The Republican Problem

Ok, I'm a Democrat. No getting around it. Always have been. Most of the time the token Democrat among my friends in Fairfield County, Connecticut.

I have gamely defended Democrats and Democratic positions. For the first few years of this new century, it was tough. Rational argument was not something Republicans were interested in. I can't tell you how many times I responded to the post 9/11 question: "Aren't you glad Al Gore isn't President now?" with , "No, I'd prefer the guy who's sat in the war room for 8 years and has extensive relationships with foreign leaders, to a 1 1/2 term governor from Texas who's never been to Europe in his adult life." That, of course, was met with a pitying shake of the head.

But now the tables have turned. Now, Republicans are shaking their heads, but for a different reason: they're lost.

So, my Republican friends, as the soul searching begins, and the GOP attempts to rehabilitate the Republican 'brand', here are some thoughts to help you get it done.

For my entire life, Republicanism has always meant two things: wedge politics and moral unitarianism. Of course, these two go hand in hand--'if you don't look, think and behave like us, you're not really 'one of us'. In the 50's it was McCarthyism; in the 60's and 70's it was Nixon's enemies of state lists and 'southern strategy' of coded racial politics; in the 80's, more racial politics (Reagan in Mississippi, 'I believe in states rights', Bush with Willie Horton); in the 90's, the rise of the 'values voters'; finally, in 2000, the 'values' President.

In all of these eras, key Republican players sought to divide Americans and impose a uniformity of thought and moral conduct. And the more vitriolic still continue to do that today--Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh.

The problem with this approach is that it betrays the idealistic underpinnings of the American experiment. This country was founded on permission to disagree--about politics, about religion, about governance, about personal conduct. The litmus test was simply 'Don't hurt others, contribute to the common good, pay your taxes, obey laws-- and you'll be left alone.

So if you Republicans want to make a comeback, start by embracing that ideal. Wherever you think America sits now politically, center right or center left, it sits squarely on that ideal. We're all tired of being divided and derided for being different.

Second, and almost axiomatically, quit fighting the universal truth that we are all interconnected. Domestically, that means recognizing that a person's success is never simply the product of their own industry, but comes with an assist from a society that provides pathways and resources to success. It also recognizes that what happens to people of lesser circumstance affects people of greater circumstance. This is not socialism, it is common sense. Internationally, it means that different countries who deal with us have to reconcile their own needs as well as ours. It also means looking for areas of common interest not just unilateral interest. This doesn't mean that we have to embrace the WTO, it just means that we have to actually discuss things with other nations in a meaningful way before we act.

Third, stop the hypocricy. Don't rail on about the 'east coast elite' when your standard bearer went to Andover, Yale and Harvard. Stop opposing affirmative action when you know he wouldn't have been admitted to Andover, Yale and Harvard if it hadn't been for his family legacy. Quit the outrage over gay marriage threatening the 'sanctity of marriage' when your party has more gay legislators and more adulters than the other side. Simmer down about profligate spending, at least until you've had that discussion with Ted Stevens. Ms. Palin, quit talking about the evils of socialism when your state government distributes more federal money and big business money to its citizens than any other. And if you believe that the Ten Commandments should be posted on the wall of a government building, then make sure you're willing to have passages from the Koran up there as well. If you want to ban legal abortion, encourage contraception. If you didn't like Saddam Hussein's genocidal tendencies, speak up about the Janjaweeds in Darfur. No one likes convenient moral outrage.

Finally, understand that government needs smart, educated, knowledgable people who know what they're doing. The blatant incompetence of the past 8 years has been the number one contributor to your calamitous political meltdown. Appointments based on loyalty or payback is, literally, a killer. Ignoring dissenting expert advice is a recipe for disaster. Refusing to compromise won't change the tone in Washington. Competent politicians don't do these things. So if you love Sarah Palin, tell her to pick up a briefing book before 2012. We've seen her type before and we won't stand for it again unless she comes armed with some real knowledge of history, foreign affairs, government and aw, heck, maybe even a passing understanding of the Constitution.

Once you've addressed these four issues, the country will be happy to listen to solid, fact based arguments that form the core of the conservative approach: lower taxes, reduced Federal beaurocracy and a strong military. This country will always resist moralistic arguments about personal behavior, but frame an issue the right way. Say you don't want to ban legal abortion, say you want to create a world where women don't have to face that awful decision. Give us empirical evidence that school vouchers actually incentivise us to create better public schools.

The country will listen. It is a country in the center. But it's tired of the divisive, moralistic, hypocritical, incompetent brand you've served up the past 8 years.

You must be tired of it, too.

How can the GOP rehabilitate itself? Comment on this or anything else by hitting the 'comments' button, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

What We Know

Now that 52% of American voters elected Barack Hussein Obama as the 44th President of the United States, here are a few things we know:

The American people have the sense to come out of the rain. After 8 years of a slim Republican plurality taking the country to dangerous places financially, militarily, constitutionally and ethically, Americans said "Enough. Let's give someone else a shot."

