I just saw a John McCain ad on tv, the one talking about how we need to change liberal Washington. I never before realized how the whole ad just doesn't make sense. The whole argument of the ad is that Barack Obama does not represent change because he's part of the same old liberal Washington politics, but then it ends with "Not Ready to Lead." Let's put aside McCain's senior moment, forgetting that Washington had been run by the GOP for the past 8 years, and just focus solely on the argument being made in this ad: Obama is more of the same, yet not ready to lead. If McCain is asserting that Obama and his friends have been in power (and, therefore, leading), how is it that's he's at the same time not ready to lead? If you're going to run your campaign based on a bunch of innaccuracies, you should probably make your argument a little more believable.

I have to admit that I have been completely pre-occupied with everything Sarah Palin in the last five days but now I'm just finished with it all. The Republicans have successfully (so far) shifted the focus away from the real issues, what is really at stake this election, that which Obama so eloquently yet forcefully reminded us all of last week, and turned this pivotal election into a soap opera circus. We have an economy to fix, a war to end, and civil rights to protect. We have an environment to save, foreign friendships to regain, and a nation to defend. Luckily, we have a candidate about whom we are excited and who we believe can successfully manage an administration to achieve our goals. We don't need to focus on how bad the other team is because we believe our team is always better.

Let's leave the circus behind and not lose sight of who we are.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com makes an interesting point that I thought I'd share. He argues that it's essential that a Vice President be ready to lead immediately, contrary to what many may think, because the situations through which they find themselves President are, by nature, already a crisis (a death or resignation).  It's worth a ponder.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com makes an interesting point that I thought I'd share. He argues that it's essential that a Vice President be ready to lead immediately, contrary to what many may think, because the situations through which they find themselves President are, by nature, already a crisis (a death or resignation).  It's worth a ponder.

To expand upon the points being made about Campbell Brown destroying Tucker Bounds last night, over the past few days, I've seen a lot of the msm jumping off the tire swing.  I think a lot of the frustration comes from the refusal of the McCain camp to actually answer any of the questions asked of them.  But now, instead of sitting back and allowing the spokespeople to change the subject, the msm is starting to demand straight answers to very simple questions.

Although he was a guest and not really a member of the msm, James Carville last night gave it to Michelle Bachman on Larry King. I think the most important part of this confrontation was Bachman's accusation that Carville was automatically being sexist, when what he actually said was anything but. This highlights the obvious strategy the McCain camp has adopted when dealing with hostile interviewers or opponents: 1) pretend to be thrilled and unconcerned by her candidacy and subsequent media vetting 2) claim that she has more "executive" experience than Obama 3) reiterate the strength of her character and family and 4) when all else fails, accuse your opponent of being sexist.

Luckily, in several examples I've seen, these non-answers are not flying and the change of subject is blaringly obvious, exhibiting a real sense of desperation and lack of a cohesive message from the McCain campaign.

Also fortunately, Obama has responded with exactly what he needs to say. Besides his brief and excellent response to the Bristol Palin situation, while interviewed by Anderson Cooper last night, he was able to address the issues of the last several days and attack McCain subtly and effectively. The way he calmly tells Cooper, "I just got off the phone with Secretary Chertoff..." is very presidential. He is managing to stay above the fray, attend to his campaign, and keep an eye on important situations like Gustav.  His demeanor is very comforting; that in such a crazy world at least we can trust in a cool and collective leader to handle situations rationally.

This will be my first and last post about Bristol Palin, but given the inevitable media scrutiny, did the Palins ever think to ask Levi Johnston if it was okay to thrust him into the national spotlight? One could argue all they want that the Palins made the decision to accept John McCain's offer to join the ticket as a family and is a stronger family for it because of their situation, but did they ever consider the other people involved who may get hurt in the process? I would question the judgment of someone whose decisions seem, at best, short-sighted.

An op-ed in the Denver Post, sums up McCain's choice of Palin very nicely:

"...the presumptive Republican nominee, an Old Soldier in all senses of that term, drafted the political equivalent of the Unknown Soldier as his co-pilot."

