making the statements, their party (my party, too by the way), and the country as a whole. A few of the offenders (they are indeed offensive to any rational person) include: radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, LA Gov. Bobby Jindal, Rep. Party Chairman Micheal Steele, and most recently fmr Sen. (and actor) Fred Thompson. That list includes very crazy persons.. and seemingly quite sane people and they all repeat the same thing they either "hope he (Obama) will fail" or they support those statements in a wholehearted way.

These people who are joining this chorus are losers. Plain and simple. I know at least a few of you who are reading this are already looking for the comment button to blast me for blindly supporting the President's policies and probably are ready to use a liberal sprinkling of the words : koolaid, messiah, sheep, brain dead, and biased media. If you really are that simple-minded go ahead.. but I'll just respond by letting you know you should have read past the first two paragraphs....

Like I said, these people are losers. They are failing themselves, their ideology, and the American people. First, they fail themselves. How petty do you have to be to lose a popularity contest and then hope the other side trips on their way to the podium? Pretty dang petty. These politicians and critics are doing just the opposite of what a responsible person who disagrees should do, find alternate solutions and try to convince others their way is better. Simply saying that you hope the ones with the coherent plan don't do so hot basically says "I hope the front-runner falls so I'll come in first!" Folks, that's just the voice of pettiness, anger, and desperation at work.

Second, these people are taking the Republican Party's elephant 'round back, replacing it with a giant elephant balloon than going out and publicly poking holes in it... all for the cause of advancing the party (with the notable exception of Rush, who does it for the money and power). Of all the public figures who have spewed these sentiments Rush is the only one who hasn't done harm to the party.. which is remarkable. He is one man, a man who can be (very easily) discredited at very little true political cost. I know he has tens of millions of listeners but most of these folks would be equally swayed by the next nutcase (liberal, conservative, crazy, sane, or possibly dead) who takes over the time slot. Before you go off firing the cannon on me ponder this, his listeners call themselves 'ditto heads'! They reference the fact that they are COPYING someone else, not thinking for themselves! 'Ditto head' ought to be used as a derogatory term for the blind followers of anyone (especially in a democracy that is based on the fact that people will think then vote).. not as a self-imposed label. What's wrong with us?

Enough about Rush.. back to my point, the Republican party is being hurt. By only "hoping" that the President's policies fail you basically shoot yourself in the foot and demonstrate pretty clearly that you have no idea what you actually support. Solving the economic crisis is not a two solution game where you can simply say "that is wrong" and logically that means you are right, it is the economy for goodness sake, a million solutions exist. The right way of criticizing the Obama policies should be to tie all democrats to it then say that it WILL fail, give evidence (this is important!), then inform the public of your better solution. Simply saying 'i think that's bad just cuz...' then saying tax-cuts a few times before shrugging your shoulders and going home is not going to cut it. Don't believe me.. watch for the 2010 election results.

Lastly, this approach is terrible for the American electorate and the nation as a whole. When policy debates keep gravitating to personal and distracting issues faster and faster the American people find themselves uniting less and dividing more. That is isn't good for us as a nation. I'm not saying one side should lay down and surrender, what I am saying is that if we both just agreed that we both want the same thing then debated how to get there we would have some progress. Simply pointing fingers and name-calling doesn't produce solutions it produces doubts, political demons, and more problems.


Remember that fear, smears, and lies only go so far before we, the American people, get fed up and vote in your replacements. Be careful.

Stimulus... for WHAT?

Republicans leaders are finding the new $825 Billion dollar stimulus package that passed the House (without a single GOP vote) a little hard to swallow.. and rightfully so. As the minority party the responsibility falls to them to propose alternate ideas and better solutions. Since being the majority party and having their President in the White House Republicans have really fallen off and the way they are acting so far this year has been downright sad and regrettable.

So Republicans decided instead of coming up with a cleaner, leaner, and possibly more effective bill they went to the "well your plan is terrible" path and just offered a list of some of the items they consider useless, pork, or unnecessary spending. The list, which follows, has some of each.. and then there is some stuff that just sounds a little childish to dispute or items which should be fully funded but have nothing to do with a "stimulus" package. , The bullet pointed the items are the ones the GOP Congresspeople object to and I decided to follow each item they object to with a little comment of my own... enjoy. Some of the items are hilarious... hilariously sad.

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

Because all the US Government needs is a coal power plant! I guess they wanted something familiar (especially in Illinois): dirty AND inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

This is really outrageous. Has Hollywood had any problems buying motion picture film? Is there a shortage? With all the garbage Hollywood produces every year having a limited amount of film might actually make them make a good movie every once in awhile.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

Why? The government has been broadcasting warnings about the digital tv conversion for TWO YEARS! If folks haven't got a box yet they ought to be penalized, by NOT getting a free $40 bucks off.

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship).

I actually don't see much of a problem with this however this spending belongs in the 2.65 trillion dollar defense budget not a stimulus package.

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

Building a headquarters for the DHS isn't a bad idea. spending more than half of what you did on constructing the place on furniture is baloney. Some furniture makers are getting rich selling DHS $4,000 desk chairs and $50,000 toilets! Once again, this doesn't belong in a stimulus package, it belongs in the appropriations bill for the DHS.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

Umm... I'm not sure if this means they will be giving tax incentives for employees to buy hybrids... or they plan on purchasing hybrids as fleet vehicles (a good idea by the way in terms of fuel economy).. or Oprah decided that the President ought to tell federal employees: "You get a new car, and you get a new car, and you get a new car...." Oh yeah, how does this stimulate the economy again?