Barack Obama knows what he's doing. Resisting the many calls to name Hillary Clinton as his running mate, to 'get tougher' (more negative) and to change his campaign strategy, he did it his way and won. In the most resounding Democratic victory since Lyndon Johnson.

Obama Campaign Director David Plouffe knows what he's doing. The architect of the single greatest campaign organization in U. S. political history.

Howard Dean knows what he's doing. He pioneered Internet fundraising and voter communication, demanded a 50 state strategy and made the Democratic Party relevant again.

The Republicans have a lot of work to do. They are not the party of mainstream America.

Lee Atwater is really dead. Though he died a while back, the racist, fearmongering politics he perfected (and repudiated on his deathbed), finally died as well. Personal, negative attacks just didn't work in this election. If you don't believe me, ask Hillary and Mac.

The politics of the Vietnam War and the politics of racial victimization are dead. Rumsfeld, Cheney and McCain can now fight the Vietnam War in their minds and not in our political agenda. Likewise, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright can vent about race victimization amongst themselves. It's time to move on.

Words matter again. The use of words as powerful tools make a welcome comeback after 8 years. Most ironic line in Obama's victory speech? Calling us to move past the 'immaturity' of partisan politics. The young President elect, not the 72 year old candidate or the 61 year old sitting president, telling us to grow up. Love it.

Intelligence matters again. While idiocy sought to gain a foothold in the form of Joe the Plumber, Americans decided to give the tough job of presiding over a country in crisis to a smart guy. Now we can all tell our kids that good grades matter--and mean it.

Politics matters again. People are engaged--and not just us political junkies. Lots of people.

What a great thing.

And one final thing: Missouri's not the infallible bellweather of presidential elections any more. It voted for McCain. Apparently, things are subject to change these days.

What else do we know from this election? Comment by hitting the 'comments' button below, by passing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Our Turn

It's the last day of the 2008 Presidential election. Tomorrow it will be our turn to decide where our country goes in the next four years.

It has been an extraordinary race for so many reasons: the first serious bid by a female candidate; the most successful bid by an African-American candidate; the money--over 1.1 biiiillllion dolllars! raised (and spent) by both candidates; and an economic meltdown in the middle of it all.

On either side of the aisle there were amazing developments. Democrats, for example, implemented Howard Dean's 50 state strategy to great effect. Astonishingly, Republicans found a new female right wing standard bearer not named Ann Coulter.

After 116 blogs, in which I've tried to stay as non partisan as possible (though I certainly failed on several occasions), I'm going to give you my endorsement.

I'm going to vote for Barack Obama.

Here are some of the reasons. First of all, though my conservative friends are convinced that he will be a classic tax and spend Big Government Democrat, I'm not. While it's true that we need the federal government to be more active in this economic crisis, I believe that Obama will be careful to address the needs of the free market. I base that in part on the fact that he has economic advisers from both sides of the aisle, (Warren Buffet and Paul Volker are just two names that come to mind). His pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts is not radical socialist ideology. Most responsible economists and industry players like Robert Rubin all agree that going back to Clinton tax rates will not be onerous and are absolutely neccessary to get some financial footing. Obama also believes in 'pay as you go', a centrist budget philosophy if there ever was one.

On foreign policy, Barack Obama will not be as conciliatory to our enemies as conservatives think. Though he has stated that he believes in negotiation, he has actually out-hawked John McCain on the issue of military incursions into Pakistan. I found it ironic that McCain repeatedly hammered Obama on this policy even though Obama's stance has been identical to the Bush administration's current strategy.

Finally, I look to recent presidential campaign history as a barometer of effectiveness. The facts reveal this truism: how a candidate campaigns is how he governs. Ronald Reagan mixed a sunny optimism with a firm hand in his campaign. That was the MO in his administration. Bill Clinton prosecuted a tenacious campaign that fought back from continual personal drama. Same as his two terms. George Bush seemed like a great guy on the trail--until he started to lose to McCain in 2000 and then he let his cutthroat surrogates sling their unscrupulous dirt. No surprise then, that the guy who 'wanted to change the tone in Washington' would become the most polarizing President since Nixon.

Which brings us to McCain and Obama. What we've seen in 2008, as we saw in 2000, is a McCain who lost his way. In South Carolina in 2000, he pandered to voters on the question of the confederate flag flying atop the statehouse, stating that it was a 'states' rights issue'. He later regretted that stance. In 2008, he abandoned his happy warrior persona and let himself be 'handled' by former Bush operatives--with disastrous results. They transformed him from a center right conservative to a negative right wing nut. He also ran a sloppy, undisciplined, off- message campaign that had to reshuffle staff twice. His scatter shot reaction to the economic crisis was downright scary. I'm afraid that's what we're going to get in his administration.