I think it's true that in choosing Palin, McCain has shown his impulsive temperament. However, I'm not sure it shows that he has a lack of judgment, per se. I think he knows exactly what he's doing picking a VP with little experience and no grasp of foreign policy: he doesn't want her help, he's a go-it-alone president. The only assistance he wants from Palin is grabbing votes from women.  Once they're in the White House, McCain's takes the wheel all for himself

The McCain presidency would be about one thing: John McCain. This sense of anti-collaboration spells nothing but danger in a time where we need diplomacy, both at home and abroad, more than ever. We don't need King John; King George was bad enough.

Although she may have been a last-minute pick, the McCain campaign knows exactly what it is doing with Sarah Palin.  The confusion we may have felt from the other side of the game comes from our assumption that the Republicans would make a sound choice based on experience, a legitimately strong candidate because of their record and potential.  We don't get it because they chose because of politics and personal stories, pathos instead of logos. This is what Obama must keep in mind when going after the McCain campaign.  No reason or argument can be made about her record or experience because those arguments are not going to resonate with the people who find Palin an attractive candidate in the first place. And the Obama campaign needs to tread a fine line when criticizing Palin because she has her own POW get-out-of-jail-free cards: she's a woman, a wife, a mother of 5, a mother of a special-needs child, and a mother of a soldier. He will be accused of sexism and look like the bad guy in any attempt to criticize her, even when he's arguing her lack of experience or one of her policy positions.

I think Obama needs to ignore Palin and, to an extent, Biden does, too. Obama needs to continue to hammer McCain and leave the Palin bate alone. Don't try to use ads against her Palin or her scandal or her inexperience--however legitimate these arguments are--because, no matter how inane the response may be, they will tell those working moms all across Ohio and Pennsylvania that Obama, like we all thought through the primaries, is an elitist woman hater.

Leave Palin to Hillary. Hillary is in a unique position to be able to attack Palin and question her record. Palin welcomed this by continuously comparing herself to Hillary and it is only logical that Hillary respond. This gives Hillary a very specific and very important role these next few months as she campaigns in the same small towns she won in the primaries, talking to the audiences who probably relate to Palin the most and are most attracted by Palin's candidacy. This way, Obama avoids the sexism argument and Palin gets the criticism she (and every person looking to hold next to the highest office in the land) deserves.

Although I was not a huge fan of Hillary during the primaries, I think she did a great job at the convention and will seriously work hard for Obama in the next two months, something that may be emotionally difficult for her to do. But I think that Hillary believes deeply in the causes of the Democratic party and seriously wants to repair the damage done by the Republicans.

And I think Hillary would take on the role of Palin-negator with gusto not only because of her desire to see a Democratic White House again, but because it must eat her up inside that such an unqualified, anti-feminist, neo-conservative is trying to ride her coattails. I hate to trivialize the matter, but seriously, Oh no she didn't.

While mulling over McCain's VP choice today, I've gone through many emotions; my first reaction was WTF?!, my second was elation, and now I'm moving toward a point near annoyed. And here's why.

It's obvious that McCain's choice of Palin is a ploy to bring over the so-called Clinton-bitters and to tout the historic nature of their own ticket. But really, how unsophisticated do the Republicans think we women voters really are? I'm certain that, while there are still outlier groups like PUMA who will never get over the Obama candidacy and are beyond reason, most of those 18 millions cracks came from women (and men) who not only saw the opportunity for a woman to be president, but a woman who is qualified, who could potentially hold her own and do a good job. Hillary Clinton wasn't just any woman; she was vetted, familiar with the White House, familiar with foreign policy, and was tough as nails.

 I'm not yet sure how tough Palin is yet, but what does she bring to the table except her gender? I buy the maverick argument just as much as I buy it with McCain (which is to say, not at all), because, really, how much of a "reformer" can she be after less than two years as governor? And given the abyssmal state of Alaskan politics at the moment, who wouldn't throw out certain corrupt politicians? That's not the work of a maverick, that's the work of any decent public servant; it's common sense, not breaking party lines.

