What a Difference 4 Years Can Make, Let Alone 40

On August 28, 1968, inside of Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois, what took place came to be known as the “Police Riot.” The day began with 10,000 protestors rallying in a youth festival set to coincide with the Democratic National Convention that summer. Different interest groups were there supporting causes like the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. Details from the actual day are sketchy at best, but what ensued was a brawl between the mob and the police, tear gas administered into the crowd, and an assault in front of the Hilton Hotel for 17 minutes captured by network television. Hubert H. Humphrey, George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy were still battling to see who would win the nomination for the presidency, in large part because Robert Kennedy had been assassinated in June. The Democratic Party was divided, it was embarrassed, and it was about to be routed three months later in the general election by a former vice president, Richard Nixon.

That year, 1968, was a turbulent year in our nation’s history. There was a lot more bad than good that occurred in the United States. For one, Americans were still thoroughly engaged in the war in Southeast Asia and the Tet Offensive had failed that winter, probably the main reason that LBJ decided not to run as the incumbent in November. Then Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot dead in a Memphis hotel in April, followed by Robert Kennedy two months later in Los Angeles. Rioting, protests and arrests transpired repeatedly throughout the year. It was a revolutionary time.


Four years ago today, I spent the entire night drinking tea and coffee trying to ward off sleep in order to find out who was going to run the country for the next four years. I was in my dorm in the Netherlands doing a semester abroad and because of the time zone difference I passed out at close to 8AM and they were still counting votes in Ohio. When I woke up and turned on my computer I realized that I was going to have to endure another four years of an imperious, yet bungling Bush administration. I had spent the weeks leading up to the election reassuring my newly-made international friends that Americans couldn’t possibly be naïve enough to reelect an imbecile. But it turned out that I was the naïve one; I was the imbecile.

Two weeks earlier, I was in Brugge visiting the quaint town in the Flemish section of Belgium. I decided to check out one of the local bars and try some of Belgium’s renowned beers. On a line to get some food, a couple of locals heard me speaking English so they decided to initiate a verbal tirade against me including every disparaging word they could think of about George W. Bush, but that was per usual. Then later at the bar, I met an American girl who was visiting Belgium, but was coming from Paris where she had permanently relocated. Curious as to why someone would come to study in France and decide to just stay in the country for good, I inquired as to the reason. She told me that the conservative trend in the US terrified her. I asked her if she would ever consider moving back and she told me that it was looking really bleak, but the only hope for that was the black man running for senator in the state Illinois. She said that if Barack Obama ever wins the presidency, she would come back to this country. I had heard of Obama because of the convention speech. But in my mind, my thought of randomly meeting this girl again in the US went from improbable to non-existent.


Last night, I fell asleep at approximately 10PM when Obama hadn’t clinched the election; however, he had a commanding lead and it was all but a certainty that he would win. I woke up two hours later at midnight to the booming, rhythmic voice of the new president-elect. CNN was broadcasting his victory speech from Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois. His speech was fabulous as always, but I couldn’t stop thinking of the irony that the same exact spot that had seen the riot that ripped apart the Democratic Party 40 years earlier was hosting the victory speech of the most unifying presidential election for Democrats in 32 years. Not since 1976 had a Democrat won more than 50% of the popular vote in the country. This was an outright slaughter. Only 46 years ago, they had to ratify the 24th amendment to the Constitution to prevent states from disenfranchising black Americans and keep them from voting in elections. Now a black American had won the presidency.


I’m not one of the “Yes We Can”, Ra-Ra Obama disciples. I don’t pretend to know that he will just kick his feet back in his chair in the oval office with a White Sox jersey on and his I-pod on shuffle and fix the country’s many distinct crises of today. What I do know is that yesterday’s result was a significant step for racial relations and a quantum leap in the right direction for the future of government in this country. And even if you’re a skeptic like I am, you have to ask yourself this question, what a difference 4 years can make, let alone 40? Four years ago, I barely knew who Obama was. All I thought I knew was that a black man couldn’t win the presidency. Forty years ago, pioneers for peace like Dr. King were being shot in the street. In January, Barack Obama will become the 44th President of the United States. So how far can we go in the next four years, let alone 40?

