What seemed like an odd pick at first will work out well for McCain. Palin can be the "pit bull" while McCain takes the high road, and she certainly seems willing and able to fill that role. And Palin appeals to the Republican base in ways that McCain never could. She's as anti-abortion as one can get, and she's a lifetime member of the NRA. Palin also presents the image of a Washington outsider who is reform-minded. And I'll even say she comes across as more authentic than most politicians, but her selection and nomination to the ticket is only historic in that it's the first time Republicans have chosen a woman as vice president. The Democrats broke the gender barrier 24 years ago with Geraldine Ferraro.
The McCain campaign keeps pushing that Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. If this is in fact true, then she also has more executive experience than McCain.
Personally, I think experience is over-rated. Bush was the governor of a large state for 6 years and a businessman before that. Look where the economy is now. Cheney had tons of foreign policy experience and so did Rumsfeld. Look where their foreign policy experience has taken us. How did we get to our present state of affairs? Lack of experience or bad judgment? I believe it was the result of bad judgment.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
No More Excuses
Obama said what he plans to do, and here is his Blueprint for Change. The ball is now in your hands...what are you going to do?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
More on Biden
In an ideal world, Obama could have chosen someone who fits his theme of change more perfectly. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.
Let's be honest, racism and its by-products are largely generational, and we have plenty of older folks who feel uncomfortable voting for someone they perceive as different. There's no guarantee that those same folks will vote for Obama with Biden on the ticket, but it at least gives him a chance.
Obama is the candidate of change (in more ways than one) and Biden is the person who might make that transition a little easier for some people. Whether or not Obama's strategy works remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, there are some people (young and old) who will probably never vote for Obama no matter who he has on the ticket. In the end, the best cure for race relations in America is to have someone as intelligent and kindhearted as Obama as president. But if he doesn't win in November, it could very well negate some recent gains in race relations.
I'm certainly not advocating that we vote for Obama because of his race. Instead, we should look beyond his race In reality, there is no such thing as a pure race. We are all racial hybrids.
The following is an excerpt from my blog on November 8, 2006:
Let's be honest, racism and its by-products are largely generational, and we have plenty of older folks who feel uncomfortable voting for someone they perceive as different. There's no guarantee that those same folks will vote for Obama with Biden on the ticket, but it at least gives him a chance.
Obama is the candidate of change (in more ways than one) and Biden is the person who might make that transition a little easier for some people. Whether or not Obama's strategy works remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, there are some people (young and old) who will probably never vote for Obama no matter who he has on the ticket. In the end, the best cure for race relations in America is to have someone as intelligent and kindhearted as Obama as president. But if he doesn't win in November, it could very well negate some recent gains in race relations.
I'm certainly not advocating that we vote for Obama because of his race. Instead, we should look beyond his race In reality, there is no such thing as a pure race. We are all racial hybrids.
The following is an excerpt from my blog on November 8, 2006:
"When will America elect a minority president? I can't believe we are still asking this question...It's the 21st century, and I think white males have had more than enough time to run the country. Sure, they've accomplished many good things, but they've also had their share of failures. It's time to give someone else a chance to succeed or fail. By the way, did the accomplishments or failures of white males have anything to do with their skin color or gender?"Obama is qualified to be President of the United States with or without Biden, and his skin color is absolutely irrelevant.
Thoughts on Joe Biden
What makes Biden a good choice?
First, his experience in the Senate and on the Foreign Relations committee. Second, his Catholic heritage allows the ticket to appeal to a large and significant demographic. But the most important aspect is Biden's ability to attack the Republican ticket. In many respects, he is the perfect Attack Dog for a presidential candidate to have. Does he stick his foot in his mouth? Occasionally, but Biden is a seasoned politician, and he will certainly come across as more likeable than Dick Cheney, Al Gore, and Dan Quayle combined. Biden is perhaps one of the most down to earth politicians you will find in Washington DC. He is the least wealthy of all US Senators, and he regularly commutes between his home in Wilmington, Delaware and DC. Biden may have been in DC a long time, but he is by no means the quintessential Washington insider.
To an extent, Biden helps Obama among older whites and the working class. But let's be honest, people who were planning to vote against Obama because he's different are not likely to change their minds because Biden (or anyone else) is on the ticket. However, Biden is likely to help with voters who were leaning toward Obama but were a little unsure of his capacity to lead.
In my opinion VPs don't matter that much when it comes time to vote for President. And historically speaking, the only recent elections in which a VP carried states that had a significant impact were 1960 (Lyndon Johnson) and 1976 (Walter Mondale). Nonetheless, I believe Biden will have a slight regional impact. To a certain extent, Biden helps the Democrats retain Pennsylvania and possibly gain Virginia. With Biden, I think all of the Northeast including New Hampshire goes to Obama. Outside the Northeast, I think Biden helps the Democrats retain Michigan and possibly gain Ohio, Iowa, or Florida. Biden certainly doesn't hurt in those areas. For the most part, whatever Obama wins in the West (in addition to WA, OR, and CA) can be credited to Obama or Howard Dean.