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD's.

That's nice.. I support funding the CDC but this really isn't stimulating the economy, there isn't a financial meltdown because sexually promiscuous individuals have STD's.

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.

This could be very useful and helpful if done correctly... but it belongs in the Department of Agriculture or Dept of the Interior's appropriations bill.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system.

Careful folks! Improving the sewer system might cause more waste to end up in the Potomac. Congress, I suggest you begin investing in swimming lessons! Seriously, complete pork.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.

They need it! The Smithsonian museum system is a national treasure but this isn't really going to stimulate the economy.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

Completing a Census is very important. It tells us about the direction of the country in so many ways and it leads to the reapportionment of districts for the House of Representatives and countless state/local legislative bodies. Something troubling.. how does a program run a $3 billion dollar overrun with a budget of $13 billion? Was someone trying to impress the new boss with a ridiculously low estimate for costs or are these people just incompetent spending money?

• $75 million for "smoking cessation activities."

Great. That's right I'm a HUGE anti-smoking advocate. Go cry about it. Better yet, go cough, wheeze, and give yourself serious disease.. far away from me. Oh yea, this is a good investment because it does decrease health costs down the line, so it is borderline OK to include in a stimulus package but it doesn't do anything for the "now" or "today" of this crisis.

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.

Why do the GOP object to this? This is a great idea. In bad economic times people who are out of work often turn to education to help them find gainful employment and are trained in new areas giving the American worker more skills and a wider variety of experience. Computer centers can add to that by giving community college student access to more resources, including online job listing and resume-makers (and this blog!)

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

The FBI has a budget. This is a stimulus package. The stimulus package is not the FBI budget. 'Nuf said.

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.

Great... a good $25 million dollars to spend on the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. This could really uplift reservations out of their third-world environment if the money was allocated in the right place and used wisely on programs that have been proven to work not sunk into the same old programs that have shown no promise over the years.

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.

Ok... going for the whole TVA thing (Tennessee Valley Authority, for those who didn't pay attention in High School US History). A nice FDR touch could actually be helpful if it was used to protect cities (like New Orleans) while respecting wildlife.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.

Speaking of New Orleans... I'm not sure this is quite a "stimulus", it is needed but still.. I'm not sure it applies

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.

A great idea.. that sounds like it is going to turn into a stimulus for "green" contractors who will be rolling around in our "green". "Green" buildings are good for saving on costs down the road, but maybe this could be done piecemeal, with the most cost-efficient work done first then work our way towards true eco-friendlier buildings.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations.

Good. They are feeling the pain out there. Not sure if this belongs in a stimulus package but they really do need it, as do the communities these fire stations serve courageously.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.

NO. The over-protection of the forests from fire is one of the leading causes of the current crisis that has killed MILLIONS of acres of trees across the country, from the Rockies clear out to the Pacific Northwest. If you want more info on this leave a comment.

• $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs.

How about instead of "including" we cut out all the non-work/service related program funding and focus in on pushing the next generation of American worker into positive programs that will really help in the long run.

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service.

1) Sounds like too much, 2) Public Health is important 3) their building may need some repairs - they should include an extra $88 million on their next budget request

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property.

Too ambiguous. Possibly reasonable, maybe not.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.

*sniff* Oh yeah.. smells like pork, a big half billion dollar load of pork. These facilities fall in Rep. Van Hollen's Congressional district.. who is that you ask? Rep. Van Hollen is Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and serves on the House Committee on Ways and Means as well as the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform" --quote from Rep. Van Hollen's website

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

This is a good idea, one thing the country could really use this period of economic downturn for is to renew the Community service spirit and get people involved in their own communities, helping each other so the government doesn't have to help them. Ask for a cup of sugar from your neighbor and offer to carpool to work instead of putting your hand out and asking for a bailout from Uncle Sam. A community can serve as a helping hand to help you find those bootstraps and get you out of despair.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

This one stinks so bad... well, you can finish that one. If they need it then they should ask for it in their annual budget, it seems that Congress is willing to give anything to the VA, no matter how useless, in order to prove to their voters that they "care" about returning soldiers. Hardly. Most are just token supporters who only cared for vetrans when Walter Reed (the hospital, not middle school) came up. Most have already forgotten and almost none have worked towards projects like the Hagel/Webb G.I. Bill.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

Why? Oh yeah.. it IS a bailout. I don't even know what Amtrack would use the money on! Their trains, service, employees, and scheduling has been terrible for years (except the DC-Wilmington, Del. service). Heck, most folks are use to it, don't change it now - especially when that money could go to better uses like stimulating the economy!

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

Congress: Tell companies to stop putting lead in paint.

I'll be expecting my $100 million dollar check in the mail, thank you.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

This is a good idea, it think all State Dept personnel should be well trained especially with the hazards of the current age, none larger than the threat of a ballistic Hillary Clinton. Oh yeah, put this in the Dept of State budget.

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.

I'm really not sure how badly this is needed or what its effect will be so I won't judge. That's right, I didn't know the answer and I decided to own up to it instead of putting a snarky comment here. How many bloggers do that? Not a lot.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

Lease? Leasing is the biggest scam in the auto industry since the advent of the "Under-vehicle protective coating" that "must" be purchased with a new car. Stop leasing and just buy vehicles, negotiate sane service plans, and put this spending in the Dept of Defense budget where it belongs.


Wow. Wasn't sure if I was gonna make it through that heap of garbage but I think it'll be ok.