EL

Thoughts and Predictions for Tonight

Here are some thoughts and predictions on the eve of the election:

• Barack Obama will win big, 364- 174. The swing states he'll carry will be Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. McCain will carry Indiana, Montana and North Dakota.



• Southern Florida reminds me a lot of South Bend, Indiana with better weather.



• The Democrats will fall a seat shy of a 60- seat filibuster proof majority.



• The people of Florida have showed uncommon patience, waiting up to four hours to vote early, with lines wrapped around the block.



• After Tuesday night, Sarah Palin will mercifully recede from public view for a few months. Soon, though, we'll start to read the inevitable stories of her listening tour or some major speech that she's giving in Iowa or New Hampshire.



• The words of congratulations and thanks that Barack Obama gives President Bush during his Inauguration on January 20, 2009 will be one for the Awkward Moments Record book.



• I wish there was a way to see the look on Sean Hannity's face when Chief Justice Roberts gives Obama the Oath of Office ("I Barack Hussein Obama do solemnly swear...")
  
  
• Obama will need to hit the ground running with his legislative agenda, because he'll almost certainly lose seats in 2010. But let's not think about that right now, and just enjoy tonight...

Olbermann gets his (kind of)

Ben Affleck hosted SNL this past weekend and did a pretty funny impression of Keith Olbermann. It's about time they did a send-up of him, check it out below. This time the target of Keith's uncontrollable ire isn't Hillary Clinton or George Bush, but the president of his Condo board:



As a bonus here's the opening featuring John and Cindy McCain and Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin. Mercifully that impression should be retired this week.

SAM's Presidential Endorsement: Barack Obama

In December 2007, SAM Online endorsed Barack Obama, who was running a distant second in the polls, and John McCain, whose campaign seemed all but finished, for their party's presidential nominations. Ultimately, each man was able to overcome long odds and claim victory. Since those endorsements, one candidate has proven to be more formidable than we imagined, while the other wilted under the adverse conditions his party faces.

The clarity of Barack Obama's vision for the country, as well as his intellectually honest approach to our economic crisis and energy policy earned him our endorsement in next week's election. Meanwhile, John McCain has failed to present a coherent consistent plan for dealing with the very real problems that face the nation.

In many respects, McCain was a victim of his party's past success. The Bush/ Rove playbook successfully split the country 51/49 and built a narrow coalition on extreme social conservatism, fear and distortion. The McCain of 2000, who we still optimistically consider the "real" McCain, would have done very well in this election. However, over the past two+ years running for president, McCain took the Rove- road, culminating in his pick of Sarah Palin for vice president.

The grossly under-qualified and over-matched Palin was far from the final link in a chain of startling and unfortunate choices made by McCain during the general election campaign: The William Ayers/ terrorist talk, the use of Obama's middle name by surrogates, McCain's conflicting statements on the economy, his fluid positions on major issues, his generic assurances ("I know how to catch Osama bin Laden...") and his current tactics, reminiscent of the Cold War, to scare voters with Socialism. These developments have all shown Senator McCain lacks the steady hand and political clarity the presidency requires.

Senator Obama has acted in just the opposite way. He has taken principled positions and defended them with the verve and conviction Democrats customarily lack. He's shown inner toughness in combating attacks, while maintaining dignity throughout this grueling process.

For example, in early debates during the Democratic primaries, Obama said he would be open to meeting with hostile foreign leaders. The Clinton campaign (and later the McCain camp) jumped on the statement-- believing it a serious gaffe. But Obama told his staffers then that no retraction would be given: he'd meant what he said. He's stuck to and defended that position up to now. It's one small example of the confidence, intelligence and level- headedness that Obama possesses, and it's part of what gives him the potential to be a great president.