Barack Obama? He has presided over the greatest presidential campaign organization ever. They've set fundraising records, on-the-ground volunteer records and voter registration records. He set out a long term 50 state strategy and stuck to it. When things got tough on the trail, he responded coolly and without rancor. His message has been disciplined, his focus singular and when he wasn't sure what to do, he asked a bunch of experts. This is what I believe we can expect from an Obama presidency.

So that's how I see it. But however you see it, please VOTE! Our republican form of government is not a spectator sport. Get out there, speak your mind and we'll see what happens.

Thanks for reading these many months.

If you'd like to comment hit the 'comments' button below, bypass the Google sing up and hit the anonymous or nickname button.

Wrappin' it up with Joe, O, Hill and Sarah

Well, it's time to wrap this baby up. After a year of blogging and reading and talking we're three days away from electing a new POTUS.

I'm going to present a few random thoughts about the election's twists and turns and then on Monday I'll present my official endorsement.

Joe the Plumber

I really hate to sound like an East Coast elitist, but I've got to say it: Joe is everything that's wrong with America right now.

First of all, he's a fraud. He says he's a plumber, when he actually is not a licensed plumber in Ohio. He told Barack Obama that he was thinking of buying his plumbing business and wanted to know if his taxes would go up (because Obama's tax plan would restore the Clinton tax rates for those individuals and businesses making more than $250,000.) The truth is, Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is about as close to buying his plumbing business as I am to buying that Gulfstream 5 I've been coveting. He has a tax lien on his house--which would be the first impediment to buying a business. He makes about $40,000, which would be another. And the banks aren't lending people money, which would also get in the way of his upward mobility.

But that hasn't stopped the McCain campaign--or the conservative punditry, from making Joe the new Joan--as in Arc; as in being sacrificed on the stake for the common man. As in declaring that Obama's tax plan would be a type of 'socialism'.

But what has been fascinating--and sad--is the way in which the country has jumped on this bandwagon. Joe now has a publicist! He has offers to be a part of the McCain admnistration. He wants to turn his celebrity into a country music career. He might get to do it.

The fact is, we, as a nation, have abandonded all regard for knowledge, for expertise, for the truth. Those are the obfuscative (look it up, people) tools of the elite. Fox News's Megan Kelly, whom I actually like, became incensed when it was pointed out that Joe wasn't who he said he was, that his name was really Samuel etc. "What does that matter?!!", she shrieked several times. And this is a journalist who is asking why the facts should get in the way of a good story.

Apparently, we want to be reassured that it's ok to be average. If that means canonizing someone who asks a disingenuous question and doesn't even listen to the answer, we'll do it if he helps us make a negative point about something. If that means marveling at a person who can get important people to regard him with respect even though he doesn't know what 's good for him, no problem-- (if Obama is elected Joe will recieve a tax cut). If he wants to talk about things of which he has no clue (Joe, could you tell us what 'socialism' really is?), we won't call him on it. In fact, we'll give him a national platfom.

Glorifying the mediocre because they remind us of us, is not how we move forward as a country.

Hillary, Obama and Sarah

Ok, it's gotta be personal. At first, I figured that Obama didn't choose Hillary as a running mate because he couldn't make the case for real change with her strapped to his ankles like a ball and chain. But with the twists and turns of the economy shifting the tenor of the campaign to steady stewardship and a break from Bush policies, she would have represented that change as much as Obama. And as I look at what Obama has asked of Joe Biden, it's clear that Hillary could have done a much better job as a running mate. Plus, the only thing that could snatch victory from Obama is low support from those blue-collar women in Pennsylvania. Yep, the same women who all voted for Hillary.

Check out this poll. Bottom line is that 1 out 7 voters are undecided. And 4 out 10 of those undecideds voted for...guess who? Yup. Hillary. So, everyone who kept saying that Obama and Hillary would be a dream team were right. With her on the ballot, this election would be over. Biggest landslide since LBJ. More than 50% of the vote. A true mandate. Without her, it's still anyone's game.

So now, I've concluded that Obama's Veep choice was personal. He doesn't like Hillary. And he's lucky she's being a mensch. She has been on the hustings in support of Obama more than 65 times since the convention. That's more than any vanquished primary opponent in support of the victor in US political history. So if you're an Obama supporter, thank Hillary Clinton if he wins. And you better hope he can survive the one major misstep in his campaign.

And it's a misstep for another reason if you're Democrat. With no Hillary on the ticket, guess who walked through that open feminist door in national politics? You betcha. Sarah Palin. While it's true that the VP pick on a losing ticket doesn't often have a great political career (Geraldine Ferraro, John Edwards and Dan Quayle come to mind), she could be different. And she could be the right wing thorn in Democrats' sides for the next two decades.

And you know who she'll be representin'. Good ol' Joe the Plumber and all those other folks that want to have their 15 minutes of fame--without knowing anything.

We'll see how it shakes out. But Obama may have some serious 'splainin' to do if it doesn't go his way. And if it doesn't go his way, somewhere the Clintons'll be saying--'told you so'.