Agree? Disagree? Think there is something more outrageous in the bill? Leave a comment and let everyone know. Thanks.

President Obama

Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America

What's 350 Billion Bucks, really?

President-elect Obama is urging Congress on his hands and knees then from his mighty pedestal to pass the second half of the Bailout money. Most Congressional members, Democrats included, are a little resistant to that kind of thinking. There is a glimmer of hope that is attached to this debate.

First off, Congressional democrats are already off to the wrong start for the 2010 elections and would be in a tough spot if not for the bunches of retiring Republican Senators. Democrats pledged over and over again their allegiance to Obama's plans during the campaign, especially health-care related items, but now are having a little trouble reconciling their own political futures with the Obama Economic plan.

Congress finally buckled and released the remaining half of the $700B bailout they approved in October. After all their complaints they decided.. "hey, maybe we are just whiny! Let's just approve it!" As usual they were exactly wrong. Usually (most) members of Congress are whiny and ask frivolous questions and engage in self-serving "investigations" while the American people suffer or could someway be better served. In this case there are legitimate questions to be asked. Where did all the money go?!

We were told that this money would fix the financial markets and one would think that the over 500 Billion dollars we've spent would have done that however the banks are asking for more and other industries are getting a piece of the pie too. Where's the money? Banks refuse to tell us.. or Congress.. or their shareholders. Seems a little suspicious. Let me draw up a scenario: You are a rich philanthropic individual and you see a bunch of poor homeless people. You want to help them and a bunch of Soup Kitchens come to you telling you the only way to do that is by giving them a million dollars, you give them 500,000 and then come back a year later and find that nothing has actually changed. Do you: 1) Wonder if the Soup Kitchen people are crooks? 2) Call the police to investigate? or 3) Both. Obviously you'd do #4, just fork over the rest of the money.. because evidence is for the weak.

Just sad.

In the 2008 election we had a choice between one candidate who was surrounded by Oil Industry executives and one who was surrounded by Financial Industry executives. Guess which one we picked? I'm not saying President-Elect Obama is in their pocket but he needs to start showing some backbone if he wants to really get us out of this thing.

Obama's Cabinet

Well... not 24 hours after Senator Barack Obama became President-Elect all eyes have shifted from victory celebrations to the possibilities for the positions of the Obama Administration's Cabinet positions. Word on the street (aka in the Beltway) is that Obama will be making his decisions very quickly and will push to hit the ground running with his political mandate. Unlike President Clinton in 1992 there is an urgency to today's economic problems and if something isn't done quickly Democrats will be heavily punished in 2010 and 2012. But who could possibly serve in an Obama Administration? Who will it be?!

Let's focus on the three "big ones", listing a few names for each and in bold will be the one I believe that would be truly best suited for it and in italics the one that is most likely of those listed to actually get it.

Secretary of State:
Strobe Talbott - Brookings Institution president, former deputy sec. of state; honest, focused and very intelligent man with a real grip of the issues and problems America faces abroad
James Baker - Sec. of State under H.W. Bush, one of the best at the job in the past 20 years and a great deal maker and *bonus* is an actual international realist and a Republican
Richard "Dick" Lugar - Knows his stuff and there's no drama around this expert Senator who is the ranking minority member on the Foreign Relations Senate Committee, *bonus* is a Republican from a state Obama carried
Chuck Hagel - Senator widely admired for his straight-talk and positive vision *bonus* Republican, a realist
John Kerry - Long-time democratic Senator, former Presidential candidate, No. 2 Democrat on the Foreign Relations Cmte.

Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates - Current Secretary. I have written previously about his courage and true patriotism in helping our troops and keeping America safe in every way he can, *bonus* is well respected on both sides of the aisle, won't seem like changing horses midstream
Robert Zoellick - Former president of the World Bank, knows the ins and outs of foreign- policy as well as being a Washington insider


Secretary of the Treasury
David Lipton - Former under secretary of the Treasury
Hillary Clinton - Remember her? Yup, Her name has come up for this position because she's from New York (sorta) and knows how to play hardball with Wall Street, *bonus* A conciliation gift from the victor, get her out of the Senate - an enemy is best kept close
Warren Buffet - Maybe the Sage of Omaha will know how to invest America's money in such a way that businesses don't disappear and the taxpayer is protected from Big Business's foibles, *bonus* Everybody knows and respects this guy.. he is the American dream - Midwestern No one into Richest Man on Earth
Unknown - a Wall Street Veteran with some Government experience, probably from the Big Bank sector

President-Elect Obama

Barack Obama passes 270 electoral votes, defeats John McCain, and will become 44th President of the United States.

Wow. Just let it sink in for a moment.

Conservatives for Obama?

Conservatives for Obama... that doesn't make much sense, does it? Let's remind ourselves of some of the key positions that Senator Obama has taken: Government provided health care for all, support for Big Labor, support for abortion rights, opposition to the limitations of "marriage" benefits to homosexual couples, and the expansion of nearly every government entity he can get his hands on. Sounds grim. Then why are so many Republicans and Conservatives voting for him?

The answer is simple, he is running for the Office of President of the United States. The President occupies a very unique space in the American body politic, he (for this election) not only represents America to the world but he also is the chief executive of all things Political and Military. The President has the power to appoint and remove every high official in the Executive Branch and appoints all of the Judges in the Federal Judicial Branch (including the Supreme Court).