Meanwhile, McCain, in an effort to rouse his base, ceded his campaign to a wing of the Republican party that is, as NY Times conservative columnist David Brooks put it, decidedly "anti-ideas." Mr. Brooks described Gov. Palin as the standard bearer for that section of the party and as a cancer on the Republican brand. Palin has continued the tactics of the Bush administration with attempts to divide the country between "real" and elitist America. With a strong memory of the last eight years, the American people have rejected the message, and it's an indictment of McCain that he allowed it to proceed.

In the serious times ahead of the country, we are far more comfortable with the thought of Senator Obama at the helm. He and his party are in the better position to deal with energy, health care, Iraq, the economy, and America's place in the changing world.

Powell on Board

One of the most impressive people I've ever been in the presence of, Colin Powell, made this endorsement on Meet the Press yesterday.

Letterman: Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp

Top Ten Things Overheard at Sarah Palin's Debate Camp

10. "Let's practice your bewildered silence"

9. "Can you try saying 'Yes' instead of 'You betcha'?"

8. "Hey, I can see Mexico from here!"

7. "Maybe we'll get lucky and there won't be any questions about Iraq, taxes, or health care"

6. "We're screwed!"

5. "Can I just use that lipstick-pit bull thing again?"

4. "We have to wrap it up for the day -- McCain eats dinner at 4:30"

3. "Can we get Congress to bail us out of this debate?"

2. "John Edwards wants to know if you'd like some private tutoring in his van"

1. "Any way we can just get Tina Fey to do it?"

The Agony of Defeat... Again- Pic of the Day 9/29

For the second straight year, the Mets were eliminated from the playoff race on the last day of the season-- blowing a big lead in the season's final weeks.

Above is a pic from the front page of the Journal News (Westchester NY's largest paper) of me, a lifelong Mets fan, in obvious pain.

It was a bad weekend.

If It Walks Like a Duck...

My, how the mighty have fallen. The New York Times reported this morning on the status of the proposed $700 billion bailout plan, and the picture emerging from the discussions is as topsy-turvy as one can imagine. On the one hand, we have the President, proposing that Congress grant him even more extraordinary powers so that he can handle this particular issue with the economy. On that same hand, it appears we have the Democrats, eager to get this piece of legislation under their belts, but maintaining that certain provisions are included so that it's not strictly a deal for Wall Street, by Wall Street and of Wall Street. In the end, though, it might be just that. The Times quotes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as saying "It (the bailout) will happen because it has to happen." Such an impending tone makes one realize just how badly the financial sector has infiltrated the body politic. We're going to bailout banks that got in way over their heads irresponsibly because we have to. Nice.

On the opposite side of this battle are the Republicans, and this is what makes this current political climate so perplexing. The Republicans, long known for being Wall Street back scratchers, tax cutting everything from capital gains to C.E.O. bonuses, are now staunchly against the proposal. They find it absurd that tax-payer dollars ought to be spent in an endeavor to stabilize the financial sector, while little is done to curb spending in other areas. Of course, this kind of fiscal restraint was not evident during the first six years of the Bush administration, when they cut taxes, increased earmarks substantially and endorsed a war whose strategy was so flawed, that a major consequence is the vast sums being spent on it: some $10 billion per month.

Of course, this is no indictment of the corporate-Democratic paradox, nor of Republican hypocracy. They exist because it's the nature of the beast. This is the ultimate low of a presidency. Mr. Bush believes that history will come to his side, like it has for President Harry Truman. The Korean War killed Mr. Truman's presidency; Bush's lack of leadership has killed his. Truman did stubborn things like integrate the army, then the federal government, and endorsed the new state of Israel, all with significant opposition from his own staff, no less. Bush demanded loyalty at all cost, and held over his opponents a mandate that was as paper thin as his courage: because he could always find a way to garner fifty one percent, he could always win.

