The "sex education" ad is going to destroy somebody's campaign.  If Obama responds forcefully, the destroyed campaign will be McCain's.  Because McCain's ad is as disgusting as they get, and I just don't see how most Americans will go for that filth once they hear the truth.  However, if Obama doesn't hit back, and hit back hard, it will be his campaign that is destroyed.

Throw the ad right back in McCain's face.  Say Obama is trying to protect our children from pedophiles and as a father of two he is particularly concerned about teaching kids how to spot someone who has intentions of doing something bad to them.  I think just about 99.9% of Americans are on Obama's side on this one.  And McCain-- you're a scumbag. (That's optional for the ad, but some variation on that word is recommended).

But don't just play defense.  Put out an ad that shows McCain saying "Good question" after a Republican woman asked him "How do we beat the b*tch?" in reference to Hillary Clinton.  Show the joke he made about Chelsea Clinton and Janet Reno.  The "c**t" reference might be a bit much for TV-- but once America sees how McCain has talked about women in the past (the very recent past), they'll dig around for more examples.  And more examples they will find.  Jokes about rape, for instance.

Only one thing is off-limits for Democrats: lies.  Republicans have no problem lying in order to win an election.  And I guess a lot of Americans don't care.  But there has to be a reason for winning other than winning.  So, for the sake of America's future, and to end the deceitful and dirty right-wingers' strangehold on our political narratives: hit as hard as you can before they hit you.

So, Ad #3: Show New Orleans drowning.  That's Bush-McCain.  Show Abramoff being hauled off to jail.  That's Bush-McCain.  Show the devestation in Iraq.  That's Bush-McCain.  Show the gas prices at the pump.  That's Bush-McCain.  Show the homeless vets on the street.  That's Bush-McCain.  Show Karl Rove's face.  That's Bush-McCain.  Every awful image you can think of from the past eight years of Republican rule-- show it.  And if you're the 25% who think Bush is doing a heckuva job, McCain's your man.  That's where this election has to be by mid-October.  Bush-McCain.

John McCain is a fighter who fights and he'll keep on fighting, he'll fight and fight, just as he as kept on fighting the words on that radical extremist contraption called the Teleprompter.  Last night the Teleprompter was especially evil as it added phrases and subtracted commas, but McCain fought back:

Praising his new running mate, McCain said:

"She's helped run a small business, worked with her hands and nose,"  Pause.  Grin. 

Nose?  Palin has worked with her hands and nose?  Is this another coded message that appeals to the far-right? 

"And knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries."

Oh, *knows*.  Not nose.

Inspired by McCain's constant need to fight, I fought the urge to keep watching this snooze-fest and turned off my TV.

Seeing how most Americans are self-reliant and don't need the government's help and seeing how the private sector takes care of most needs (purely communist sentiments, I know) why would we hire a CEO?  We already have CEO's.  What we need is someone to inspire America the community to come together and achieve great things.  Would a CEO have won the Civil War?  Would a CEO have signed the civil rights movement into law?  High schools, churches, the armed services-- these aren't divisions of AmericaCorp.  They're all part of the community that, when we put it first, we put our country first, instead of Big Oil and the defense industry lobbyists.   If you think "community organizer" is the punchline to a joke, you're a joke.

I've spent the past few days saying Sarah Palin is probably a smart, tough, articulate person and could very well give an excellent speech.  As unqualified as she is to be Vice-President, as nauseous as her politics are, and questionable her honesty, I thought she might look convincing on television.  Then she walked on stage in St. Paul last night.

Palin isn't ready for prime time.  She left me wondering why McCain didn't choose the founder of eBay, the ex-CEO of Hewlitt-Packard or even the governor of Hawaii.  They gave credible speeches and each delivered her message with authority.

