Four years ago, during the hight of the Swift Boating of John Kerry, when it was looking more and more likely we would suffer four more years of Bush/Cheney, I told my friends and family that I hoped George W. Bush gets re-elected.  In fact I said I would be almost happy if he did.

Why?  Because the man's first term was an atrocious, piss-on-the-Constitution mess, but for some unknown reason people still liked him.  A second term would just about guarantee his disgrace and earn him a place among the worst Presidents ever.  It is safe to say that the last four years have achieved that admirably.

More important that Bush's disgrace, however, was Setting the Stage.  The first Bush term and the 2004 campaign made it painfully clear that the majority of American's had come to accept Fear and Loathing in Washington as part and parcel with American Politics.  Along with ignorance, superstition, lies, corruption and character assassination.  America was not ready for better, because they were so drugged on worse.

There are those how say drug abusers will not seek help until they hit rock bottom.  There are those who say that's BS.  But it is safe to say that America had to hit a political rock bottom before coming to it's senses.  At least 52% of us.  After hitting bottom, "good enough" was not good enough.  We didn't settle for good enough, instead we got great.

And now, What If . . .

What if, during the next four years, America gets used to hearing an intelligent, thoughtful voice in the White House?

What if people listen to President Obama's speeches, press conferences, State of the Union addresses, etc, instead of turning them down or tuning them off?

What if we become accustomed to hearing the President talk about policy, in clear-headed, straightforward terms.  Without the sugar-coating, the deflections, and re-directions and Red Herrings?

What if we actually like being addressed as adults, by another adult, rather that by an over-privileged third-grader condescending to other third-graders?

I have heard it said that Americans do not want a President who makes them feel stupid.  They do not want a President who is smarter then them.  They want a President who is a on their level.  That is a crappy way to look at it, but the Bush years seem to support the hypothesis.  But Obama, while very intelligent, is humble.  He is non-threatening.  He can sound smart AND make people feel good about themselves, because he quietly insists that we are all in this together.  He makes all of us feel important.  We are all the President, he is just the one with the title.  That is why he is already a great leader, and why he will continue to be.  That is why, after eight years of Obama, Americans may actually elect ANOTHER smart wo/man to the office.  Hey, wouldn't THAT be great?

I voted last Friday in Missoula, Montana.  Voted for Obama, and if he doesn't win I may have to move to, I don't know, Switzerland maybe.  My girlfriend voted, too, for Obama, as well as the girl next to me, whom I'm pretty sure was trying to flirt with me, who practically had her ballet in my lap (I didn't mean to look, but, well, it was right there you know?).

Doing our part to bring the Blue Wave of Obama to Montana!

It's the honesty.  The good 'ol Straight Talk Express.  Like when, during the third debate, he questioned Joe Biden's foreign policy credential because Biden voted against the first Iraq war.  God damned right.  We all know the first Iraq war was necessary, as McCain pointed out, for the moral defense of poor Kuwait's . . .

. . . oil reserves.  Now, some people will point out that McCain was and is wrong about the second Iraq war, but that hardly matters since, as McCain says over and over, the Surge has been a huge success . . .

. . .at recovering some ground we've lost over the last few years.  Never mind that it's a Red Herring intended to distract us from the fact that we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place.  McCain is right, we need to be in Iraq now, because of all the Terrorists . . .

. . .that were not there before we invaded.  But  that is hardly the point.  They are there now, and we must defeat them.  Iraq is the central battleground in the war on Terror, everyone agrees about that . . .

. . . except for all the people who don't, who say the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central battle ground.  Like the people who are leading the war in Afghanistan.  But what do they know.  McCain said the battle for Afghanistan is over, and he should know . . .

. . . he was a POW, you know . . .

Why has no one called McCain out on his incessant use of the phrase "redistribution of wealth"?  Taking from the rich to give to the poor?  For the last 28 years we've lived in a redistribution system that takes from the poor and middle class and gives to the rich.  Isn't that what "trickle-down" economics is all about?  Isn't that what deregulation has accomplished -- American tax payers footing the bill for failed corporations, many of whom already received subsidies?  Barack needs to turn this around on the RNC, remind voters exactly which direction funds have been flowing, and the mess it has caused.

First Sarah Palin, and now John McCain, have stated that they are federalists, and both have tied that to increased State's Rights.  I say federalist, small "f", rather than Federalist, capital "F", for the obvious reason that the Federalist party has been defunct since the first half of the 19th Century.  Regardless, "federalist" has only one connotation that I'm aware of, the principles of the Federalist Party, the belief in a strong central government, as opposed to State's Rights.  Now, are they both that clueless?

Or is this the start of something new?  In the past, all new parties, or replacement parties as the case may be, started with high-profile politicians using the Word to describe themselves first - the Party came later.