Democrats would come into the fold because some will lack the courage to stand their ground. Republicans would come for the obvious reasons, because it's their gravy train. Well, it's a good thing the American public can smell ineptitude, because in 2006 they fired the GOP, and essentially nutored Mr. Bush. His leadership style is so ineffective, he cannot even get his party in line in a moment of economic peril. Where Clinton signaled to Democrats that centrism is the quality needed for long term survival, Mr. Bush demonstrated that all you need is a simple majority. Where President Reagan obtained Democratic support in order to cut taxes in 1981, Mr. Bush used fear and the fresh memory of a tragedy to get the nation into as serious a circumstance one could find itself: war. And now we have a financial crisis even the most cautious observers call traumatic. "An end of an era on Wall Street", they say. And Mr. Bush, with his limp clout, trying to pull together a coalition to pass a vital law, cannot even get Wall Street's employees, his fellow Republicans, in line. January 20th cannot come soon enough.

SNL: McCain Ad Wars

Still in the midst of an imposed drought comes a quick gulp of water:

SNL's take on McCain's ads, which have taken more than a few liberties (such as portraying Obama's vote in favor of a bill that- in part- provided funding for a program educating kindergarteners on sexual abuse as, "Obama spent money on sex- ed for 5 year olds").



An interesting note: former SNL writer and cast member, and current US Senate candidate Al Franken reportedly came up with the premise of this sketch, which was then written out by SNL's head writer, Seth Meyers.

The Sad Saga

I've been asked to stop posting for a while by my employer, but happily, that doesn't mean I have to stop altogether. Because, every year around this time, I'll work in some non-political posts about my favorite team's collapse in the baseball standings. This year is no different, except I'm going to use to words of blogger David Lozo.

His post is decent, but it's the picture at the top that gets me.

The Sad, Sad Saga of Your Average N.Y. Mets Fan

There is nothing funnier yet, at the same time, sadder than a New York Mets fan. It’s like watching a six-car pileup where everyone dies, but everyone is dressed as Star Wars characters, so part of you laughs. But mostly, you feel bad for these desperate fools who have a harder time staying on an even keel than a meth addict.

Ever since the Mets had a seven-game lead with 17 games to play in 2007, I have been conducting a study of the New York Mets fan. I have charted emotions for close to a full year now, and I think it’s time to reveal my findings. What follows is a recounting of the emotional highs and lows of Mets fans for the last 350 days or so.

Sept. 12, 2007: “Dude, we’re seven games up. I can’t wait for the playoffs. We’re going to avenge that loss to the Cardinals and win the World Series. Willie Randolph has been superb and Tom Glavine really should get his option picked up.”

Sept. 30, 2007: “I hope Tom Glavine dies. Clearly he was a double agent for the Braves. Seven runs in an inning? I hate the Mets. We should fire Willie and start fresh.’

Jan. 30, 2008: “We traded for Johan Santana? Noooooo. Get out! That’s awesome! That guarantees us the NL East, and at worst a World Series trip. What a deal! Omar is a genius! Willie’s going to get us there!”

April 29, 2008: “I know Billy Wagner blew the save because of the error, but I don’t trust that guy.”

May 6, 2008: “Why does Carlos Delgado see the field? Can’t that guy retire already?”

May 26, 2008: “Please fire Willie already. This Mike Pelfrey character is a complete bust.”

May 29, 2008: “It’s not like it’s Willie’s fault.”

June 10, 2008: “OK, Willie needs to go.”

June 13, 2008: “Seriously, I hope we get someone for Delgado next season.”

June 16, 2008, 2:30 a.m.: “You know, I think Willie’s got this thing figured out
now.”

June 16, 2008, 3:45 a.m.: “Good riddance. Willie was killing us.”

June 24, 2008: “Jerry Manuel isn’t making things better.”

July 4, 2008: “Johan Santana just is not a big-game pitcher. He can’t finish what he
starts. Such a bum.”