Comment on any of this by hitting the'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Betcha By Golly Wow

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations. As we read the analyses of the Vice Presidential debate, the consensus is that Sarah Palin turned in a great performance because she didn't respond to questions with silence or jibberish. Well, complete jibberish. Because if you look at the transcript of what she said, you will see a great deal of jibberish, or Sarahspeak, as we like to call it. Let's go to the video tape.

"It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street (Or maybe the other way around?)

"And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the Gen. Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq." (That's not English.)

"And Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there, also, still in these waning days of the Bush administration, trying to forge that peace, and that needs to be done, and that will be top of an agenda item, also, under a McCain-Palin administration." (Still waiting for a transitive verb.)

"Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." (Alright, forget the English. How about a basic grasp of the Constitution?)

I could go on and on. The point is, there has to be more to a political leader than the ability to seem just like us. It shouldn't be who can say 'betcha by golly wow' better. And that's what we're dealing with in Sarah Palin.

The question everyone, regardless of political ideology, (that means, you David Brooks and Pat Buchanan) should ask themselves after last night's debate is: if the President were out of the country, and we were hit by a terrorist attack, who would you want to step in and lead at that moment. Sarah Palin? Or Joe Biden?

Let's be honest. It's not even close. Joe Biden knows what he's talking about. You may not like him. He's not perfect. But he certainly acquitted himself in the only way he could last night. He was respectful of Palin. He never corrected her mistakes (McCiernan instead of McClellan, for example). He never showed her up. He never lost his cool. And he didn't make any gaffes. Plus, if everyone wants to be honest and not partisan, he had the moment of the night when said that as a one time single Dad, he knew the pain average Americans were going through.

As for Palin, we know she has strengths. As a hockey mom, I'd love to have her kid on my kid's team. (Although I know a lot of mothers who hate seeing 8 year old Piper toting around Palin's infant). As the mayor of a small town, I guess she was wonderful--although she did stick the residents with a load of debt from the building of a new hockey rink. As a governor of a culturally outlier state, with a population the size of Memphis, TN, which receives virtually all its revenue from two sources, (oil and the federal government), she seems to be doing a great job.

But we're talking about a potential POTUS. So why are we holding her to the standard of "Just don't embarass yourself"?

I'm sorry, we have all gone mad.

And speaking of that, Gwen Ifill was awful. Clearly the questions of her impartiality affected her performance. She never insisted that Palin actually answer a question posed and she never asked the obvious questions that are important in a VP discussion. Such as: "If Roe v Wade were struck down and the Senate rewrote the law to outlaw abortion in every case, no exceptions, and it was a tie vote, would you cast the deciding vote to make that bill the law of the land?"

The questions all lent themselves to pre-recorded answers, which obviously worked in Palin's favor. And one last question: when I was growing up, the GOP was the party of law and order, follow the rules, respect institutions. How is it that now a Republican is applauded for openly defying protocol as Palin did when she said, "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also. " Actually, re-reading this, it doesn't make sense, either. Forget it.

The fact is, if you thought she didn't embarass herself you were right. If you thought she was kind of appealing and spunky, you're right again. If you thought she didn't bury the McCain campaign once and for all, correct once more.

But if you think that makes her qualified to be Vice President, please...think again.

Do you feel good about Sarah Palin as a potential POTUS after last night's debate and why? Talk about this or anything else by hitting the 'comments' button below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Interesting Times

So, really, what happened? Why did this bailout bill fail when it's clear so much is on the line? Simple: Today's Washington has transformed politics from the art of the possible to 5th period in Middle School.

Let's examine each of the players.

Barack Obama
You can love him or hate him, but the fact is, he's right most of the time. When John McCain called on him to drop everything and help lawmakers craft a deal, Obama cautioned that Presidential politics might not help the process. Turns out, he was right. Is he to blame for the bill not passing? Of course not. John McCain sounds like an irrational 7th grader, blaming the quiet kid for his F. Could Obama have been more helpful? Absolutely. He should have galvanized more Democratic support as the leader of his party. Did he seek political cover? Yes. But this is the way he plays politics. The fact is, his measured reponse to this crisis will be more helpful to him than McCain's flailing.

JOHN MCCAIN
Can Mac be blamed for killing this bill? No. Did he help the proceedings in any way? Doubtful. His camp says he garnered 61 GOP votes for the bill that weren't originally there. We'd like to get independent verification of that. On the other hand, McCain may have killed himself.
Starting with his repeated pronouncements that the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong', he showed a fatal misunderstanding of the situation. Then, his obviously diversionary 'Hail Mary' tactic to 'suspend' his campaign, actually put more focus on his shortcomings as a responsible economic steward. And the hits just kept on coming. He prematurely took credit for assuring passage of the bill yesterday. And when the bill failed, he inexplicably blamed Obama. Even though the Republicans couldn't muster the neccessary 45 votes to put the bill over the top! At some point, you have to have some shame.

