Palin

Well, she has foreign relations experience, given that Alaska is so close to Russia, after all.

About the speech: she did her job well.  people aren’t criticizing because they don’t really have anything to criticize her for.  she’s more of a politician that Hillary Clinton ever will be–self made and not riding on her husbands coattails.

the only thing you could criticize her speech for is the negativity — demeaning community service?  that’s not nice to community organizers who, by the way, make a HUGE impact on people, bigger than any politician ever could.

it’s crappy that so many people identify with someone who would rather put down others than talk about her own good qualities.  too bad that to cheer up an audience she has to insult the character and integrity of others.

what democrats need to stick to is the issues–the fact is, this woman would implement bad policies and wants to continue sucky bush economics.  she’s anti-abortion, she’s apparently anti-birth control.  that’s not something too many woman will go for, esp. any woman who would have otherwise voted for Hillary.  woman understand that the next president will be nominating Supreme Court Justices, that could easily, easily overturn Roe v. Wade.  They only need one more vote to do so.  7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by Repulican Presidents!  Of course democrat women aren’t going to vote for her.

also, dems should do a better job pointing out the lies shooting from her mouth.  and not be afraid to call her on them.  Obama needs to fight back with the raising of the taxes thing.

Carly and Claire

I just watched Meet The Press and the guests were Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and Claire McCaskill, the Democratic Senator from Missouri.  Both are considered possible V.P. choices for McCain and Obama.  Just as Obama and McCain have stark differences, these two women are also like night and day.  Whereas McCaskill comes off as being a motherly mid-western conservative, Fiorina strikes me as New Yorkish, untamed, and pro-choice, even though McCaskill is a Democrat supporting Obama and Fiorina a Republican supporting McCain.

No doubt that both are smart enough for the job as V.P. and it would be highly entertaining to watch these two women debate.  Clearly, Claire with more political experience is better at saying the right things and making better points.  Carly has her moments, but mostly she stated the same thing over and over “Obama will raise your taxes”, even though Claire was thorough in her answers about how Obama would only raise taxes for the tiniest sliver of 2% of Americans that make over $200,000/year, and not the majority of tax-payers and middle-income workers.  And when Carly referred to McCain taking the economy back to the “boom years”, Claire was quick to point out that a democrat was in office at that time.

I’ve heard Carly a lot lately, on NPR and other news programs and she seems to really be after the V.P. position, but she won’t say so directly.  Is that because McCain has not been talking to her about it?  I wonder.  When asked if she would run as veep, Claire didn’t hide her enthusiasm and said she was honored to be mentioned, but wouldn’t discuss details since Obama’s campaign had asked her to not disclose any information regarding their discussions.

Carly also seems to be getting herself into trouble with seemingly pro-choice statements like this one:  “A real, live example, which I’ve been hearing a lot about from women: There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice”.  McCain had a pregnant-pause when asked about this statement.  Of course when McCain couldn’t remember how he voted on abortion, one of the top five issues he has to vote on, Carly wouldn’t come out and say whether or not she is pro-choice.  She did say her comments were not in code, and that she only meant that women would like a choice in health care plans.

I myself am astounded and appalled that there are health insurance companies that don’t cover birth control.  News to me.

Nader & Barr

I was just at Bob Barr’s website and he has apparently raised over $97,264.35 since June 26th.  If you give him $$, you can see your name flash over his website.  The mustache man has changed his mind about gay marriage — he once opposed it, but now supports it (Libertarians strongly believe in state rights).  Ditto with medical marijuana — he once opposed, and now he supports.  He sat on the board of the NRA and is a member of the ACLU.

He is also pro-life, which seems odd to me, esp. since the ACLU is mostly pro-choice. Does it make sense to value individual rights fervently and oppose the rights of women?  Aren’t most Libertarians pro-choice?  I did a little research and this website says that Bob Barr’s second wife had an abortion, which he first said he didn’t oppose, and then he said he did oppose it in divorce court.  And Barr’s website has this to say: “At the core of libertarianism is a trust in and respect for the personal choices of every individual. All Americans should be free to decide what is best for themselves and their families.”