Or why didn't McCain choose Giuliani?  He lied, he sneered, he was about as mean as anybody I've heard-- but he gave a pretty good speech.  He had the crowd in the palm of his hand.  Palin was smaller than the moment, and the adoring crowd swept her along rather than the other way around.  She was mean enough in her zingers-- but it was merely a bratty, annoying sort of meannness, not the direct hits that Giuliani delivered.  Clearly, the city-slicker celebrity ex-mayor of cosmopolitan, fashionable New York City does not have a "soulmate" in the ex-mayor of Wasilla (Pop: 9,000, less or lesser).

Fifteen minutes into Palin's speech, I wondered if she had anything to say other than introducing us to her family-- whose business we ought to stay out of completely.  I thought it was all wrong.  We knew Palin was a "hockey mom" with conservative values-- America needs to know if she's ready to tackle the problems of a struggling economy and neverending war.  Decidedly unstateswomanlike.

Still, I tried my best to avoid jumping to conclusions about right-wingers finally getting their wish-- a Fox News anchorwoman in the White House.  "SportsCenter" from the VP's mansion.  She's a governor.  She has accomplishments.  But what Vice-Presidential nominee thinks it's appropriate to blow a little kiss to the P.O.W. in the front row?

That's when it hit me: the bizarre, black-is-white, day-is-night world of Bush-Cheney continues, where reality is what you say it is.  The crowd loved her; she got "angry leftist" Tom Brokaw's stamp of approval.  And she has pissed off "the liberal blogosphere."  We're right back in Karl Rove's comfort zone.  An election about insults, realities and counter-realities.  Your millions in marketing versus mine.  Kay Bailey Hutchison-- that's a choice that would have made sense.  But this election isn't supposed to make sense.

Nevertheless, I'll still say it, even if it won't matter one bit: last night Sarah Palin, whatever qualities she may have, gave a dreadful performance.

Obama was supposed to be the "roll of the dice."  He was the "exotic" choice.  Great speaker, charismatic, he has tapped into America's hunger for change-- but should voters take a chance?  The media had bought into this narrative.  The polls were close.

Then McCain chose Palin.  Suddenly the GOP ticket looks riskier and much more "exotic" than Obama-Biden.  A 72 year old with a history of melanoma and someone who was mayor of a town of less than 9000 residents only two years ago.  Troopergate, Alaska Independence Party, trying to fire the librarian who wouldn't help her ban certain library books, and familial issues that don't fit the Ward & June Cleaver paradigm promoted by the GOP (until their behavior contradicts this image, then it's strictly a private matter).

Palin may be smart and tough and she could give a great speech tonight.  If it's even just OK the media will praise it to the high heavens.  But as McCain tries to win over the far-right with his extremely pro-life, pro-NRA, pro-drilling, anti-gay marriage pick , he's losing the confidence of the "mushy middle," the voters who maybe saw him as a safer, more responsible choice than Obama.  I have uncles who are as conservative as Palin is, but they aren't ready to be President either.

Did Kay Bailey Hutchison turn McCain down-- or Karl Rove override that choice too?  McCain-Hutchison would have reassured voters and won immense media acclaim.  Now they know what many knew already: all along McCain was the actual gimmicky candidate, the roll of the dice.  Never inspirational in this election year, McCain no longer even inspires confidence.

Will Joe Biden's toughness as a debater be nullified by McCain's choice of Palin?  To give a Bidenesque answer that is remarkable in its brevity:

No.

Well, maybe I should explain.  In the primaries, when Hillary Clinton was the only woman standing on the stage and was surrounded by male candidates, aggressive attacks on her looked mean, even sexist.  But in the primaries you are the only candidate.  You don't have a running mate.  You aren't the Vice-Presidential candidate.  So any criticism is aimed at you and you alone.

In the general election, Biden can spend the entire debate going after McCain, not Palin.  His attacks won't be against her.  And her defense of her candidate is where she could stumble and show her inexperience.  She probably won't get watery-eyed with a nervous attempt at a smile like Romney would have.  But it's hard to defend a candidate when you don't know where he stands.