House Democrats
We'll never know exactly what went on behind closed doors, but it seemed that the Dems did what they could to assure passage of the bill. They compromised on several issues that were important to them, such as bankruptcy relief for average Americans, to get this done. They also fought for safeguards that were important for the American people, like a return on investment provision that would make sure future profits would flow back into taxpayers pockets. They guaranteed 140 votes, which gave some of their members cover to vote 'no' on the bill. They delivered on those 140. Is it fun to work with Barney Frank if you're a Republican? Probably not. But Chris Dodd is a straight shooter and they tried to address as many GOP concerns as possible.

House Republicans
Obviously, most of the blame falls here. They reneged on their pledge to deliver 75 votes, which would have provided political cover for most of their members who were under constituent pressure to vote no. They ignored the enormity of the crisis in the face of stubborn ideology that was not germane to this bill. They also hid behind the lame excuse that Nancy Pelosi's speech forced them to vote no, putting the country on the brink of economic collapse. Back to middle school.

Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi had an historic opportunity to singlehandedly reverse the 'tone in Washington'. She failed miserably. While her speech can't be blamed for failure of passage, it was unneccessary. Period. And it was the exact wrong time to say 'Naa, naa, naa, naa.' Save it for after school. An epic lapse of leadership.

Secretary Paulson
A good money man perhaps, but politically tone deaf. You can't present a 2 1/2 page piece of legislation, the equivalent a writing a contract on a diner napkin, that gives you unfettered power
over $700 billion. And then you absolutely can't fight the peoples' representatives on the issue of executive compensation. That started things off on the wrong foot and they never fully recovered.

The Bill
It was a flawed bill, no doubt. Hastily conceived and written. Other alternatives should have been given more consideration. But it's hard to create an emergency piece of legislation that has been thoroughly vetted and edited.

The American People
We live in a representative republic, not in a true democracy. We rely on elected officials who represent us to make governance decisions that are in our best interests. We supposedly elect these officials because they show an ability to work with others, to understand complex issues and to make calm, sound judgements. We also vote for them because their governing philosophy aligns with ours. This system was devised by the Founding Fathers because the average citizen cannot have the comprehensive grasp of issues and mechanisms that come with governing a complex country. This financial crisis is a perfect example. Most people cannot possibly know the intracies of credit default swaps, let alone the far reaching consequences of a credit crunch. Especially in this day and age, when the majority of Americans don't even read newspapers. So when constituents simplify this amazingly intricate situation into a Wall St. vs Main St. argument and threaten their congresspeople, it becomes the inmates running the asylum. I'm sorry, people, just because you trusted this Administration to take us to war in Iraq, and voted for the architect of that war twice, doesn't mean you can take out your frustration in a situation where action is really required and you don't have a clue about what's really going on.

That's harsh, I know. But at some point, a few adults are going to have to take responsabilibty for something.

Then, and only then will know what happened. And then maybe we can correct it.

It's On!

After Republican GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin went after Barack Obama in her well-received acceptance speech last night, one Democrat told George Stephanopolous, "It's on!"

Indeed it is. At least we're not hearing any Republican blather about "changing the tone in Washington". If McCain and Palin get elected, watch out. It'll be a Beltway Brawl.

The only observation that I have of Palin's speech that hasn't been touched upon, is that her presentation made think how remarkably similar to Barack Obama she really is. Not ideologically, of course; but in their ascension as the new vanguard of their respective parties.

Both started in politics improbably and at roughly the same time (1996). Both achieved popularity early on. Both had fortuitous circumstances catapault them to the national stage. They are roughly the same age, they are both physically attractive and they both can give a hell of a speech. They have both had to counter the 'lack of experience' tag. And they are both going to be the faces of their parties after this election, no matter who wins. Obviously, Palin has to make sure other skeletons don't keep revealing themselves, but if they don't, she and Obama could be going at each other for the next two decades.

On the other hand, there are major stylistic differences, as well.

While Obama and running mate Joe Biden have gone out of their way to be kind to Palin, she bought into the standard Veep playbook: defend your guy and tear into the other guy. And she did, like a pitbull. Her delivery was pitch perfect and her humor was effective. But, she also woke up the Obama campaign. You can bet that this fight will get ugly in the next 2 months.

The good news for McCain is that Sarah Palin has given him more than he ever could have hoped to this point. Even with the distraction of her daughter's pregnancy.

But now comes the hard part. First of all, McCain has to speak tonight. That event is implicitly anti-climactic. And his lame speaking style will be more pronounced after the success of Palin's speech. Second, now that surrogates have hammered the other side, he's got to show the positive vision for change that his campaign stands for. Third, the scrutiny over his running mate's record will intensify. Especially since even a cursory look exposes large gaps between her pithy words and the facts. Troopergate is also an issue that will continue to be a distraction.