July 6, 2008: “I know we’re 3.5 out with 74 games to go, but this team is done. No chance.”

July 17, 2008: “What a great move by the Mets to put Manuel in charge. I think a World Series is a real possibility now.”

July 19, 2008: “We can’t even beat the Reds. How can we possibly win the division?”

July 20, 2008: “If Wagner is done, we are screwed. That guy is lights out.”

July 25, 2008: “Mike Pelfrey should be getting some consideration for the Cy Young.”

August 3, 2008: “We are so done.”

August 10, 2008: “Mike Pelfrey better not be on the postseason roster.”

August 17, 2008: “If my neighbors think I’m loud now, just wait till they hear me when the Mets are playing in October.”

August 24, 2008: “We’re not going anywhere with this bullpen.”

Sept. 1, 2008: “Carlos Delgado is the NL MVP.”

Sept. 2, 2008: “This Luis Ayala guy is pretty awesome. He can close for us in the playoffs.”

Sept. 5, 2008: “We’re going to choke away the division again.”

Sept. 6, 2008: “I never said they were going to the World Series.”

Sept. 7, 2008, 4:45 p.m.: “We’re so done. Fire everyone.”

Sept. 7, 2008, 11:30 p.m.: “Johan Santana is a big-game pitcher. We’re going all the way.”

Sept. 10, 2008: “Hey, can I take off a few days in October? No one has off the day of Game 7 of the World Series, and I want to make sure I can watch it.”

This morning: “Our bullpen is a nightmare. I hope they miss the playoffs. Just give the division to the Phillies.”

Clinton/ Palin

Probably the best political sketch in nearly ten years.

Flip-Flops, All for the Price of an Oval Office

Mom: So since when do the Republicans care about women?

Me: What?  What do you mean?

Mom: Well, they seem to care a lot about women and I thought they never wanted women outside of the home.

And thus is the new political order of the day.  A universe where a casual observer, like my mom - citizen since '72 (ah, '72), can be confounded by a seismic shift in GOP talking points: feminism.  Yes, faux-feminism is the new Black, and the designer is Senator John McCain.  He tailors his chic centrism in a flowering couture of social conservatism being fiercely worn by none other than Alaska's great governor, Sarah Palin.  Holy wow!

It's the Democrats who are keeping that glass ceiling in place.  It's the Democrats who don't want women to progress.  Yes, it's the Democrats who want to return to 1918.  The party of Eleanor Roosevelt has turned into the party of Rush Limbaugh, only Rush doesn't want any part of it because he's a feminist now.  

That's right, folks: To want Sarah Palin to win the Vice Presidancy is to be for Women's Rights.  It's to be for a woman to have the right to have government deny her the right to choose an abortion.  It's to be for women having the right to not have the explicit right to fight side-by-side with men in combat.  It's to be for women having the right to be punished for working and having a child - at the same time, no less.  It's to be for our future.

Sarah Palin wanted to ban books from her local library, wants to be the special announcer at next year's Summer Slam when Creationism and Evolution meet, and once vied for round three at Bull Run while she was part of a small secessionist movement ("small" is relative, because nothing but the landscape's big in Alaska - it just ain't Texas).  These are all things that are as American as moose murder, and women should be ashamed if they're not proud of this.  Every women needs to learn to cross check, because Sarah Palin took her shots from the goons of all shapes and sizes for The Cause.  Every lady needs to learn to not plan their pregnancies, because Sarah Palin has five kids, will have five more, and will pass legislation making it legal to give birth well past menopause - God's willing notwithstanding.

James - that narrow-minded, right-wing chauvinist - Carville wrote an incendiary piece in the Financial Times, that bastion of Female Oppression, about how Mr. McCain has affected his party with the Sarah Palin nomination.  Read it not to see how the GOP has given up national security as their centerpiece.  Read it not to learn how flip-flopping is only flip-flopping if you're a former liberal like John F Kerredy - I mean Kerry.  Read it to see what America's up against:  Barack Obama's Islamist change, one that we just can't afford (because utility prices are insane!)

