For a moment, let's forget about Troopergate, Babygate, Vettinggate, Lawyering-up-gate, and any of the other "gates" that will undoubtedly rain down upon us before I finish typing this entry.

I've watched a bit of the coverage of McCain's choice of Palin as his VP candidate, and one question has consistently stumped GOP talking heads:

Is Palin the most qualified person (note: not "woman") available to John McCain?  Is this the best candidate the GOP has to offer?

I've seen this question asked in a number of ways, and each time the response has been a mixed bag of references to executive experience and "a proud mother."  I am still waiting for someone in the GOP to come out, guns blazing, yelling "Sarah Palin is the most qualified person to be John McCain's VP candidate, and you can go to hell if you think otherwise!" 

I am reminded of the (short) period of time when Harriet Miers was nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court.  Folks in the GOP, who were quick to defend the President's choices, were quick to point out that Miers was a good person, a bright person, and in theory capable of doing the job nominated for.  But no one every suggested that she was the best able to do the job put before her.  There were smiles, words of support and encouragement, and a willingness to "go through with it," but deep down, folks -- even supporters -- seemed to have a sense that she was the wrong person for the job.

We're talking about a woman who has already been selected as McCain's running mate, and GOP spokespeople and operatives quite frankly seem unable to say the words "most qualified" when it comes to Palin.

Again, this has nothing to do with her womanness, her daughter, whether she fearlessly led the Alaskan National Guard troops.  It is just a very simple question.

Is this person really the best the GOP has to offer?

It is nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion about an object that is not clearly defined.  When dueling parties are able to attach their own subjective definitions to fundamental vocabulary of a debate, the conversation is doomed for failure.

And that is why I ask this question: What exactly is 'The Race Card'?  We know we're not supposed to "play" it.  We know it's inherently bad and should be avoided by any self-respecting politician.  We know it's a "game-changer." 

But in spite of that, we don't seem to know what it is.

John McCain's campaign and a not-insignificant portion of the Republican Party seems to believe that The Race Card consists of any reference -- implied or otherwise -- to the issue of race in the campaign. 

Is talking about The Race Card playing The Race Card? 

Is talking about racial issues playing The Race Card?

Is talking about the historical dominance of white Christian male presidential candidates playing The Race Card?

It seems to be that we ought to be able to have more complex conversations about crucial issues like race, gender, and economic issues in this country.  We (and the media, of course) do ourselves a great disservice when we speak in terms of Cards and not in terms of facts available to us.  We spend more time talk about terms that we cannot define (such as 'The Race Card') than we do about the issues that the 'Card' implicitly represents.

Before we start making accusations of who played which card when, we should do ourselves (and our discourse) a favor and define the terms we're using.  Using a catch-all term is intellectual lazy and ultimately, confusing for those folks participating in a meaningful debate.

Much digital ink has been spilled over the reasons for Obama's steadily declining monthly donation totals.  I've seen a number of solid explanations on TPM (candidate fatigue, economy, etc.) , but nothing I have read has touched on the reason why I'm no longer giving to Obama: Confidence in Obama as a candidate (especially against McCain) and the very serious need for funds in other (presumably closer) Senate and House races.

I try to give once per month, between $25-50.  I've been doing this for many months consecutively now, each time happily donating to Obama.  However, two weeks ago I stopped to chat with a DNC volunteer while walking around DC.  By the time I left the conversation, I decided that my money is probably more valuable in a close race.  (Call me crazy, but I don't think that the Presidential race is going to be all that close.)  I had always associated donating to Obama with donating to the Democratic Party, but that's really not the case (except -- and of course I understand this is very important -- to the extent that Obama brings people to the polls with blue blinders).

Electing Obama is by far the most important thing our country can do in November, but when it comes down to it, I feel my $25 is better donated to ActBlue or in targeted races.  I think we need to get as many progressive Democrats into the three branches of government (and the Vice Presidency!) as possible and to me, it's just not clear that donating to Obama best serves that particular goal. 

At this rate, Obama probably isn't getting any more of my money, but I don't think that's such a bad thing.  I've moved on to Phase II.