So far, this convention has been a success for the Republicans, the weakness of the usual parade of older white guys notwithstanding. It has rallied the faithful, inserted some much needed enthusiasm into their presidential campaign, and unveiled a potential star for the party heading into the future.

The only downside is that Sarah Palin's thin resume has reverted the election to a referendum on change. Is this really a fight that the party with eight years in the White House and seven years of Congressional control, can win?

We'll see. But, make no mistake: it's on.

Is this the winning ticket and why? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

McCain's Home Run

John McCain hit a tape measure shot yesterday by naming Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Looking through the prism of short term benefits, the Palin choice scores big. For example, her presence on the ticket lets McCain:
1. Change the conversation from the Dems to the GOP.
2. Throw the ultra conservative base a bone.
3. Get the attention of Hillary supporters.
4. Reassert his maverick reputation.
5. Make the Dems nervous.

And you know the Dems are nervous when all the Obama surrogates come out flailing about the choice, saying stupid things like, "She has no experience!". Yeah, where have we heard this before? Or, "he's never even met her!" So what? "It's so overtly political!" Yeah... isn't this politics? I mean, they suddenly sounded like Republicans after Thursday night's convention triumph. (And it was a triumph: 40 million Americans tuning in. Impeccable speech, flawless stage craft. One conservative told me, "there really wasn't too much you could argue with in Obama's speech".)

Fortunately, Obama had the good sense to call off an ungracious official statement by his campaign. Instead, he simply called Palin to congratulate her on her historic ascension.

The good news for Democrats is that a home run doesn't mean you lose the game, at least not in the 7th inning, which is about where we are in this race. In fact, after Obama's home run on Thursday night, one could argue that McCain is still a run behind, even with this shrewd play.

And as time rolls on, we'll see if there are long term benefits to the Palin choice. One benefit will be her ability to campaign to the conservative base, freeing Mac to go for the indies and Dems. But the drawbacks may reveal themselves over time. For one thing, Hillary supporters are not going to support Palin when they discover how anti-abortion, anti gay, and pro guns she really is. And it will be the Dems job to expose the early myths about her positions.

For example, it's true that Palin vetoed a bill to ban health benefits for same sex partners of public officials. But she did it because it was unconstitutional under existing statutes. She then supported the effort to add an amendment to the state constitution banning same sex marriage, which passed. Thus, in the end, the health benefit ban went into effect anyway. She also says that she told the US Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' to funding for the now infamous 'bridge to nowhere'. Not true. In 2006, she actively urged squeezing as much pork out Congress as possible for Alaska, knowing that project was slated for consideration. She even went to Washington herself when she was mayor of Wasilla, to secure funds for her town.

And one unintended consequence of this choice might be to energize Hillary Clinton for Obama. (Talk about a nightmare week for Hillary. You're forced to give a speech supporting the guy who denied you history; then you had to publicly suggest he be nominated by acclamation; then you find out you may never get a chance to make history because the Republicans have done what your own party wouldn't do! Hoo boy.) But the good news for Dems is that instead of Hillary secretly hoping for a McCain win so that she can get another shot in four years, she now has to make sure he doesn't win so that Palin doesn't make any more history than she's already made.

So, now it gets really interesting for the next 66 days. All because Mac went yard.

Mission Accomplished

The four day Democratic Convention ended last night at Invesco Field in Denver with a soaring display of political theater, capped off by another inspirational speech by Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama.

While the pundits from all sides of the political spectrum will debate the success of this convention, one thing is clear: this convention accomplished five important objectives for Democrats:
1. It forced the Clintons to heel--to help the Party heal.
2. It presented a clear mission statement for the campaign: Restore the American Dream and America's leadership in the world.
3. It redefined Barack Obama.
4. It re-energized party faithful and signed up new volunteers.
5. It took on Republican attacks and embarked on the push back strategy.

Considering the threat of chaos and disunity prior to Monday, Dems have to feel good about the arc of their four days. Much of the credit has to go to the Obama campaign. They navigated the treacherous Clinton negotiations and created compromises that mollified most and guaranteed strong political theater. They are also masters of theatrical production. We've said it here often: if a campaign reflects the governing style of its candidate, Barack Obama is at the very least a competent leader.

On the other hand, heavy props also go to the marquee speakers who, with one exception, all smacked home runs. Regardless of whether you agree with the substance of their speeches, they succeeded in their goals. Let's run 'em down one by one.

Michelle Obama
Faced with perhaps the most dificult assignment of any speaker, she exceeded expectations. She cast the theme of the convention, humanized herself, and redefined her husband and herself as regular, patriotic Americans. In remarks that were mostly personal, frequently revealing and always captivating, she succinctly laid out the Democratic vision: to bring the world 'as it is', closer to the world 'as it should be'. No one but the most cynical observer could have found fault with her presentation.

Ted Kennedy
As if brain cancer wasn't enough, Ted Kennedy defiantly left a Denver hospital bed suffering from kidney stones to deliver this emotional speech. He presented the fire expected of the party's unapologetic left wing standard bearer. He also looked better than a man in his condition had any right to.