It is because of this that you find more cross-party voting in the Presidential race then you do any other type of partisan race in this country. Conservatives aren't voting for policies when they vote for Obama on Nov 4th, they are voting for a type of President that they'd like to see after eight years of "Us vs. Them" Republican rule. "Republicons" are hoping that an Obama Administration will not be vengeful one especially seeing as how (in a very modest estimate) Democrats will probably gain 6-8 seats in the Senate.

Another "positive" that conservatives are hoping for is a collapse of the Republican Party as it has existed in the past eight years. Why? Are they all self-hating Republicans? Nope. They want to reshape the GOP into a winning coalition once again. Depending on rich white folks, big business, evangelicals, and rural whites just isn't enough. The politics of fear that the Bush Administration worked up into a victory in 2004 are good for a one-time win but not good enough for continual electoral success. The Republican Party is hoping for a Reagan Revolution (or at the very least a Gingrich one) with new energetic leaders, preferably young ones so they don't have to reinvent themselves every 15 years. These leaders should be able to attract new young voters, the "base" - whatever it looks like, and capture Independents as well. What pro-Obama Republicans are looking for is a political calm where they can safely attack liberal policy while repairing and re-inventing themselves into a "cool" moderate conservative party with clear party planks that will endure. Now is the time for Republicans to start thinking about how to hold ground in 2010 and gain Congressional seats in 2012.

It is for the above reasons and so much more that I support the candidacy of Barack Obama. I do hope he gets elected, but don't think for one moment I have wavered from my values or beliefs because I will attack him any day if he is elected 44th President of the United States tomorrow. Good Luck Sen. Obama!

The Palin Disaster

My friends, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has turned out to be quite the disaster.

There are so many reasons why after a couple month acting as the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has failed. First off let me say that she did a great job energizing the Republican base. I'm talking about those die-hard Republican voters who were a little apprehensive of Senator McCain's maverick attitude and record. She brought those Republicans into the fold and gave them a person to cheer on as well as well as acting as a symbol of John McCain's efforts to reach out to evangelical and far-right Republicans. She was needed to rally the (relatively new) base of the Republican Party and liven up the Convention. Then...

What happened after that?

Negativity - Sarah Palin came out swinging at the Convention... although I didn't appreciate some of her more unfair attacks, I understand that is a part of her job as a Vice-Presidential candidate. Remember, I just said "part" of her job, not ALL of it. Since the RNC she has not stopped and the attacks are getting a wider scope. Wat started with attacking Obama has widened to include Biden, the Democrats, people who vote Democratic, and finally all people who live in states that vote Democratic. I can understand the first two but attacking voters who don't live in "Real America" (the part of America that votes "R") is just plain ridiculous. McCain ought to smack her upside the head and remind her that he needs Democrats and Independents to vote for him if he wants to beat Obama. Remember, in most large campaigns the key is Independents.


Lack of Experience - Gov. Palin's lack of experience and knowledge robbed the McCain camp from their most honest and sincere attack of Barack Obama, his lack of experience. Obama has had a few years in the Illinois State Senate and four more in the US Senate, not a whole lot when lined up side by side to the Senior Senator of Arizona. Obama has never been a Committee chairman or had a leadership role within the Senate unlike Sen. McCain. I know, I know.. some say this argument is weak because of other factors that can make up for experience.. but the attack is a honest and clean one. When Gov. Palin arrived at the scene this argument disappeared. I know one of the talking points often used by Palin fanatics is that she has more "executive experience" but let's face it small town mayor, PTA member, an undergrad degree (barely) from 5 different colleges/universities/community colleges, and then two years as Governor do not stack up nicely against Law School, State Legislature and US Senate experience. Remember folks, quality not quantity. Her lack of experience and knowledge of federal government and its inner workings in certainly something that could be remedied with a few months on the job but the same could be said of Sen. Obama and that takes away all the experience attacks that we heard between the end of the Democratic nomination and the pick of Palin.


Scandal/Ethics - Adding someone as your running mate whose name is already embroiled in a scandal involving family and government firing in her home state by well-respected members of the state is risky. Same goes for someone is known for clearly rewarding friends with government positions is also risky. Doing both is well... plain stupid. The Palin disaster really begins with her actions in Alaska, which although seems far away, from the "lower 48" as they call us, is still going to get into the news. Sen. McCain's image is that of a reformer who wants to change Washington and sweep out dirty deals and dirtier politicians not pick one who has used millions in earmarks, fires state troopers at will, and hires cronies. He bruised his own image and once again opened up an attack route that the Obama campaign could use on him without fear of much of a counter-attack.

Not Press Friendly - When a candidate is ahead in the polls they suddenly make like a clam and shut up when it comes to the press - no need to give the press material to snipe you with. When you are behind you talk, talk, talk until the press give you free coverage and buddy up to you.

Celebrity - Sarah Palin came up too quick. Usually the position of Vice President means that after the President serves his/her four or eight years, the Vice President can run with all of their new found experience and support. That's why an experienced Presidential nominee would pick a less known person to be their running mate, to bolster their own weaknesses and sort of give future direction to their own party. By the selection of John McCain of Palin he has for all intents and purposes rocketed Sarah Palin to rock star status amongst Republicans and that's not good. Sarah Palin is a rural white who governs a rural mostly white state in its own region, that doesn't play well with the majority of the electorate. Come 2012 if McCain doesn't win or 2016 if he does, the Republican nomination is almost certainly going to include Sarah Palin's name and with her popularity already she may just win... which means that unless a miracle occurs or the demographics of the US suddenly and rapidly go to the rural areas (and non-whites disappear), Republicans will lose again. She is now a political celebrity, and why? What has she done to deserve Republican recognition? When did she do something impressive or gutsy that earned her major political cred? Why should I listen to her? She is a Governor. I would even venture to say a pretty good one for Alaska (outside of the ethics scandal). That shouldn't make her a star in a political party, that makes her semi-important but not a star

Conclusion - In conclusion, I wasn't a big fan of Palin, then I got to know her and I have decided that I both like her a lot less and that she is losing this election for John McCain, a man I respect very much.