There’s a lot of buzz about the “two faces of Bob Barr”.  Gee, I wonder why.

He has a very neat mustache.  Which makes me think he’s hiding something, or he’s a pervert.

But if I had to choose between Barr & Nader, guess what?  Well, it’s a good thing we have more choices.

Nader.  I got into a heated and drunken argument with a friend over the 4th of July who says she will not vote for Nader, but still believes he is a good person at heart.  My problem with that is that if he was such a good guy, or a smart guy, he would see the big picture more clearly and realize that he is HATED all over the world.  But there’s a reason why he doesn’t pick up on this.  His EGO.  Anyone who knows anyone with a big huge ego realizes that narcissism  and self-righteousness are the most blinding of all human faults.  Nader doesn’t care about the people of the United States; he cares about his name being on the ballot.

The fact of the matter is that there is a reason why we have success with a two-party system.  The more parties you have, the weaker government becomes.  In a country that has 4 or 5 parties, none of them agree, so no majority can accomplish anything.  Or, each party will try to team up with one another saying “i’ll sign your bill for gun rights, if you sign mine to increase taxes”, and then after much negotiating, I’d imagine, maybe they can pass a bill or two, but still they have to give in to their ideals to accomplish anything.

That’s why the strongest governments own two party system.  It’s the best system anyone has come up with thus far.  That’s not to say it isn’t flawed. I’d be curious to know of other countries that have more than 2 dominant parties and that are doing “well” or even “better”, if anyone out there is reading. ?

While I’ve been sitting here typing this, Bob Barr’s contributions have gone up to $97,314.35.

Pick me, pick me!

Back to the VP candidates.
And in this corner, we have Obama’s potential picks:

1) Let’s start with Hillary. Nah, nevermind. Take her off the list. Sorry Clinton supporters–you’ll get over it.

2) Edwards. As someone on my Harry Chapin Politics Yahoo Group wrote: “…let’s face it, he didn’t do a great job with it in ‘04.” Yeah, remember he attacked Dick Cheney for having a lesbian daughter? Because, as Democrats, we want people to feel bad about having a gay family member? awhaat?

3) Bill Richardson. Hispanic and well-qualified. Still, he seems too MALE for my taste.

4) Joe Biden. This guy is a real card. I enjoyed watching him debate with the other presidential candidates. He would make a fun VP.

5) Wesley Clarke. Military and anti-war. Certainly would help the case for pulling our troops out of Iraq. But I can’t think of other positive attributes.

6) Kathleen Sebelius. She’s the Kansan Governor. Proven leadership. Female. Has been supporting Obama since the beginning. Could reign in disgruntled Clinton supporters. Ohio and Michigan roots. I can’t think of any strikes against her. She also appears to have accomplished quite a bit as governor, winning the 2nd election by a vote of 53% to 45%.

7) Tom Daschle. Famous for being targeted in the anthrax scare, Daschle has YEARS of Senate experience, which in my humble opinion, makes him a liability.

8. Chuck Hagel. An anti-war Republican. Staunch Republicans are going to vote for McCain (Bush), no matter what. It’s the independents and folk who normally vote Republican for tax reasons (libertarians) Obama could have inroads with. Does anyone out there know where he stands on taxes and what his voting record is like? I’d Google it, but I’m being lazy today.

One of my readers (I have readers! er, i mean friends) also pointed out Janet Napolitano, the Arizona Governor, and Brian Schweitzer, the Montana Governor, as potential picks.

Kerry might have been President if he’d selected Napolitano (what a fun name to say!) as his running mate, instead of Edwards. She has ties to Pittsburgh, PA, New York, New Mexico, and the Clintons. She also was an early Obama endorser.

While researching candidates I remembered Carol Mosley-Braun, the African American who ran in 2004, and it appears that she has launched her own organic line of foods, Ambassador Organics. What a stately name. She’s pretty smart, but made some controversial remarks, which proves she’s a real, thinking, feeling person. Anyway, I don’t think she’s on Obama’s short list.