Mark Warner
Warner's Tuesday night key note address was the only dud in the primetime line-up of Democratic speakers. He, of course, was in the unenviable position of living up to Obama's key note of 2004 and then, preceding Hillary in the evening's festivities. As for his poltical career, his speech was not the game changer Obama's was in 2004. Yet even Warner's remarks served a valuable function: to show the pragmatic side of the Party. He is naturally plain spoken and unable to furnish heavy rhetorical flourishes. But he delivered the important message that Dems will be hammering in this election cycle: we are the Party of jobs and opportunity.

Hillary Clinton
Take it from me, an ambilvalent Hillary observer. Tuesday night's marquee address was one of the all time great political speeches in convention history. A high voltage advocacy of the Democrats' vision for America, coupled with just the right amount of support for Obama made this a home run. Her tone was pitch perfect, her delivery was flawless and she found eloquence in authentic plain spokeness. It has always struck me as ironic that Clinton seems to be most attractive when she has been humbled. Perhaps a dollop of humility is the softening agent that Hillary bashers lament they never see when she is getting her way. No one could watch this speech and not be impressed by her range of policy knowledge, her emotional propriety, and her flat out leadership qualities.

Bill Clinton
Not to be outdone by his wife, the former President's Wednesday night speech delivered even more Clintonian fireworks. With Obama's folks biting their nails because his speech wasn't vetted, Clinton not only delivered a surgical breakdown of Democratic policy, but he emphatically excecuted his primary task: to declare Barack Obama ready to be President. Recalling his critics in 1992, who said he was too young and inexperienced to be Commander-in-Chief, Clinton delivered a forceful message on Obama's behalf. He had one of the best lines of the entire convention: "America has always been best when it leads by the power of its example, not by the example of its power." Go, Bubba.

Joe Biden
Following Bill Clinton is never an enviable speaking task. But Joe Biden, historically, has never been afraid to talk, before, after or during anyone else. His confidence showed in a pitch perfect speech that bolstered his credentials to working class voters, demonstrated his personal touch on the stump and previewed the tenor of his attacks on McCain. I wrote a week ago that I was not convinced that Biden was a good fit as Obama's Veep. This speech went a long way to assuaging those doubts. As impressive was the strong stage craft of Obama's 'surprise' appearance and the Biden clan swarming the stage in Kennedyesque fashion.

Al Gore
For a clear, eloquent and unassailable presentation of the choice Americans face in this election, Al Gore's warm-up speech for Obama Thursday night rivaled Bill Clinton's . For sheer articulateness, this was a remarkable address. It was an example of what well chosen words and the appropriate recollection of history can do to sell a point of view. Just another reason for Democrats to shake their heads and a say, "Where was this guy in 2000?"

Barack Obama
It's easy to take for granted Obama's communication skills, but watching his acceptance speech is to watch a master communicator on top of his game. Consider how many of his speeches we have seen. Now consider that he has to deliver his most important one, preserving the best of what we have come to expect, and adding enough fresh material to keep us interested. Very tough. I thought he pulled it off. He introduced some catchy phrases including "Eight is enough" in reference to another four years of Republicans in the White House. And purely in terms of the tasks at hand-- redefining himself personally, recommitting to his message of change, signaling a willingness to go mano a mano with McCain, laying out specifics of his policy goals, and leaving a little left for good old fashioned inspiration, he succeeded wildly. When you see every crowd shot include people with tears streaming down their cheeks, it's a powerful reminder of the power of well stated ideas.

In 2004, at a Democratic function, I told Howard Dean that Democrats had to tell better stories. I said that there was nothing wrong with the substance of the Democratic message, but that Republicans consistently couched their issues and demonized their opponents with more effective storytelling that resonated with ordinary folks. Phrases like the 'death tax' and 'flip-flopping' consistently created enduring images with which Republicans bludgeoned Dems to successfully make their case. That was the night that I first heard Dean lay out his 50 state strategy and pledge that Democrats would start making their case as the party of 'real family values'. For, example, he said, Democrats couldn't keep conceding the faith card to Republicans--they had to talk openly about their faith and God.

This convention completed that evolution. The story telling prowess of Democrats, through their production techniques and choices, to the speechifying of their principles, has improved dramatically since 2004. And it's worth noting that no Democratic convention has heard more talk of faith and God than this one.

If a convention's primary purpose is to set the course for the remainder of the election and fire up the party faithful to engage in the work to elect their candidates, this convention succeeded.

And whether you're a Republican or Democrat, watching 84,000 people waving American flags and actually enjoying the political process is hopeful indeed.

Mission Accomplished.

Hey, Joe

The jury will be out until the first gaffe, (maybe it already happened when he referred to Obama as Barack America?), or until the first week in November, but the McCain campaign has to be smiling at Obama's pick for Veep, Senator Joe Biden. Here's a transcript of the announcement made at a joint appearence in Springfield, Illinois.