CNN Commentary: So what if Obama was a Muslim or an Arab?

I was in the middle of writing a new post about Gov. Palin when I went to the CNN website.. and read Campbell Brown's commentary.

Please click the link, read it in its entirety and comment back here on what you think of it.


Commentary: So what if Obama was a Muslim or an Arab? - CNN

Palin.. in Omaha

Who: Sarah Palin
What: A pep rally with your favorite moose hunter/hockey mom/pit bull/Alaskan Governor/Energy expert/Vice presidential candidate/Average Joe Six-Pack/Russian expert/woman
When: 6pm - Sunday, October 5th, 2008
Where: Omaha Civic Auditorium


Sarah Palin is coming... to Omaha? Yes that's right. The second district, where Obama has recently moved paid staff to try to capture their single electoral vote, will be receiving a visit from Gov. Sarah Palin today.

Why? The McCain campaign is looking to appear strong ever since they pulled out of Michigan and abandoned that state to Democrats. Now that Obama has the upper hand in the election the McCain camp is looking to hit him in other places in order to either strengthen areas that were thought to be solid or areas beginning to drift in the "wrong" direction.

Some have said that it was because the NE Republican party was somehow scared of a defeat of one or more of the Congressional offices going to a Democrat. Don't believe that bunk. Mike Johanns is looking to defeat Scott Kleeb in the Senate race by a margin of at least 15 points and Lee Terry is looking strong in the District 2 House race without much chance for defeat.

If you go look for "maverick" Palin to talk about bipartisanship for a little while before slamming Obama for the next hour. It is very possible that she will use her Obama is a "pal" to William Ayers for a third time in her speech. Mostly, if you go - enjoy yourself, listen, and tell us what you thought of it.

1st Debate: Evasion of the Image Changers

I watched the debate as I'm sure 30 or 40 million other Americans did.. then I watched it again.. then I read the transcript and I read it again. My only question was, is this 2008?

Here's why. Both Senator John McCain and Barack Obama were playing a very old game or as both campaigns (but particularly Obama's) would say "old politics."

Overall Impression of each Candidate:

Obama: Came out strong, showed economy was his issue, faltered on national security, basically let McCain win on a few foreign policy questions because he didn't have any substance to go off of

McCain: Sounded wobbly and ambiguous on the economy, strong suite came out nicely - international relations, used a few underhanded scare tactics but not too overtly, tried to show off his earmark reform work

Both candidates were playing an old game of trying to gain big leverage by doing a face-to-face image change. What do I mean? Did you notice how many times they both accused the other of saying one thing and doing another? Both candidates were trying desperately to go for the knockout punch: the image change. They pointed out what their opponents image is now.. and what they believe it should be. That kind of tactic, if successful, can lead to BIG jumps/drops in the polls especially amongst independents. There is a problem with that though...

WE KNOW THE CANDIDATES! WE HAVE HEARD/SEEN THEM EVERYDAY FOR a touch under TWO YEARS! That game worked back when the primary seasons were shorter, the budgets were smaller, and the debates might be the first time undecided voters got serious about choosing who to vote for. In recent years though, with a President or Vice President running in every election since the turn of the century, there has been a strong connection between the "history" of a candidate's image and their election image.

This election though we have two candidates who are both running against the sitting President and have told us time and time again that we should focus on the issues. Guess what? Most Independents already do. So to stand at a podium and try to change the other candidates image is a waste of time.. instead contrast yourself against their positions and tell us why you are any better than the other guy.

It boils down to this: McCain has most to lose by being linked to Bush and he has avoided him and his positions like the dickens, but McCain has no real way of linking Obama to failed policies in the same way because there just isn't that long of a record! McCain should link Bush to Obama through the (in)experience attack route. Wait... that would also be a bigger slam of his own VP though (who by the way is totally in over her head, has anyone seen the Couric interview?!).

For the next debate I think seeing a decisive defeat is very possible for Obama. Town hall meetings are the places you find McCain the most comfortable. He has the knowledge and has the ability to start out slow on any response then ramp up into the rhetoric and get a crowd behind him with very little effort Obama on the other hand hasn't held too many Town halls and he tends to sort of stutter when he is thinking through his response. Hey, I'm glad he is thinking but stuttering makes him sound weak and wobbly.

The only upside for the Obama campaign until the last debate should be Biden scoring a clear victory in the Vice Presidential debate. Biden does face a few problems though, he doesn't want to seem too knowledgeable (or he risks overshadowing Obama), or too mean (gives Palin the sympathy vote), or talk too much (because he is a gaffe-machine). Palin on the other hand is trying too hard to seem like an expert on foreign policy but it backfiring because she is trying to be someone she isn't. Her key to success will be making a connection to the audience and staying within her own league and only going out to bat on information she feels comfortable with. (Also, not repeating the moderator and her opponent's first names a million times would help.. Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, etc...) Other bad news for Palin is that she has has more difficulties when dealing with women questioners/interviewers and it just so happens that Gwen Ifill, senior correspondent for the News Hour, is the moderator for her debate. She not only focus her prep on dealing with the political veteran across the table but also with being able to handle Ms. Ifill when questions start flying about Woman's issues. Palin would be best prepared should she take lesson from McCain's performance and change her tune to one that will seem sympathetic considering she is not a major player in foreign policy and her party is feeling the heat due to the financial crisis. For the first time she will not be dealing with either a one-on-one interview or a sympathetic crowd, so she has to be able to play to a neutral audience and try to win them over. Should be fun to watch anyhow!