Having Biden on the ticket (at age 65) certainly doesn't play well for the future of the Democratic Party, but it does leave the possibility for Clinton to run in 2016 or even 2012. But the party may be much different by then and Clinton may very well be out of the loop. Anyway, planning for the future of the party doesn't always work out well. Remember Gore's attempt to carry the mantle?
What about Clinton?
I'm very pleased that Obama did not give in to the pressure to select Clinton as his running mate. If anything represents more of the same, it's the Clinton brand of politics, and in order for change to take place, the cycle of Bush-Clinton had to be broken. Since 1980, there has been a Bush or Clinton as Vice President or President; 28 years is more than enough. Ultimately, Obama has to sink or swim on his own, and I'm sure he realized he couldn't do this with the Clintons tied to his presidency. If Obama loses, he will have done so on his terms and with dignity.
What about McCain?
I still believe McCain's best choice is Romney, but I suspect he might pick Rob Portman of Ohio, or Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania to counter Obama-Biden in the Northeast and Great Lakes region. Portman is somewhat risky because of his ties to the Bush administration, and Ridge is risky because he is Pro-Abortion and he also has ties to the Bush administration. In the end, I believe McCain will decide to go with the person he is most comfortable with. That means his pick is probably Ridge.
Wild-cards include a female VP or even Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. I don't think McCain would be very comfortable with a female running mate, but Lieberman would certainly be an interesting choice. Lieberman would certainly help the ticket appeal to older white Democrats, but the Republican base will reject his more liberal social views (gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, Social Security, etc).
Obama-Biden vs.
McCain-Ridge???
First, his experience in the Senate and on the Foreign Relations committee. Second, his Catholic heritage allows the ticket to appeal to a large and significant demographic. But the most important aspect is Biden's ability to attack the Republican ticket. In many respects, he is the perfect Attack Dog for a presidential candidate to have. Does he stick his foot in his mouth? Occasionally, but Biden is a seasoned politician, and he will certainly come across as more likeable than Dick Cheney, Al Gore, and Dan Quayle combined. Biden is perhaps one of the most down to earth politicians you will find in Washington DC. He is the least wealthy of all US Senators, and he regularly commutes between his home in Wilmington, Delaware and DC. Biden may have been in DC a long time, but he is by no means the quintessential Washington insider.
To an extent, Biden helps Obama among older whites and the working class. But let's be honest, people who were planning to vote against Obama because he's different are not likely to change their minds because Biden (or anyone else) is on the ticket. However, Biden is likely to help with voters who were leaning toward Obama but were a little unsure of his capacity to lead.
In my opinion VPs don't matter that much when it comes time to vote for President. And historically speaking, the only recent elections in which a VP carried states that had a significant impact were 1960 (Lyndon Johnson) and 1976 (Walter Mondale). Nonetheless, I believe Biden will have a slight regional impact. To a certain extent, Biden helps the Democrats retain Pennsylvania and possibly gain Virginia. With Biden, I think all of the Northeast including New Hampshire goes to Obama. Outside the Northeast, I think Biden helps the Democrats retain Michigan and possibly gain Ohio, Iowa, or Florida. Biden certainly doesn't hurt in those areas. For the most part, whatever Obama wins in the West (in addition to WA, OR, and CA) can be credited to Obama or Howard Dean.
Having Biden on the ticket (at age 65) certainly doesn't play well for the future of the Democratic Party, but it does leave the possibility for Clinton to run in 2016 or even 2012. But the party may be much different by then and Clinton may very well be out of the loop. Anyway, planning for the future of the party doesn't always work out well. Remember Gore's attempt to carry the mantle?
What about Clinton?
I'm very pleased that Obama did not give in to the pressure to select Clinton as his running mate. If anything represents more of the same, it's the Clinton brand of politics, and in order for change to take place, the cycle of Bush-Clinton had to be broken. Since 1980, there has been a Bush or Clinton as Vice President or President; 28 years is more than enough. Ultimately, Obama has to sink or swim on his own, and I'm sure he realized he couldn't do this with the Clintons tied to his presidency. If Obama loses, he will have done so on his terms and with dignity.
What about McCain?
I still believe McCain's best choice is Romney, but I suspect he might pick Rob Portman of Ohio, or Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania to counter Obama-Biden in the Northeast and Great Lakes region. Portman is somewhat risky because of his ties to the Bush administration, and Ridge is risky because he is Pro-Abortion and he also has ties to the Bush administration. In the end, I believe McCain will decide to go with the person he is most comfortable with. That means his pick is probably Ridge.