Faux

Jon Stewart outdid himself in this segment... there are no words for the kind of hypocrisy you're about to see, but at least someone called it out:

Uh-Oh: Pic of the Day 9/4

During last night's well- received speech, GOP VP nominee Gov. Sarah Palin cited her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere" pork barrel project as evidence of her independent streak. Problem is, Palin was actually for the bridge before she was against it, as is evident in this photo. The $400m bridge connected a small Alaska town to a hardly used airport, saving users from having to ride a $5 ferry.

“Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.” - Ketchikan Daily News 9/2006

Just a guess, but this probably won't be the last time we see this photo...

100 Years or 1 Year - No Real Difference

The Financial Times has a compelling piece about the Iraq War and the "time horizons" being discussed between the Bush Administration and that of Nouri al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq. The report by Demetri Sevastopulo quotes General David Patraeus, top commander of coalition forces in Iraq, as suggesting the possibility that U.S. forces can begin redeployment from Baghdad.  He cautioned his suggestion by alluding to conditions staying as they are now, with violence down and peaceful political dialogues persisting.  Still, American soldiers leaving Baghdad, as the article puts it, "would be highly symbolic given the scale of violence that gripped the city in 2006 and 2007."

Now Senator McCain will surely credit his backing of "The Surge" as playing the pivotal role in the new status quo, while Senator Obama will suggest that the Iraqis want us out as much as Americans do, lulls in violence notwithstanding.  What's striking is the frankness with which Gen. Patraeus discusses the mid to long-term future of our involvement in Iraq, and how the administration is not hovering over him insisting on the use of vague, ambiguous terms that carry no consequence.  Obama's at least given details as to how he'd leave Iraq.  Can't wait to hear Mac's response to this.  Fifty years or one hundred, we hav- what?  We're leaving already?  Well, is it with honor?

Friedman on ET

Thomas Friedman wrote a great piece in today's New York Times on what's at stake in terms of energy in the presidential election.

John McCain prided himself on being the greenest Republican in Washington; however, his "drill drill drill" rhetoric and selection of running mate Sarah Palin contradicts his crafted image. Freedman quotes Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, who states:

“Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up. One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped. Then they branded him with a big ‘Lazy O’ — George Bush’s brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.

“One of McCain’s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ She’s the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her.”

Friedman goes on to point out that the energy technology (ET, as he calls it) will surpass information technology (IT) as the most important and profitable industry in the world. We must remember, he argues, that the country that comes to dominate it will reap the substantial benefits. That means investment in and a commitment to new technology.

As Friedman writes: "The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not."

Letterman: Top 10 DNC Pick Up Lines

It may be a few days late, but here are Letterman's (a bit on the risqué side)...

Top Ten Democratic National Convention Pickup Lines

10. Wanna form a more perfect union?

9. Something's rising and it's not the national debt

8. I'm stiffer than John Kerry

7. Let's go someplace and release our delegates

6. Care to join the wife and me for a little 'bipartisanship'?

5. I'll make you scream like Howard Dean

4. Now that's what I call a stimulus package

3. I'm gonna Barack your world

2. Wanna pretend we're Republicans and have gay bathroom sex?

1. Hi, I'm John Edwards

And here are some that failed to make the cut:

• Play your cards right and I'll get you in to hear the speech by Illinois State Comptroller Dan Hynes

• How'd you like to be on the cover of National Enquirer?

• Has anyone ever said you look like a young Madeline Albright?

• Where does a guy go to get Spitzer'd?

• Wanna see a nude photo of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson?

Palin To Be GILF! Teen Daughter Expecting "Illigitimate" Child!

NYT.com is reporting that the daughter of Governess Sarah Palin (R-AK), GOP Veep nominee, is pregnant. Bristol Palin, The governess' daughter, is expected to keep the child, and CNN is reporting that she will marry the father. (I'd provide more information about him, but the scumbag move on my part can't be done until the scumbag move of recklessly getting this possible minor's information is completed.) The GOP is expected to rally around the soon-to-be teen mother.