Feel free to leave comments!

BREAKING NEWS: McCAIN SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN!

This just in:

Senator John McCain has suspended his campaign.

He has also asked for a postponement of the debate scheduled for Friday (on Foreign Policy, set for Oxford, Miss.)

He has asked Senator Barack Obama to also suspend his campaign.

He reasons that the "historic" crisis on Wall Street should lead both candidates to focus on the economy for a bit instead of campaigning. It is possible that he wishes for time to have a big hand on the 700 Billion dollar bailout being crafted in the Senate because Republicans are largely being punished in the polls for the crisis.

Barack Obama has spoken and he has let the American people know that he will NOT be suspending his campaign so far and that he wishes to keep the debate on Friday going because there's only 40 days left until the election.

The White House and many Senate Republicans are applauding the move by John McCain and his call for bipartisan compromise to get the bailout passed as early as possible.

In response to the question about if he would consider participating in the debate if the bailout passes on Friday, his answer was "Yes".

More UPDATES AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.

Links:

McCain suspends campaign, calls for Obama to do same - CNN
McCain Suspending Campaign, Asks for Debate Delay - Washington Post
McCain to 'Suspend' Campaign Amid Crisis, Return to D.C. - Wall Street Journal
McCain seeks to delay Friday's debate - MSNBC

Why the polls don't matter

I know.. you might be expecting a lecture here about the inherent faults of a system that has become "too" democratic, a system that has morphed into a sick popularity contest instead of a competition of values and ideas.

Instead.. I'll actually be talking about polls. Recently there has been a lot of talk about John McCain's sudden jump (up) in the national polls and how that could effect the outcome. The main stream media is talking about comeback from behind winning or a possible Sarah Palin or Convention bump. All this talk about national polls is just misleading the American public. It is disgusting.

We live in a representative democracy not a direct one. Like it, love it, or hate it that is the truth. So what the media should be focused on are electoral votes and individual states (specifically battleground ones) and their leanings. I'm sick of hearing that such and such candidate has a 2.1 lead or questioning if Barack Obama "losing his lead" in "nationwide" polling... it DOES NOT MATTER!

Obviously polling matters for candidates, it shows them where they excel and where they lag in certain segments of the population. Polling can unlock the secret for candidates to win a certain battleground state by working on segments where improvement is possible. Polling, however, is not everything. I do not constantly look up and memorize polling stats like Dick Morris or Karl Rove nor do I simply not pay attention to them like... every democratic candidate because they believe in the "power" of their "message." Idiots.

To conclude, the Electoral college is the way we currently elect our president so that's the only way to truly handicap or predict the winner/loser of this race.


By the way in case you are wondering, at the time of this post's publishing the count according to Pollster.com is:

Strong Obama:179
Leaning Obama:59
Total Obama:238

Strong McCain:133
Leaning McCain:91
Total McCain:224

Toss-Up:76

Meanwhile, Realclearpolitics.com says:

Strong McCain:172
Leaning McCain:55
Total McCain:227

Strong Obama:157
Leaning Obama:50
Total Obama:207

Toss-Up:104

Blinking... sometimes a good thing!

During Sarah Palin's ABC interview with Charles Gibson she responded to a question about her style of response to terrorism with this gem: “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

Then the blinking came up again when asked about how she responded to being asked to be the VP on the GOP ticket: “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, you can’t blink.”

So what's the deal with all this blinking, or lack thereof? Is blinking so bad? Does she want us to all get dry, irritated eyes?

Sarah Palin was talking about resolve. The resolve she believes she and John McCain have in the face of any problem. That however causes me to stop a moment and wonder.. is not blinking really the best thing for our country?

I'll first deal with her second quote about she couldn't blink because she is "wired in a way of being so committed to the mission." What mission is that Gov. Palin? If I was being asked to possibly become the next Vice President of the United States, one heart beat away from the most powerful office in the world, I'd be sweating it! Am I ready? Am I the best fit? Am I doing this for me and my political career? What about my family? What about my children? Is this the best thing for the country?

It seems that Ms. Palin didn't ask herself those questions. She just said Yes because she is committed to her "mission." Now depending on what exactly that mission is I'm not sure what to say.. but I would suggest to her that she clarify her remarks.

To reply to those critics who will wonder if I'm treating her too harshly.. I say this: If you want to take the job of VP, hey, that's your decision but remember, we are voting for a ticket because we believe that not only do they have the right answers now but they also will have the right kind of judgement to make good decisions in the future.

To address her comment about leadership in the face of terrorism being exemplified in her viewpoint in "not blink[ing]... in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." That sounds great.. but is that really what you want? I hate to equate terrorism with any other action in a metaphor but I'll make an exception this time... If you are driving along and you realize you need to fill up your tank with gasoline do you: a) find the shortest route from your location to the gas station, and start driving like a maniac? b) try to get to the gas station as quickly as possible, following the posted signage and obeying speed limits?, or c) stop, idle the car,ponder the pros and cons of fossil fuels,slowly draw out a map to several gas stations, double check it, ask all your friends about it, sing with the radio, head to a fast-food joint and get some burgers, then if you remember, head to one or more of the gas stations?