I guess the odds of any of the aforementioned being chosen will depend on who McCain picks as his running mate.

Everyone Just Settle Down

That’s what Obama told the press yesterday when asked about his choice for the next veep. I don’t think the news media listened though, since there was continued coverage on both CNN & Fox (I don’t know about MSNBC) from “a secret meeting underway at Clinton’s home”. Or was is Dianne Feinstein’s home? Neither station seemed to know anything, but they were really excited to stand outside whoever’s house and report “we have nothing to report at this time, but we’re waiting to hear from our inside contacts–stay tuned!”

If the news media “settled down” and reported on actual news instead of lingering outside closed doors and voicing unfounded positions, maybe I would “stay tuned”.

I posted earlier that Obama’s VP pick probably won’t be announced until mid- to late-summer. But the question remains…who IS he going to pick? Who are his options? Ditto for McCain.

But before I start speculating, is it common for a presidential candidate to put together a “search team” for finding a VP? Or if it is common, do they usually call it a “search team”? According to Reuters Blogs, it appears that one member of Obama’s search team, Jim Johnson (a former CEO of Fannie Mae) has performed the task for both Kerry and Mondale. Wait–who are Kerry & Mondale? Uh-oh.

More on the possible VP candidates later.

adding to technorati

Technorati Profile

No Butter for Obama; No Taste for Clinton

A day after Clinton declares she wouldn’t mind being Obama’s VP, he disses her completely by forming a “search team” comprised of Caroline Kennedy, Eric Holder, and Jim Johnson. It’s as if she’s the kid in class raising her hand, “pick me, pick me” and the teacher is scoping out someone else, who is not as outgoing and popular (and annoying). Jack Cafferty declared that Clinton’s failure to mention that Obama won or to even congratulate him as “pathetic” and I have to agree. If she really did want the VP position, wouldn’t she want to start acknowledging that the Democratic Presidential slot is now closed? Wouldn’t she want to butter up Obama a little bit, instead of trying to steal his spotlight?

hey, check out these great pictures: Obama win depicted across the planet

craig newmark from craigslist.org posted these on his twitter account, of which i’m a follower.

Finally, it’s over.

Finally, it’s over. The 16 month long, long campaign for the democratic nominee for the next President of the USA is finally over. With Barack Obama winning the majority of delegates (and super delegates), and Hillary Clinton’s argument for winning the popular vote weakened by the DNC’s decision to not count Florida and Michigan votes, this has been an exciting, historical election process. Thank God it’s over. Or is it?

Hillary has not yet conceded, saying she “will not make any decisions tonight”, even though Obama has declared himself the nominee after pushing over the delegate count threshold. Since Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination, what is she waiting for? She also mentioned that she wouldn’t mind being the V.P. on the ticket — something her supporters would love, but is that what the Obama campaign has in mind? Certainly after spending over a year touting chanting voters with change, change, change, it would not be advantageous to put the very person he has described as “the status quo” in his #2 spot.

One thing is certain, the party will need to be unified to beat John McCain come November. Some pundits are saying Clinton is holding her 18 million voters over Obama’s head as a negotiating tactic. You know, the same old divisive tricks that have always disabled politicians from accomplishing anything: “Give me what I want, or you won’t get what I have, what you need”. And the trick is for Clinton to make Obama think he won’t get the support of her voters unless she “allows” them to vote for him.

Well, November is a long way off, and I have my suspicions that the name Hillary Clinton will take a backseat to what is going to be one heck of a showdown between McCain and Obama. We won’t know until mid- to late summer who Obama will choose as his V.P. My bets are on Obama calling her bluff and taking his chances on finding a V.P. that will both unite the democrats (a female, a Hispanic?) or someone who will bring in the Republican, independent voters (an former Governor from Virginia?). Does she really think that the democratic, anti-war, pro-choice, healthcare-for-all voters that pulled for her will turn around and vote for McCain? No. Ain’t happening. Obama will get their votes, with or without her help.