  

Will Joe Biden's toughness as a debater be nullified by McCain's choice of Palin?  To give a Bidenesque answer that is remarkable in its brevity:

No.

Well, maybe I should explain.  In the primaries, when Hillary Clinton was the only woman standing on the stage and was surrounded by male candidates, aggressive attacks on her looked mean, even sexist.  But in the primaries you are the only candidate.  You don't have a running mate.  You aren't the Vice-Presidential candidate.  So any criticism is aimed at you and you alone.

In the general election, Biden can spend the entire debate going after McCain, not Palin.  His attacks won't be against her.  And her defense of her candidate is where she could stumble and show her inexperience.  She probably won't get watery-eyed with a nervous attempt at a smile like Romney would have.  But it's hard to defend a candidate when you don't know where he stands.

  

Barack Obama is a clutch hitter.  On days one, two and three the Democrats loaded the bases for him with hit speeches by Michelle, Hillary and Joe.  But would Obama leave those opportunities to score with the American voters stranded in memories of the previous evenings?  No-- he hit it out of the park.

And the park was a football stadium.  Again, not afraid of failure but willing to take chances, Obama was right in choosing Mile High Stadium as the site of his acceptance speech.  It was breathtaking.  All those people, so diverse yet so unified in the moment.  It looked like America. 

As for the columns-- Republicans might as well be wondering why the Yankees are going to play in an empty stadium next year where the whole field is dirt and a bulldozer covers home plate.  *The backdrop wasn't finished being built*.

And the speech-- the speech leaves me speechless.

And we now know Obama was right in choosing Joe Biden.  They look great together, like winners, especially with both families standing on the stage.  The Ruth-Gehrig one-two punch of presidential politics, though Jackie Robinson and Hank Aaron mostly come to mind.

Obama is at his best in pressure situations: his VP pick, the venue for his acceptance speech, the speech itself, and the entire tone of the convention.  Like most great players in team sports, Obama made everyone around him better-- and couldn't have done it without them.  Gore, Richardson, Casey, Kerry, and so many others also gave the best performances of their careers.

End of baseball metaphors-- beginning of serious hard work in changing America and putting Barack Obama in the White House.

If you're the nominee of the Democratic or Republican party, you're a celebrity.  Ronald Reagan once appeared in a movie with Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart (the title was "Dark Victory" which might be somewhat ironic).  John Kennedy's inaugural ball was hosted by Frank Sinatra.  And cynical, sneering Republicans should recall that only a couple years ago glossy photos of George W. Bush glancing out the window of Air Force One were a hot item among his "fans."  Remember Peggy Noonan gushing over him?  Standing in front of a few Greek columns on a football field in Denver can't compare with the audacity of dressing up in a flight suit and standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier in front of a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished."  So if McCain the maverick wants to break with the tradition of being treated, as his party's nominee, like an A-list celebrity, maybe he should cancel the plans for the expensive stage, bright lights, and fancy backdrop and just give a simple acceptance speech from the front porch of his home in Minneapolis.  He does own a house there too, doesn't he?  

Back in 2006 Mark Warner was my top choice to be the Democratic nominee.  Being from Virginia, he would solve that perceived "middle America" problem that Kerry and Gore had.  Being an excellent public speaker-- another Kerry/Gore problem solved.  And being a centrist who doesn't come across as wishy-washy, someone known for bipartisanship and unity-- I thought the country would love him.  Well, the Virginia part of the country might, but the rest probably will never know what a Mark Warner presidential campaign could have been.  It was Barack Obama's time instead.  And even last night, after a speech that left me wondering what it would have been like if Mark Warner was about to be nominated in Denver, Hillary Clinton came out and delivered one of the most electrifying speeches I've ever seen. I can hardly remember anything that Warner said.  His keynote address should have been his Obama 2004 moment.  Instead, during his speech the networks were too busy "analyzing" what Hillary had to say next, and after her speech voters were too busy thinking about what she had just said.  I only hope the almost famous Mark Warner is most definitely soon known as "Senator Warner."