If you chose A, then you are dangerously low on intelligence and will be involved in an accident or will end up in a lot of trouble before you get to your destination.

If you chose B, then you will get to your destination OK, although it may take a little longer you will still be alive, well, and safe.

If you chose C, then you overthink things, waffle, can't be trusted to be quick on your feet, and will probably fail to make any important decisions - in turn letting existing problems get out of hand while you are distracted with yourself.

To me Republicans seem to be gravitating to the bravado and feeling of real rapid response of choice A while Democrats in a move to accentuate their differences are moving towards choice C. Let's not forget that Democrats have gotten and kept the US in a lot more wars then Republicans.. Think about it, Democrats: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam vs. Republicans: Civil War, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq II. I know many of those were provoked.. but it just goes to show that the word democrat didn't always translate into 'peacenik'.

Back to McCain/Palin and their aversion to blinking... they seem a little to eager to prove themselves as great generals instead of trying to prove to us that they are a good statesman/stateswoman team. I know there aren't fireworks or a parade when you negotiate and deal to avert disaster or war but it sure beats the sorrow knowing that your failure to do so meant even one scratch on a soldier, whose job it is to protect the United States not fight for presidential legacies. I am by no means saying that I'm a pacifist, what I am saying is that sometimes words and a carrot and stick can do wonders that a sledgehammer can't.

In conclusion, taking a moment to think can be a good thing.

Links:
Gov. Palin’s Worldview - NY Times

Obama/McCain and the end of Civility

There was once a time when everyday was a sunny day, you could leave your door unlocked all the time, and politicians had some sense and civility. Those days are over.

This election, as almost every election of the past 50 years, has turned to negative attacks and "gotcha" moments instead of issues and facts. Is this trend getting worse? Can it ever get better? Recently McCain released an ad admonishing Obama for supposedly calling Palin a pig... but if anyone listened to the phrase before and after it or listened to it within the context of what he was saying they'd know obviously that he was referring to the new "Change" bandwagon that Republicans have gotten onto. Now Obama has decided that due to the new more negative tone that Republican ads and stump speeches have taken that they will allow and no longer condemn 527's (which are independent political groups not under Federal Election Commission law) if they release ads attacking McCain-Palin in a very negative fashion. A kind of a signal that the gloves are coming off.. and the Obama campaign is ready to rumble.

You notice that? I just used a boxing reference. Boxing. Boxing is just the opposite of politics. In boxing you use brute physical strength to pummel your opponent, in politics you use words and ideas to convince the audience that you are more worthy and have their values and best interest at heart. I am not trying to say that politics has always been civil but there was once a certain measure of a person's honor that only allowed them to stoop so low. Today it seems that respect and honor are gone.. and instead we have the win-at-all-costs ideology. I would rather lose an honorable man than win hardly a man at all.

What are your thought? How can we as a populace force politicians to talk about the issues instead of focus on scandals and missquotes?

John McCain accepts Republican Nomination

Now that I've had a day to let the John McCain nomination acceptance speech stew in my head.. I've made my decision. It was great. Not perfect.. but definitely as close as John McCain could have come.

McCain's speech, unlike Palin's, was geared almost 100% towards independents and moderates of both parties. The speech touched on a few subjects: the refuting of the current administration, the Maverick McCain, and reinvention of the Republican Party in his image. McCain talked about change in almost the same way he did in 2000 when he was talking about a change from the Clinton Administration. He managed to weave in his POW story in a artful way so that it added to the narrative instead of just coming across as boasting. John McCain also spoke almost admirably about Barack Obama, saying he respected him but said that their disagreements were clear and it was the job of the voter to choose the better person for the job.

McCain really pushed his theme of trying to make this election about the candidates themselves instead of the parties. His strategy is to say that if it came down to just two people and if you didn't know their party affiliations you'd pick McCain. He spoke to one of the most partisan audiences about the benefits of bipartisanship and going against the party when it served the country. The "Country First" perspective is being reinvented to appeal more to Independents who are sick of the deep partisan divide in Washington and the "do nothing Congress".

John McCain Acceptance Speech Grade: B+

The speech brought back the John McCain of 2000 and for many independents (myself included) that brought him back into competition for their votes. Thoroughly tired of partisanship and Day 3 of the RNC... the final speech was a breath of fresh air.

Let's talk about Day 3 for a moment.. it was disgusting. Absolutely abhorrent. ex-Gov. Mitt Romney attacked the "eastern elites" in his speech.. ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Mitt Romney need I remind you.. your father owned a big auto company and was a Governor himself of Michigan. You, his son, became governor of one of the most "eastern" style states and you are extremely wealthy... 300 Million Dollars is rich even by Cindy McCain standards! Next, they brought up some black guy to prove that they had a minority in their party too. Hmm... sorry guys, but the Republicans basically gave up on the minority vote this cycle - 93% of delgates were white. After that, came Rudy Guliani. Boy, Am I glad this guy did not have a chance! He ought to pursue a career in insult comedy. He got up to deliver a hundred punchlines in a sarcastic and bitter tone about Obama. Of course he mentioned 9/11 a thousand times, often followed by patting himself on the back. Then the insulter-in-chief acted as though there were basically no domestic problems due to the magic pefection of the Bush Administration. Any Independent or Reagan Democrat turned off their TVs at this point in disgust and decided they would never vote for this party. Sarah Palin of course was the highlight... and I have already covered that. All that Party energizing, playing to the base (and right-wingnuts), and scaring away independents and they had the audacity to name the night's theme "Peace"! What a joke... a sad, sick joke.