Furthermore, Palin will get destroyed in a debate with Biden. The second female vice presidential candidate will look like a fish out of water next to him. If you're going to make the race about gender, you're not representing the gender very well by putting her in such a mismatched position.

The problem is the Republicans are stuck in the past. They believe women are simply gullible and emotional and as soon as they see a woman (with children!) they will weep and run right to the voting booth. That against Biden, all Palin will have to do is talk about her kids and bate him into some remark that the pundits will label as sexist and they will all be up in arms. I'm sorry, but we've moved on.  We women may not have equal pay and our civil rights may be in jeopardy, but my god, we still have brains. And we see right through all your "straight talk", Mr. McCain.

My regards to Cindy and your daughters.

I don't know much yet about Senator Palin except the obvious: she's a woman. But based on a few of the articles posted here at TPM about her stances and scandals, it seems to me that although McCain is trying to be "maverick" in his choice of a female running mate, Palin represents more of the same partisan cronyism that has plagued the current administration and has been an embarrassment to those of us who believe in the principles of justice. Getting your brother-in-law fired because he's divorcing your sister? We really can't afford another administration staffed with yes-men (and women).

"If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have."

"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have been stirring up as much trouble as they can within enemy lines this week by telling any pundit who will listen how they are positively baffled that Obama did not pick Senator Clinton as his running mate. Last night with Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, Giulini remarked

"It is a no-brainer. She got 18 million votes. Joe got 9,000 votes."

Of course, this was merely "political" observation on his part and had nothing to do with the McCain campaign's goal of stealing some of the still-bitter Clinton supporters.  I was happy with Blitzer's response: basically, Obama chose Biden because he's the nominee and he can choose whomever he pleases; later this week, McCain will do the same.

To take Blitzer's response one step futher: if Giuliani feels that Obama automatically should have picked Clinton by the number of votes she received, does he feel that presidential nominees should always pick the runner up from the primary as his running mate? Does this mean that Mitt Romney is definitely McCain's mate? Furthermore, based on Giuliani's logic, one would hope McCain has seriously vetted Mike Huckabee (by his delegate count, in any case).

Giuliani's argument also means that, given the percentage of votes he received, Ron Paul should also be given consideration for a cabinet post, above poor Rudy, who only has no delegate count.

Amazing. All of this astute political analysis and talk of fairness to second place coming from the party that does not award any delegates to the runners up in its primary contests.

Watching the opening acts of the DNC is almost as frustrating as watching the Phillies lose their division lead (or any Philadelphia sports team for that matter). Except my anxiety with the convention does not come with the players, but rather, with the coverage of the game. All any correspondent on MSNBC wants to talk about is Hillary Clinton and her hordes of dissidents, who, as Chuck Schumer put it in his response to one such interviewer, are, in reality, merely "outliers" in this group of generally very excited democrats. The msm's insistence on painting this narrative of tension within the party as more prescient than all evidence would lend a rational being to conclude is irresponsible and another reason to believe that this culture of 24 hour news is compromising the issues that are really of importance to the citizenry, to which it is indebted, for gross sensationalism. This I find to be a real shame as the real story lines present at the DNC are for more interesting and important to our nation than a supposed bitter cat-fight between the Clintons and the new Democratic Party leadership (although these two are not, as the msm would have you believe, mutually exclusive). Why can't they focus instead on the historic nature of Obama's candidacy? Or how crucial his policy plans could be to the very future of our democracy? Surely there are better questions one could come up with to ask Speaker Pelosi--a ground-breaking figure in her own right--after her opening remarks than 5 or 6 questions regarding the bruised feelings of the Clintons or of the rising mutiny of Senator Clinton's supporters. Everyone seems to have gotten over her loss except PUMA and MSNBC.

Please people, is it too much to ask to just do your job?