So Barack is a terrorist because of a lose association to a <i>former</i> member of a <i>former</i> domestic terrorist organization.  Right.  Other than Barack's disinclination to wear a Flag pin (which is tacky anyway, so who can blame him) and a misinterpreted statement by Michelle about how this is the first time she's been proud of her country, their isn't much to stand on here.

McCain, however, is a Communist.  Now I'm not talking about early Marxism here.  I'm talking about communism as has been historically practiced; i.e. ruling by an elite few who also happen to funnel the national currency through their own doors.  Let's look at the facts.

1)  He spent five years in a communist prison.  That is far more significant than sitting on a Board with someone, and we all know about Stockholm Syndrome.

2)  He made friends with a guy who broadcast Communist propaganda into the prison.  Again, friends is more than "served on a board together."

3)  He has a terrible record of voting <i>against</i> our troops, particularly veterans benefits.

4)  He has made it abundantly clear that he thinks anyone who believes POWs may still be in SE Asia are idiots.  Going so far as to once raised his hand to a lady in a wheelchair, before thinking better of himself and simply pushing her wheelchair away.

5)  He aspires to be a dictator.

6)  The clincher is his economic policies.  What we see in communism in general is a flowing of currency from the working class into the hands of the government elite.  McCain supports policies that have allowed dollars to flow from the working class into the hands of the corporate elite (and their puppets, Washington polititians).  He even took part in an early and prominent example back in 1989.

I'm sure there are many more examples.  I'm also sure people are saying WTF?  McCain's a <i>Conservative</i>, he advocates <i>against</i> centralized goverenment!  But does he?  Where's the evidence, other than deregulationism that benifits his friends?  And, really, what better way to hide from McCarthy than to agree with everything he says?

In reference to DK's recent post, I want to highlight the part where McCain's foreign policy adviser said "it sorta speaks to the long experience he has had in the region -- in the most positive terms.'

"Most positive terms."  Really?  Do they want to go there?  I may be wrong, but according to the Rolling Stone article on the great hero, McCain was married at the time . . .

Maybe these are two separate times, can anyone verify the timeline?

With so much interest, on both sides of the isle, for the upcoming VP debate, everyone seems to have an opinion on how they'd like to see it play out.  Oddly enough, everyone seems to be saying the same thing: Biden can't be too rough on Palin, or he will come off looking like a jerk.  I respectfully disagree.  Somebody needs to shout, loudly, that the emperor has no clothes, and Biden is the guy to do it.  So long as the media (by not pointing out during an interview, for example, that she sounds like an idiot) and even Democrats (by saying Biden needs to treat her with kids gloves), continue to cast Palin as an equal, which she clearly is not, so long as this continues "undecideds", Independents and Republicans on the center-right, will continue to see her as a viable candidate and respect her.  Enough is enough.  It is time to end this game, and tonight is the perfect opportunity.

The question is, how?  I suggest Biden take his cue from comedians, and come out swinging . . .with a healthy dose of self-deprecation.  Biden is already a funny guy, and honest enough with himself to know that he has made mistakes, including some rather serious gaffs.  Highlight those, make some jokes at his own expense, be honest about his humanity, make it funny (and most importantly, natural), but back up the humor with serious examples of his abilities and policy.  Yeah, he's made some rather inane comments off-the-cuff, who hasn't?, but the man can speak competently on almost anything.  He’s not stupid, even though he occasionally says stupid things.

Starting off with a healthy dose of self-deprecation will accomplish two equally important goals:  1) it will help viewers to identify with him as a person, not just a candidate; in other words, it gets them on his side.  2) it sets the stage for the trouncing that is about to ensue.  Comedians know that self-deprecation lightens the mood to such an extent that you can get away with a lot without sounding in poor taste.  Calling Palin out on her crappy non-answers and sweeping generalizations, and pushing hard for specifics, will go over much easier with the audience if the audience sees him being rough on himself, first.

And he NEEDS to call her out.  Someone needs to put an end to the charade, and it needs to be very loud, and very public.  While Katie Couric is doing a great job surgically dismantling Palin, the surgery is so damn good, so subtle, that it leaves no scar.  Biden needs to leave a scar.  Palin needs to become “That Person” in High School.  You know, the one that everybody liked . . .right up until some embarrassing revelation or exposure, and after that their presence is poison.

We are not talking religion or politics here: Palin has not been in anyone's consciousness long enough to become indelible.  You trash a person’s religion they take it personally.  You trash their politics they take it personally.  You trash a secondary actor who has been in their consciousness for a few weeks . . . they forget they ever even liked Sarah Palin.  If Palin puts in a truly embarrassing performance and Biden lets that slide, people will forget the terrible performance.  But if he calls people’s attention to just how miserable she is, they will see the truth in that and subtly, over the course of a few days or maybe weeks, incorporate that truth as their own, and forget they ever saw her as a viable candidate.

So, how does Joe Biden pull this off?  Easy: just be himself.