How ironic. The GOP makes a living out of making it seem as though some young, poor lady who has a child out-of-wedlock represents the biggest socialist parasite in our nation's economy. Yet, what come's with a McCain-Palin win? A new member to said club.

WIld Card, to say the least.

In the wake of her improbable selection to be John McCain's running mate, just about everyone now knows the name Sarah Palin. Yes, she’s inexperienced (under two years as governor of a state that literally has a smaller population than Columbus, Ohio). Yes, she has a relatively modest educational background for a VP candidate (BA in journalism from University of Idaho). And oh yea, she earned the nickname “Barracuda” for her tenacious play on the high school basketball court (Thanks Fox News for that tidbit). Is she one of the most qualified people in the Republican party to be VP? Absolutely not. By all accounts, this a straight political move on McCain's part in an attempt to win over some former Hillary supporters.

Why would McCain pick Palin in particular? For starters she's young, energetic, reform-minded, and has an approval rating of 80% in Alaska. As a mother of five who is married to her high school sweetheart, she very much embodies classic Middle American values that should play well in many key swing states. Ideologically, she will help sheer up McCain’s conservative base. She supports teaching creationism in schools, gun rights, staunchly favors domestic oil and gas exploration, and is pro-life.

Though this pick might be a hit with conservatives, it’s not a choice that's going to go over real well with the independents that McCain has been courting. McCain has criticized Obama for putting his own political interest over the interest of the country by asserting “Obama would rather lose a war in order to win an election campaign”. Now McCain has picked Palin, for reasons of political expediency, over several other potential running mates significantly more qualified to take the helm as President if necessary. Also, McCain's argument that Obama is unelectable because of his lack of experience now loses practically all its effectiveness.

The real question is whether Palin can reach across party lines and draw enough women into the McCain camp. If she can do so while also satisfying the conservative base, then obviously this could go down as shrewd political move. I have my doubts, but the Republicans have demonstrated a tremendous sense of political instinct over the last two presidential elections. Time will tell.

Is this some sort of hilarious joke?

I wanted to ignore John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin for Vice President out of reverence for last night's speech. But the move deserves at least 10 quick observations:

1. There are 3 types of vice president, and before Al Gore there was only 1. Gore was a trusted adviser, in the room when many key decisions were made. His opinion mattered. Dick Cheney ran the country. Before 1992, vice presidents had two functions: don't embarrass the administration and don't get in the way. Joe Biden is a pick in the Gore mold, Sarah Palin is a pick in the Charles Curtis mold.


2. For those of you familiar with sports and gambling: The over/ under on the number of words John McCain ever says to Sarah Palin in his entire life: 95


3. It was a political move, and that's OK, we understand that. But what is inexcusable, is that yesterday John McCain chose a woman whose experience outside of 2 years as governor was as mayor of an Alaskan village of 9,000. Yesterday also happened to be Sen. McCain's 72nd birthday.


4. Say what you will-- Sarah Palin is not a bad looking lady.


5. The idea that women will vote for John McCain because he put a woman on the ballot is deeply offensive.


6. The notion that Sarah Palin can be compared to Hillary Clinton is insulting.


7. I guarantee those glasses are fake.


8. The GOP wanted a woman, but they also wanted someone who would satisfy the right-wing (pro-life, "unsure" about global warming). So, it's no wonder they had to search so far, wide and weird to find someone to fit the bill.


9. Barack Obama has shown faith in Americans' ability to see beyond ploys, and willingness to choose optimism in the face of doubt. Meanwhile, John McCain has made the exact opposite wager.


10. The number one criterion in choosing a VP, by definition, is whether or not the individual can be an effective president if necessary. Barack Obama's case for superior judgment was made a whole lot easier yesterday.