Well folks, here it is. the McCain camp has the audacity to say that this election is not about issues, it's about character. An incredibly asinine comment, but that aside, it establishes what the campaign is relying on to sell its ticket. But now, it's become absolutely clear that McCain's (and of course Palin's) characters is entirely corrupt. McCain is willing to put the country in peril by choosing Palin, who is obviously unprepared to hold the most powerful office in the world. But more importantly--and this is the real game-changer--McCain continues to support blatant fabrications and complete distortions of Obama's record. Lies that have all been fact-checked by independent sources. So the ticket loses not just on issues, but on character too! This is what the Obama campaign should focus on now. It should hammer over and over and over that McCain-Palin have put country last and politics first by sacrificing their integrity in order to win. With the sleaziest and most mendacious political ads ever broadcasted! And contrast that with something like: "Obama-Biden: Putting country first with clear-eyed judgment and real honesty. THAT'S putting country first. And THAT'S the change we truly need."

Putting aside basic honesty and integrity, what she lacks most is not experience. The experienced or inexperienced debate got so frustrating to me, I had to point out it's really more about pure knowledge. To me, this is what we should be discussing as a country. The fact that the mainstream isn't doing that yet is a very troubling sign about our culture, when so-called "executive experience" matters more than actually knowing stuff:


Newspapers, news shows, and blogs are all a flutter about Sarah Palin’s alleged lack of experience. Indeed, after being only a 2-term mayor of a small town before torpedoing to the governorship of Alaska one and a half years ago, she would have the thinnest resume for the vice-presidency in modern times. The population of Alaska is 686,000, ranking 47th in the U.S. for a population roughly the same as the greater Denver area.

So yes, it seems pretty clear that she does lack experience. To this, she replies that she has “executive” experience that comes with leading a small city and then a large (though sparsely-populated) state—however briefly. And that neither Obama nor Biden have ever had that kind of “executive” position. It’s an interesting argument, which seems to rely on the notion of the presidency as primarily an executive job. And this falls in line with George Bush’s view of that office as a kind of CEO with near-absolute authority on all matters of government. But this view overlooks that the U.S. government has several branches, i.e. legislative, executive, and judicial. Thus the White House can do very little on its own. First and foremost, its job is to collaborate with congress, which by the way, holds the ultimate power to declare war. While the governorship of Alaska must also contend with its own legislature and courts, Palin has only had a year and a half in that job.

Obama, however was a 3-term state Senator of Illinois—the fifth most populous state in the union. And then a brilliant junior U.S. senator serving on prestigious senatorial committees and collaborating across party lines to sponsor important bills in such areas as enforcing government ethics and transparency, energy, the war in Iraq, and expanding veterans benefits. Ironically, the Disabled American Veterans group rates Obama’s voting record much higher than McCain’s on veterans’ issues.

But experience is not the only thing that keeps Palin from being prepared for the presidency, which she may inherit if, god forbid, President McCain were to become incapable of fulfilling his duties. McCain would be our oldest president ever, and has already recovered from cancer several times. What Palin also lacks—and is crucial for someone with as thin of a resume as hers—is, frankly, knowledge. Obama may have relatively little experience in high office himself (although much more than Palin), but what he does have is great knowledge. That is to say, he is well-traveled, was at the top of his class at Columbia, and then Harvard Law School, becoming the president of Harvard Law Review, and then a college professor in constitutional law. This alone would make him a candidate for a high court position, perhaps even the Supreme Court itself.

Palin on her end, has a B.A. in journalism from the University of Idaho. And she had never even traveled outside of the country until her much publicized trip to Kuwait and Germany last year.

So this debate about who has the most experience is rather empty if one doesn’t consider the vision and wisdom that comes from knowledge itself, i.e., of history, law, geography, world cultures, philosophy, science, etc. Palin might be an acceptable candidate for McCain’s running mate if, along with her thin resume, she were known as a brilliant mind, either via education or independent intellectual achievement. I think we can observe right now how much damage someone with precious little knowledge or intellectual curiosity can do as President.

That McCain would choose someone with so little knowledge or experience to replace him as President, shows that his judgment is deeply flawed. It seems like a purely political move designed to galvanize the religious and rural base, and certainly not putting “country first” as his campaign slogan proclaims. If he really had the best interests of the country in mind, McCain might have chosen someone with serious economic credentials to compensate for his own admitted lack thereof. Someone, for example, who could authoritatively press Obama on how much he plans to increase capital gains taxes during a recession. Increasing such taxes, could arguably, if done improperly, stifle investment, and thus the economy. Obama surely has those answers as he counts ex Fed Chairman Paul Volker among his advisors.

But how are the American people going to hear such crucial discussions and debates when they’re distracted by Palin’s fluffy biographical story of an ordinary rural “hockey mom” turned vice-presidential candidate? As if it were generally a good idea to elect your neighbor as president! We don’t need an ordinary person a heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world. We need an extraordinary person. Unlike McCain-Palin, the Obama-Biden ticket gives us two who are more than prepared to lead right now.

First the media avoids correcting itself about stating that Hillary won Texas when she actually lost by three delegates as posted on Barack Obama's website:

http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/

The propaganda about this is so strong that Obama's site timidly colors the Texas map as a tie when he is the clear winner.

And now, we continue to hear that Hillary won Pennsylvania by double digits, i.e. ten percent.

Actually, the full results show her much closer to nine percent. The Pennsylvania State election website clearly shows the totals and with all but one precinct reporting, Hillary only won by only 9.2 percent:

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

I know the media loves to make this into a horse race, but it's rather unfair to Obama and of course the general public, which has a right to the truth--not to truthiness.

First the media avoids correcting itself about stating that Hillary won Texas when she actually lost by three delegates as posted on Barack Obama's website:

http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/

The propaganda about this is so strong that Obama's site timidly colors the Texas map as a tie when he is the clear winner.

And now, we continue to hear that Hillary won Pennsylvania by double digits, i.e. ten percent.

Actually, the full results show her much closer to nine percent. The Pennsylvania State election website clearly shows the totals and with all but one precinct reporting, Hillary only won by only 9.2 percent:

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

I know the media loves to make this into a horse race, but it's rather unfair to Obama and of course the general public, which has a right to the truth--not to truthiness.