Day 3 Overall Grade: D-

What did you think? Share by adding your comments!

Rove: Biden is a "blowhard doofus"

Honestly the most surprising thing about the comment made by Karl Rove at a dinner at the GOP convention was that he didn't curse. Now I know that there are a lot of differing opinions about Karl Rove and his tactics but everyone has to admit, the guy is a genius of winning campaigns. He's the James Carville of the 2000's.

Rove was telling a room full of people that what he thought of Obama's VP pick when he relayed to them the fact that everyone in Washington who is familiar with the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee knows that Joseph Biden (the chair) is verbose and often doesn't know when to stop talking. In Rove's words that makes him a "blowhard doofus".

This comment could be serving one of two purposes - he could have just spoke this off the top of his head to a little table full of die-hard GOPers or he could have been aware that someone was bound to leak this to the press (as any Rove quote seems to do) and would prompt the media to seriously ask the question, "Is Biden really a blowhard doofus?!" Since the Press seems to have replaced with ratings mongerers and people who believe the press's role is primarily to entertain not inform, the quote is makings its rounds on all the 24 hr cable news channels.

Biden loves making his point.. and another.. and another..

But.. is he? and what does that mean? Biden is very, very, very talkative. If there was some sort of superlative for verbose... I'd call him that. (Incidentally, if you know one tell me) I've been to, watched, and listened to quite a few of his Committee hearings and boy.. does he talk. His problem is that he has so much knowledge to share and tends to go on tangents.. so one tangent leads to another, leads to another.. This is where the gaffe-machine comes in. Every once in awhile, he says something that while you can tell it is purely innocent sounds TERRIBLE without context. I don't think anyone really thinks Biden is sexist, racist or a bigot of any kind but sometime the way stuff comes out of his mouth and then get printed... it makes people who are unfamiliar with him wonder.

Does that disqualify him or reduce his ability to be Vice-President? No, not really but it does give some serious heartburn to the Obama press team who have to be ready to put out fires wherever Biden goes. If I remember correctly, the current President wasn't exactly the well-oiled slick nominee that Barack Obama is.. and he managed to win. There is a fundamental difference between a lovable doofus and an incompetent one. The real task comes down to Joe Biden working his hardest to keep himself focused and reduce his talk time. The backup task goes to the Democratic PR people to present Biden as a loveable guy who just has so many good stories he can't stop himself.. a guy that just wants to share.. and share.. and share.

If they can do that they will be able to reduce the effectiveness of the Republicans who will pounce on every misstep or missquote. So far however Obama is looking like a Teflon Nominee and Biden may change that or just cling to the Teflon just as hard as he can!


Links:

Biden reacts to Rove insult - CNN

Barack Obama accepts Democratic Nomination

Historic.

That is the first word that can be used to describe the events of Denver this evening, Thursday August 28th, 2008. Truly history in the making. No matter your political leaning or affiliations, no matter your wealth or poverty, no matter your standing in society, the nomination of the first African-American biracial individual to a major party for the office of President of the United States is a moment to stop and ponder just how far this nation has come and how its ideals have endured.

On to the speech... apparently Barack woke up on the wrong side of the bed because he came out swingin'! The speech had three main themes: 1) Attack John McCain/link him with the "failed policies" of George W Bush, 2) Work the highlights of all his previous speeches into one super-speech, and 3) rehash and rework the past 50 years worth of presidential nomination speeches of both parties.

1) Barack Obama sounded like he was trying to hurl a Category 5 hurricane of criticism at John McCain and linked him many times with certain failings of President Bush. The change in tone came as a response to the notion that he has gone soft on John McCain so far and that it was "going soft" that lost the election for Democrats in 2004. There were quite a few good jabs but some were just plain ol' ridiculous. For instance, he cited statistics and anecdotes about the problems with economy but then he cited McCain for stating that to be poor one had to making less than 5 million, a comment which was clearly a joke! I don't think its wrong to attack a person based on their views, policies, or beliefs but to repeatedly bring up an innocent joke and try to turn it into his platform is really just "old" dirty politics.

2) Barack also tried to stitch together his highlight reel of quotes and soundbites from former speeches. For people who have been watching the campaign (like me) or even have incidentally heard the news in the past 19 months, it was like having deja vu. I ended up yelling out places, dates, and events when Obama first said the quotables. He used his "father" speech, his "one America" speech, his "religion" speech, his "race" speech... I felt like he was recycling! Given he was recycling some great stuff.. but it didn't feel original or new to me which was a bit of a let down.

3) Obama then touched on all the past nomination acceptance speeches since Eisenhower to make his bid for Independent voters, dissatisfied Republicans, and Democrats. He used Kennedy liberally (oh my.. I crack myself up..) to speak about service to country and youth. He used Reagan/H.W. Bush to talk about a re-awakening of America to a new tomorrow full of hope. He used Reagan/H.W. Bush again to speak about self-reliance and rejecting Big Government when it doesn't work. He used George W. Bush to deliver the message that "Eight is enough!" referring to eight years of the Bush Administration just as Bush had in 2000 referring to Clinton. He talked about the refusal to hand over the country for a "third" Bush term for McCain as W. did in 2000 referring to Gore. He came across all "rural America" and seemed almost about to choke up when he talked about economy woes just as Clinton did in 1992. He even threw in a touch of peace and prosperity a-la Carter 1976.

All in all.. it was pretty good and I suggest you go out and watch it in its entirety so you know just what Obama is talking about later. I'd give it a B overall.

Strong Moderate