Wild-cards include a female VP or even Joe Lieberman of Connecticut. I don't think McCain would be very comfortable with a female running mate, but Lieberman would certainly be an interesting choice. Lieberman would certainly help the ticket appeal to older white Democrats, but the Republican base will reject his more liberal social views (gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, Social Security, etc).
Obama-Biden vs.
McCain-Ridge???
Monday, August 11, 2008
It's Wesley Clark?
Here were my top 5 predictions for Democratic VP in June:
1. John Edwards
2. Wesley Clark
3. Tim Kaine
4. Jim Webb
5. Hillary Clinton
Since Edwards has disqualified himself due to Clintonesque behaviors, Wesley Clark steps into first place as my top prediction for Democratic VP. It makes a lot of sense when you consider the recent events involving Russia and Georgia in addition to a possible air strike of Iran by Israeli forces. In the post-9/11 world, events are becoming even more complicated, and Wesley Clark would certainly help Obama appear as though he is "ready to lead" militarily.
My Predictions:
Obama-Clark '08 for the Democrats
McCain-Romney '08 for the Repbublicans
1. John Edwards
2. Wesley Clark
3. Tim Kaine
4. Jim Webb
5. Hillary Clinton
Since Edwards has disqualified himself due to Clintonesque behaviors, Wesley Clark steps into first place as my top prediction for Democratic VP. It makes a lot of sense when you consider the recent events involving Russia and Georgia in addition to a possible air strike of Iran by Israeli forces. In the post-9/11 world, events are becoming even more complicated, and Wesley Clark would certainly help Obama appear as though he is "ready to lead" militarily.
My Predictions:
Obama-Clark '08 for the Democrats
McCain-Romney '08 for the Repbublicans
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Obama Disappoints
Preface: (The purpose of this entry is to highlight the fact that it is absolutely necessary to hold politicians accountable. It's much better to disagree with the person you voted for than to blindly follow without critical analysis; something many Republicans and Democrats have had difficulty with recently.)
Obama, after securing his party's nomination, has moved to the right. What's disappointing about this move is that it represents more of the same old politics, the kind he is apparently running against. Ultimately, I realize that Obama is trying to appeal to a broader base in order to win the election. Unfortunately, this means he sacrifices principle in favor of calculation, which only serves to confuse his base and others. Is Obama paying lip service to the right or is he geniune? There wouldn't be any confusion if he stood by his principles. (Issues of concern include FISA, public funding for campaign, and off shore drilling.)
One is certainly entitled to change his or her opinions after long deliberations, and in many cases one should change course regardless of the political consequences. In politics, timing, image, and perception mean everything, and in the case of Obama's recent changes, he certainly appears to be calculating his moves at the expense of principles. To me, this is a disappointment. For others, it may be a pleasant surprise. Nonetheless, I still plan to vote for Obama for a variety of reasons including McCain's well-documented list of transformations since his true Maverick run against Bush in 2000.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
Excerpt from The Nation:
"Now Obama is not only putting politics ahead of principle--he's also calculating the politics wrong. The fact is, his stance in February helped him win a landslide victory in the Wisconsin primary, just as Feingold's principled but lonely stand against the Patriot Act helped him win overwhelming re-election in 2004. Obama inspired the support of millions when he refused to play the politics of fear and called on us to heed the better angels of our nature. He risks endangering that support when he plays the politics of calculation."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/editors
Obama, after securing his party's nomination, has moved to the right. What's disappointing about this move is that it represents more of the same old politics, the kind he is apparently running against. Ultimately, I realize that Obama is trying to appeal to a broader base in order to win the election. Unfortunately, this means he sacrifices principle in favor of calculation, which only serves to confuse his base and others. Is Obama paying lip service to the right or is he geniune? There wouldn't be any confusion if he stood by his principles. (Issues of concern include FISA, public funding for campaign, and off shore drilling.)
One is certainly entitled to change his or her opinions after long deliberations, and in many cases one should change course regardless of the political consequences. In politics, timing, image, and perception mean everything, and in the case of Obama's recent changes, he certainly appears to be calculating his moves at the expense of principles. To me, this is a disappointment. For others, it may be a pleasant surprise. Nonetheless, I still plan to vote for Obama for a variety of reasons including McCain's well-documented list of transformations since his true Maverick run against Bush in 2000.
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
Excerpt from The Nation:
"Now Obama is not only putting politics ahead of principle--he's also calculating the politics wrong. The fact is, his stance in February helped him win a landslide victory in the Wisconsin primary, just as Feingold's principled but lonely stand against the Patriot Act helped him win overwhelming re-election in 2004. Obama inspired the support of millions when he refused to play the politics of fear and called on us to heed the better angels of our nature. He risks endangering that support when he plays the politics of calculation."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/editors
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)