Didn't See that Coming...

So McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate. Wow... I thought for sure it would be Romney. I truly am stunned because McCain has just made an enormous gamble, and what I think this shows is that McCain is really uncertain about his chances. I also think it's interesting that Romney was the obvious choice for obvious reasons yet he didn't get chosen; and the reason he didn't get chosen is because Palin is a woman and is pro-life.

This choice has absolutely nothing to do with picking someone who would make a good president; it's all about winning the election. For one, McCain is looking to steal some Hillary supporters. Palin, today, said something like, "now we can finally break that glass ceiling." This, of course, refers to Hillary's comment about putting 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling. Secondly, McCain chose her because of her pro-life record. The Dean of Liberty University Law School, here, says that this will energize conservatives. So the pro-life, born again president we have now disappointed the religious Right on abortion, but McCain, who they're already suspicious of on abortion, picks a pro-life VP and they're going to be energized? Ok...

The biggest gamble with this choice, however, is the fact that McCain is an old guy with lots of health problems. The primary purpose of the VP is to fill in for the president if the unfortunate occurred. McCain and the Republicans main attack on Obama is his lack of experience, yet Palin is significantly less experienced than Obama.

Nevertheless, it's ironic that McCain chose her to attract Hillary supporters and pro-life conservatives. Now that's a change indeed.

How Couldn't He?

I read several stories yesterday criticizing Obama's choice of Joe Biden as V.P. They said that his choice reveals that he's not the big change agent he claims to be, and that it shows his lack of confidence in his abilities.

So picking the most knowledgeable and experienced democrat on foreign policy and other issues was a bad thing? Really? Don't we want a president who surrounds himself with the best and the brightest? And don't we want a president who will hire people who will challenge and disagree with him? Selecting Biden proves Obama will do both of these things. To boot, Joe Biden has a working-class background and has never been involved in sexual or financial scandals. He still takes the train to work, for crying out loud. Saying Biden doesn't represent change, because he doesn't lack experience or because he isn't a woman or minority is non-sense. Having character and integrity, in Washington, represents plenty of change.

Obama made a great choice.

Nice Try Rick

This past weekend, I was told that if Obama gets elected that we will be attacked again, because he is a wuss. I was then told that all he wants to do is "talk", which I assumed meant diplomacy. After this little exchange, I sat down to watch the Obama-McCain-Rick Warren extravaganza. I thought some of it was good and I liked what Warren was attempting to accomplish with this forum, although I do not believe he succeeded.

His goal was to have a civil, honest, down-to-earth discussion about the candidate's personal beliefs, character and leadership qualities. It was meant to put the campaigning aside, and just have meaningful dialogue. What's funny is that, what analysis I watched, the host and guests all seemed to think McCain had the better "performance." Now, this would typically mean that McCain won. But, in this forum, the goal was not to "perform", but to be authentic. But McCain truly did have a great performance; I have never seen a better George Bush impression in my life. McCain answered every question with as little thought and nuance as possible. Is there such thing as evil? "Yes there's evil, and it has it be defeated." What is something that ten years ago you believed, but don't today? "We have to drill here! We have to drill now!" Many times McCain didn't even look at Warren, but turned to the audience and slipped into campaign mode. I suspect he did this because, well, many Americans want a president who is cut and dry, black and white and downright simple. George Bush ran and won on that quality four years ago.

And this frustrates and scares me. I want a president who, like Obama, took a while to answer Warren's questions. Obama seemed to try and answer the questions in a thoughtful and sincere way. He played it safe on some, and I caught him being dishonest on another. But for the most part, he put a lot of thought into his answers. I want this in a president because we live in complex world. I don't want a president who has a quick short answer for questions that ought to elicit reflection and nuance. And because we live in a dangerous world, I don't want a president who is small on diplomacy and big on military action. War should be the last possible solution. Diplomacy doesn't equal wussiness. It means one understands the horrendous cost of war.

Of course, you can have someone who just thinks and never decides and that's no good. And you can have someone who just talks and talks but never acts, and that's also ineffective. But if Warren's intent was to help voters decide who to vote for based on how the candidate answers a tough question, then he further solidified my choice in Obama. Even though McCain may have had the better performance.

And So it Continues...

We were at a friends house last night when McCain's latest, mindless piece of trash came on the air. You know, the one with Brittany and Paris. I was kind of surprised to see it, as I thought it was only a web ad. I started lamenting to my friend how I really, really thought this election would be different. I thought that McCain and Obama mutually wanted a positive, substantive, smear-free contest. My friend just looked at me and said, "but he can't win that way, people are dumb, so that's what works." At first, I just didn't want to accept my friend's simplistic and cynical analysis. But the more I think about it, considering all that hangs in the balance with this election, and considering all the talk about higher politics, it just makes the most sense. To win, McCain's gotta do what works, and the people he's trying to persuade buy into weak, substanceless, smear ads.

There's been much said and written about the continually dumber American electorate, and how it threatens our democracy. Calling a good chunk of the country dumb is often dismissed as elitist. But when politics are constantly boiled down to sound bites and slogans, and political ads consist of comparing a candidate to Brittany and Paris, that says something about the audience. Let's just hope we don't see a Hanoi Hilton veterans for truth.

And on a separate, but somewhat related note, this is why I TiVo The Daily Show: