Election Conundrum: Thoughts on Compromise and Voting While Christian

In my last post I attempted to navigate the difficult waters of the abortion debate. My arguments were rightly pointed out as being pragmatic. I readily acknowledge this fact, and make no attempt to argue otherwise because I believe they should be pragmatic, as is virtually every engagement in the political arena. Being pragmatic usually involves compromise, and, once again, I readily acknowledge that I made some compromises in my vote. This is because when a Christian, such as myself, must choose a political candidate I will always have to compromise, because a ruler of a kingdom of this world will always have some anti-kingdom of God policies. In this election I compromised on voting for a candidate who has the anti-kingdom view of being pro-choice. I did this because I believe abortion is the result of deeper anti-kingdom problems that I believe Obama has a better handle on. Only time will tell if made a good compromise.

Recently, Jim Wallis wrote a piece about a letter Focus on the Family put out about the election. In it, Wallis says: "Christians should be committed to the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of America, and the church is to live an alternative existence of love and justice, offering a prophetic witness to politics. Elections are full of imperfect choices where we all seek to what is best for the "common good" by applying the values of our faith as best we can." Wallis does a great job here articulating how Christians should approach politics. There should be a constant awareness that the only way the world can truly change is by the church enacting God's kingdom. The question then becomes what is the product of God's interaction in the world and the work of fallen human beings, and how can Christians promote policies and candidates that will promote God's kingdom that are also being favored by those outside the kingdom? In other words, where does the "common good" look like the kingdom, how can those areas be promoted politically, and how can those areas where the common good doesn't look like the kingdom be changed? For starters I would argue the areas where the CG doesn't look like KOG involves a change in deeply held values, and a change in values usually happens outside the political arena.

I am fully aware that what I just wrote might be confusing, but for the sake of not writing a novel, I won't go on. So if you're confused, you know where to comment.

Abortion. Obama. Need I say more?

Righteous indignation is cathartic, but, often times, isn't helpful. Oh sure, it can be helpful rallying people to causes, but in the end it usually incites war and division, rather than healing and reconciliation. Those, instead, come with dialogue, understanding, knowledge and finding common ground. The abortion debate in America is full of righteous indignation from both sides, but after all the yelling and rallying the debate rages on. Abortion still exists, and even if it were outlawed, would still exist in other parts of the world and in back-alley abortion clinics. Conservative Republicans have used the outrage Christians feel about abortion to woo them into a sizable voting bloc. As a former voter in that bloc, I have come across increasing debate, and have come under questioning about my decision to vote for Barack Obama. And as someone who continues to believe that abortion shouldn't exist in America, but also views the issue as something much more complex than: "abortion is murder and a vote for a candidate who supports Roe is a vote for murder", I feel compelled to better formulate my views in a way that is easy to articulate, and promotes discussion rather than debate. I also feel compelled to respond to posts I've read online written by thoughtful friends whom with I disagree. So that's what this post is about.

Recently, Mr. Rudd wrote a great post presenting his reasons for not voting for Obama based on his belief that an Obama presidency would increase accessibility to abortion, thus increasing the number of abortions. He bases this claim on a statement from Obama saying he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Mr. Rudd also expresses frustration with Obama's "centrist talk concerning life issues" and his alleged desire to make abortion "as accessible as possible." I believe these are legitimate arguments as FOCA and Obama's pro-choice stance are troubling for me as well; but as someone who views the abortion issue with increasing complexity, I do not find these arguments convincing enough to deter me from voting for Obama. So, to begin, I want to explain how I see the abortion situation, then look at FOCA and Obama, and other pieces of legislation being supported by democrats.

Pro-life groups often compare their cause to the abolition of slavery. I tend to think that this is a helpful analogy because, like slavery, the issue of abortion has two components: a moral component and an economic component. Abolitionists worked courageously and creatively to thwart the evil of slavery, yet their efforts might have failed if not for the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution moved our economy from being labor intensive and agrarian, to capital-based and industrial. This shift eliminated the need for slaves. So the solution to slavery was more complex than winning hearts and minds and courageous tactics such as the underground railroad; economic change was crucial as well. Likewise, there is a relationship between abortion rates and the economy, as well as, other factors. In the 90's abortion rates made a sharp decline. Because one the main reasons women get abortions is for lack of ability to care for a child, this decline has been partially attributed to the good economic conditions of the 90's. Other factors, such an increased access to contraception and education, have also played a role in decreasing the abortion rate. In sum, when the reasons women have abortions decrease, abortions decrease. Legislation has some effect, but the solution will ultimately come from other forces, as well as, a change in hearts and minds.

Regarding the Freedom of Choice Act, I want to flatly state what is reality: Barack Obama is pro-choice and he has never said otherwise. This means he supports the decision of Roe v. Wade believing a woman should have the choice to terminate her pregnancy if she desires. FOCA is a piece of legislation responding to efforts of the Pro-Life movement to limit the rights granted to women by Roe. It seeks to: "establish a federal law guaranteeing reproductive freedom for future generations of American women. This guarantee will protect women’s rights even if President Bush and an anti‐choice Congress are successful in reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting even more restrictions on our right to choose." It should, therefore, come as no surprise Senator Obama would support such a bill. This is not about a desire to increase accessibility; it is about Obama's beliefs about Roe. There is much debate over what exactly this act would do in regards to rolling back abortion restrictions, however, the line I posted above describing the purposes of this bill implies there could be further restrictions. I would also add that in no way does passage of this bill guarantee an increase in the abortion rate, nor does it stop a creative pro-life movement from combating abortion in any number of ways.

Finally, there is a movement among pro-choice groups and pro-life democrats to reduce the need for abortion, thereby decreasing abortion rates. The Prevention First Act, which has the support of Harry Reid and Senator Obama, seeks to decrease abortion in a number of ways including access to family planning, realistic sex education, and access to emergency contraception. Another plan, the 95-10 initiative, seeks to reduce abortion by 95 percent in 10 years by various ways, including abstinence education and promoting adoption. This plan is promoted by the pro-life group, Democrats for Life, and according to Donald Miller, also has the support of Obama. In the end, Obama wants abortion to be legal, but is for fostering a society where abortion is rare. On the topic of abortion Obama has said: "We can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion...And what I have consistently talked about is to take a comprehensive approach where we focus on abstinence, where we are teaching the sacredness of sexuality to our children...and I think we should make sure that adoption is an option for people out there. Source"

Today I voted for Barack Obama in good conscience, despite my disagreement with his belief that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. I did so because I believe that abortion will only be solved when the debate ends, and people of varying opinions create solutions. The Democrats, in recent years, have realized that it is imperative for them to become more open-minded toward the pro-life movement. They have altered their platform, and are willing to work towards decreasing abortion outside of limiting Roe v Wade. Aside from the issue of abortion, I support Barack Obama when it comes to issues of war and peace. I believe a McCain administration would be much more willing to seek military solutions over diplomatic solutions. War is a life issue as well, and it's important to keep in mind that the sacredness of human life is about more than abortion. Democrats seem to be willing to forsake the angry rhetoric in favor of seeking common ground, and, for me, that's a reason to give them my vote.

Why I'm Voting for Barack Obama: Part 1

I know I can come across as a hard-core Obama supporter on this blog, but in real life I remain suspicious. I do so because, while I like much of what he says in his speeches, believe his policies are better than McCain's and like the overall vision of America he represents, in the end, he is a politician. And politicians will say and do whatever they need to to get a vote; especially this time of year. I look at his voting record, for instance, and it doesn't really represent change. Instead, it represents the same in that Obama is a Democrat and he votes with Democrats 95% of the time. To be fair, Obama came from obscurity into the national spotlight in a short amount of time, and that would require strong party loyalty. Just look how long it took McCain to get his party's nomination. Yet I still find myself questioning: "Really Barry? Line by line? You're gonna be just as into cutting as you are into spending? We'll see..." But with that said, here's why I'm voting for him.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is the issue for me when it comes to this election. Iraq is the reason why I said, "HELL NO. I refuse to vote Republican this year." Sadly, there was a time when I argued for going to war in Iraq. I knew all the reasons. I had an air tight argument. But even that night when the news stations interrupted regular programming to tell the American people we had begun bombing, I had a queasiness in my stomach. "I hope this was the right decision" I thought. I was wrong. The war in Iraq was criminal. Members of the administration had wanted to invade Iraq since the Clinton years, and they used 911 to accomplish that end. It was a war based on ideology and blind faith. Because the administration had blinders on, it refused to listen to any dissenting information or intelligence. Bush was dead certain. Because of this abhorrent decision, over 4,000 young men and women are dead, and thousands more are coming back, their lives changed, from injuries sustained in combat. I won't even get into the hundreds of thousands who were killed in Iraq. And for what? Bin Laden is still out there. Afghanistan is going down the toilet. Iran is building nukes, and our hands are tied because we removed her enemy in Iraq. We are arguably less safer than when we initially invaded. And we have hurt our relations with our allies.

This last point was why I started questioning the war in the first place. After 911 we had the support of the world behind us. Some of our biggest critics were saying, "we are all Americans now." There was so much good that could have come from 911, but the administration squandered it's political capital on Iraq. And this leads me to Obama. In an increasingly globalized and pluralized world where America is on it's way to becoming one of many super powers, we need someone who can forge a strong relationship with the global community. McCain, with his support of the foreign policy of the last eight years, is not in the position to do this. Obama is the perfect person to accomplish this, with his stunning rhetorical skills and ability to mobilize the masses, he is the charismatic figure America needs to represent her to the world. He also has never supported the war in Iraq, and therefore does not carry it's baggage. His foreign policy views are complex and he refuses to see the world in the manachean way of the Bush administration. Fareed Zakaria says this:

"Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas."

And, also, because of this last point, if we are attacked again, I will feel much safer with a President Obama in the White House. I am confident he'll provide sane leadership in a time when the populace is seeing red.

Thoughts on Last Night's Debate

The analysis coming out about last night's debate consistently have reported that there was no train wreck, there was nothing special or that it was Sarah Palin's night. One thing I will say about Palin is that she didn't crash as bad as I thought she was going to, based on the first half an hour. I thought it was going to be a slaughter when the topic was bankruptcy and the mortgage crisis, and Plalin gave a yes/no answer, then procreeded to ramble endlessly about energy. I was stunned. A couple questions later Palin, obviously getting nervous, called Senator Biden "Senator O'Biden." Thankfully, for her sake, her performance didn't continue to decline and she regained control.

But this is what is just killing me, and this is what I loathe about American politics. Everyone is saying she debated well. But if you actually listened to her versus Senator Biden, her answers and arguments sucked. I would bet that over 50 percent of what she said was the same thing over and over again. Half of what she said was populist, homespun, gibberish, and slogans about her and McCain being "mavericks." I was ready to shoot myself if I heard the word "maverick" one more time. Meanwhile, Senator Biden clearly had-- agree with his positions or not-- command of every issue spitting out facts and statistics to back up everything he said. Like one commentator I heard this morning said: Senator Biden appealed to those who respond to rational arguments while Governor Palin appealed to those who respond to emotion. And this is why Palin just drives me insane. She is the embodiment of, the concentrated form of, everything that is wrong with American politics. Her interviews, to any critical listener, are a joke! Tina Fey used one of her answers, word for word, in a parody of her! She obviously doesn't know crap about the world outside of Alaska, but because she supposedly "relates" to people because she's a hockey mom and uses folksy vernacular, her performances are lauded.

To be fair, Biden also tried to appeal to the common man himself, which he had to do considering what he was up against. And he also used slogans and sound bites as well, but no one can doubt that he is ready to be President. This debate was like watching a high school student take on a professor. And, yes, they both stretched the truth as well, and Yahoo posted a fact-check here.

Lastly, I would be saying all of this if I were still a Rush Limbaugh listening conservative. The fact that a large portion of the country trusts Palin, based on what we've seen of her, to be President is terrifying to me. Being a hockey mom, a good parent, down-home, middle-class etc... are not reasons we should vote for anyone. And, thankfully, before this debate more and more people began realizing she was a bad choice. In a week, after this debate is forgotten about, maybe people will continue coming to their senses.

My Morning With Barry

About an hour ago I arrived home from my first political rally. Last night, I found out that Barack Obama was going to be in town this morning at Calder Plaza, which is this large open area in the middle of downtown in front of city hall. I have the day off today for school, so I decided I would go.

I got up early with my wife, and the two of us headed downtown. She, unfortunately, had to work, so I just rode with her since she works blocks away from Calder. We got downtown with enough time to walk to a local coffee shop and get some Pumpkin Spice Lattes. As we walked back to her work it started to lightly sprinkle. I forgot my umbrella, so I started worrying I would be walking back to the car, after the rally, cold and wet. Thankfully, it never started raining, but the sky remained flooded with dark gray clouds. Predictably, the line was long going several blocks down the street, and wrapping around the corner for another block or so. I brought my Stats textbook, so I could get some reading done while I waited.

After filling out a card, and getting through security, I was pleased to find that I wasn't stuck in the back of the crowd as I expected to be. I was in the middle with a pretty clear view of the podium. After several speakers, the Pledge, the National Anthem, and a perfunctory prayer filled with thee's, thou's, beseeches and other Elizabethan words and phrases, and after listening to the same play list over and over again which consisted of like 90% country songs (if i went to a McCain rally would most of the songs be rap and r&b?), Obama finally took to the stage. He gave a great speech (of course) about the economy, jobs, taxes, spending and cynicism. He ended by movingly speaking about how so many Americans have worked hard to achieve their dreams, saying, "There have been those who said, I may not be able to vote, but maybe someday my child or grandchild will run for President of the United States." This moved me because, at the very least, it was worth seeing Senator Obama because I'll be able to say that I've seen the first African American President of the United States in person.

The second after Obama finished speaking, the dismal sky broke apart, and warm sunlight poured through the clouds...

It really did... It was weird.

Brilliant

The O'bama Factor

I used to love Bill O'Reilly. I watched his show every night; I read his first two books; and I did a book report for my political science class on his second book. I was a huge fan, and without going into the reasons why I no longer am, I was still very excited to see his interview with Barack Obama. Like a child running to the Christmas tree on Christmas morning, I have, since we recently down-graded our cable, been running to the computer every morning and checking O'Reilly's Fox News site to see the latest installment of this interview. And I've been pleased with what I've seen thus far. This has been a good interview for a few reasons: O'Reilly is hostile territory and if Obama does well with Bill, then he can do well with anyone; O'Reilly has been extremely tough and will argue his own opinion and analysis against Obama; and Obama has responded well and argued right back.

The third installment was what I was most eager and anxious to see, as it was to cover Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Father Pfleger. Obama, like the other installments, handled the questions masterfully and remained civil but firm with O'Reilly. He successfully argued that Ayers, Wright and Pfleger were doing work in the community when he was doing work in the community, and that was how the associations were formed. He argued that all of their views are not his views, and linking him to them is nothing but classic GBA, which it most certainly is.

What drove me crazy the most in this interview was O'Reilly's yelling when there was absolutely no reason to yell. O'Reilly is incapable of having a reasoned and calm discussion over hot-button issues. However, I must say that in the second installment Bill made a good point that I do not believe Obama successfully answered. He argued that poverty has increased because immigration has increased. Robert Samuelson, who has an excellent column, argues this as well.

So, overall, I've got to give it up for O'Reilly. He has conducted a, sometimes unnecessarily hostile, but good interview and put the heat on Obama. And Obama has performed well himself coming right back with reasoned and solid answers. O'Reilly's interview far outshines Keith Olbermann's which was a complete joke. I can only stomach so much ass-kissing whether or not I agree with said individuals. We'll see if Republican starlet Sarah Palin comes on the factor, and if Bill is just as intense. And hopefully this interview has some O'Reilly fans thinking twice about Obama.

Bias and Propaganda: MSNBC and Olbermann Do the Right Thing

While I love Harball, and I think that Chris Matthews-- despite it being obvious he supports the Democrats-- runs a fair show where issues are debated in a balanced and civilized way, I completely agree with MSNBC's decision to remove Matthews and Keith Olbermann from the election coverage. Olbermann, of course, is the liberal version of O'Reilly. And although I think he's much more articulate and intelligent than Bill, because he is so blatantly one-sided, I have hardly ever watched Countdown. Having those two cover the election would be like having O'Reilly and Sean Hannity cover the election on Fox News. There would be absolutely no objectivity. So MSNBC is right to remove them and put in Gregory.

That said, I think that the 9-11 video in question that Olbermann apologized for was exploitative and pure propaganda. What it did was to, once again, conjure up these primal, visceral emotions; emotions that one should never act, nor make decisions upon. It also, once again, painted America as the holy, sacred beacon of freedom, and the terrorists as the enemy of that freedom. These raw emotions that are elicited from the graphic footage from 9-11 that the video portrayed, coupled with manichean language, is a dangerous concoction that neoconservatives use time and time again to rally people in support of their militaristic and imperial foreign policy. We do not need more leaders who say "bring 'em on" in response to attacks on America. We cannot have another Yosemite Sam occupying the White house. That prospect scares me more than the possibility of another attack.

Olbermann was right to apologize, but he should have waited to do it on his own show.

Fact-Checking the RNC

Yahoo just posted this AP article on their home page analyzing speeches made at the RNC.

The RNC Thus Far

So I got to listen to Senator Lieberman's speech last night. In '04 I longed for a McCain-Lieberman ticket, so it was kind of surreal watching him give a speech at the RNC. There were so many times in his speech that just seemed so awkward. Like the time he brought up McCain courageously reaching across the isle for campaign finance reform... Uh, didn't like 99.9% of Republicans despise him for that? But, I guess that would go for every time he talked about McCain "reaching across the isle." They hate him for that! There was talk of him being Kerry's running mate just four years ago, and unfortunately I was listening to it on the radio so I couldn't see the audience reaction. But I got some laughs, even though McCains's centrism and willingness to work with the other side is what I use to love about him.

I read an article tonight about Guiliani's speech, which just seemed to be a bunch of fear-mongering, and just now I suffered through my first Sarah Palin speech. I say suffered in all seriousness because I struggled to keep my dinner down as she went on and on about her down-home, folksy, leave-it to beaver, little house on the frozen prairie, life wrestling grizzly bears and exploiting her perfect, beautiful son with Downs Syndrome. Oh... do I sound a little angry and negative? Sorry, I'm just still in the moment I guess. How could one not be after listening to childish attack after childish attack? I heard some people thought Obama's speech was negative; I guess McCain's found his attack dog. And you gotta love how she trashed community organizers; apparently they don't have any responsibilities. Like I said, childish...

And I guess Mike -Fox Noise Channel- Huckabee spoke about how the media is being unfair to Republicans..... I'm just gonna stop now... I'm hoping the best for McCain's speech.

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:

A Team of Rivals?

I admit, as a sucker for crazy ideas like bipartisanship, reform and progressivity, I'm loving this piece by the Weekly Standard. I know I said I liked Biden as Obama's Veep, but I'm gonna have to flip-flop and say Hagel would be the best choice. A team of rivals would be a refreshing change from the eight years of cronyism we've seen.

Oh Goody....

Bill Clinton has offered his support in getting Obama elected. Yippee... After his stunning performance campaigning for his wife-- saying that since she's a little up there in age now, her recollection of her trip to Bosnia might have been a little off, especially since she gave the speech around 11 pm. This was, of course, after her "3 am phone call" ad started airing, and, oh yeah, she didn't give the speech late at night either. And let's not forget about the Obama-Jesse Jackson comparison. With supporters like Bill...

My Veep Picks

For McCain: Newt Gingrich
-I think he's already said that he wouldn't do it, but I think he'd be the best choice. Let's face it, he's incredibly intelligent. His scholarly, professorial persona would balance out McCain's straight-talkin, down-to-earth, no BS style. He would also balance out McCain's admitted ignorance on the economy. They also both share an independent streak and believe in climate change.

For Obama: Joe Biden
-Biden would help with the bigot vote (let's face it, that's what it is), balancing the ticket with a solid, presidential, white, male statesman. He also has huge foreign-policy credentials and experience. He is also like McCain in that he's more of the straight-talkin, no BSer and would compliment Obama's professorial and scholarly persona. Oh, and he was also my pick for president. Richardson would also be good, but too risky -- one minority at a time please.

A Sad Day for Political Junkies

Anyone who follows politics knows how incredibly tragic the loss of Tim Russert is. Ever since Friday, I have been following the coverage. Seeing the humanity brought out in these journalists and politicians that I watch all of the time makes me realize what an amazing person he must have been. I watch Meet the Press every Sunday. This morning, Tom Brokaw started the show with a "no weeping" policy, however, part way in, it was Brokaw who struggled to fight off tears in an attempt to finish his sentence.

One thing I've taken away from watching this coverage is that Russert spent most of his time neck deep in politics, studying it from every angle. Yet, unlike most people, he remained hopeful and optimistic; he loved politics and never grew cynical. I know a lot of people who hate politics, could care less or have grown jaded. I hope I never become that way. Politics are an enormous part of the human condition and influence every area of life. So I am exited for the coming election day because, ultimately, I am hopeful for a better world; I am hopeful for better people and, therefore, also for better politics. But it will be sad to watch it all unfold without the coverage of one of the only journalists who deserve the label "fair and balanced."

This Would be Great

Call my idealistic. Call me naive. But I would love this. It's exactly the kind of contest we need. I hope Obama takes him up on it.

Ding Dong...

It's over, but she isn't going away. Everyone is saying that it's impossible she can win short of intervention by the democratic party, so why is she staying in? I personally think she's trying to hurt Obama so she can run in '12. It's funny watching Hannity and Colme's because, as of now, they are both Hillary suporters. Both of them were arguing with Clinton arch-nemesis and all-around slimebag Dick Morris.

I think that Obama simply needs to ignore the crazy lady and go after McCain like she isn't even there. Like I said, everyone knows it's over, and her staying in it makes her look out of touch, not only with the country, but with reality.