Biden is one of two predictable choices that Obama could have made. The other was Evan Bayh of Indiana. Longshots like Kathleen Sebilius, Tim Kaine, Chuck Hagel and especially Hillary Clinton, would have created more uncertainty for McCain. But with Biden, the McCain campaign already has an ad quoting Biden's diss of Obama's experience ready for rollout.

So what was Obama thinking in choosing the 65 year old Delaware Senator? Biden doesn't bring a swing state into Obama's column, he can't run for President in eight years, and he has character baggage in the form of plagiarism charges that are frequently raised by Republicans.
Conventional wisdom is that Obama wanted a foreign relations and national security expert and a glib attack dog to signal the beginning of a new, tougher approach to this campaign.

My only original thought is that Obama also wanted someone who knew McCain well; someone who could point out inside vulnerabilities of which the public and media may be unaware.

Otherwise, I have personally evolved from an anti-Hillary-for-Veep stance to a 'she's-the-way-you-win, stupid' stance. Terry McAuliffe said, “If [Obama] picks Hillary he gets her 18 million supporters and we would win in a cakewalk and control the White House for 16 years.” This seems to look more and more like an accurate assessment. This blog routinely ignores polls, but one poll remains amazingly consistent: about 20% percent of Hillary supporters say they will not support Obama if Hillary is not the nominee or the Veep choice. They said this in the primary and they are saying it now. I have personally talked to several women who are violently dissappointed that Hillary is not the Dems' nominee, to the extent that they will sit this one out to insure that Hillary gets a second crack at it in four years.

I also think that Republicans are scared to death of Clinton. They see a politician who is willing to slog it out in the dirt like they are, and it worries them. But now, they can feel safe in their ability to dish out the negativity in a more one sided way.

Obama, like McCain, has been able to make campaign decisions at crucial times that were great for his campaign. Maybe this is one of them. We'll see.

The jury is out.

Heeeere's Johnny!

It's the only mention I'll make of the new McCain spot that is getting so much play now. You know, the one with Britany Spears and Paris Hilton...and Obama. The one that lampoons Obama's celebrity. Even though I don't think it's as harsh a spot as some are claiming, it is decidedly un-McCain. It's more like McCain as host of a bad talk show. And clearly, the fingerprints of new campaign manager Steve Schmidt are all over this. He is a Karl Rove protoge--(you know, the Karl Rove that has systematically destroyed the Republican brand)--and Schmidt's mission is to get his guy elected. So you do whatever you have to do. Go negative, question character, make inane comparisons. I get it.

But my question is, when will the American people get that a disconnect between what a candidate says he stands for, and the way his campaign actually behaves, translates into the kind of leadership he will provide in office.

When George Bush said in 2000 that he was a compassionate conservative, but his campaign savaged John McCain with a pack of lies prior to the South Carolina primaries, should we have been surprised that he would become a polarizing figure with serious credibility issues on everything from the War in Iraq to the firing of federal judges?

So in 2008 when John McCain says he wants to have a serious debate about the issues, and then decides that the only way he can win is to go relentlessly negative on Obama, do we really think a McCain Presidency would include the honest bi-partisan dialogue he says he wants to have to get things done? Please.

I think Obama's two main statements on the spot were right on: "I have noticed that John McCain doesn't seem to have a lot of positive things to say about himself"; and, more to the point, "Is that the best he can come up with?"

I think that's a good question for Americans to ask John McCain.

Does the spot reflect the true John McCain? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Der Commissar's In Town

I heard someone on XM's POTUS '08 say that Barack in Berlin was even bigger than The Scorpions reunion tour. That's big. Germans love their most famous 80's hair band.

Yes, the 'Be Careful What You Ask for, John McCain' tour kept rolling on. With more spectacular 'optics' (the new '08 campaign hot word), another almost flawless performance by Obama, and a growing sense that America's newest face is a great ambassador for our country.

You can complain about the coverage or complain about the attention but understand this basic fact: the political professionalism on display this week says something about the candidate and his ability to lead. First of all, a production like this requires a lot of money, which was raised by the most prolific fund raising machine ever. It requires advance people for logistics; policy experts to interpret information; speechwriters to craft message; big picture and small picture strategists; and all those who execute those strategies. Let's be honest: you sense that the McCain campaign couldn't pull off this type of trip if they had all year.

Now, let's review: O-Force sinks a trey in front of cheering troops in Afghanistan; parties in Kuwait; meets more troops, some Generals and diplomats without a slip-up in Iraq; parties in Jordan; assumes appropriate gravitas in Israel and Palestine; then kills 'em in front of 200,000 Berliners by the Victory column. 'Don't turn around, uh oh, oh; Der Commissar's in town , uh, oh, oh, oh.'

In fact, the only mistake Obama has made is to create such a spectacular trip... that John McCain is now exactly where he feels most comfortable: as the underdog. McCain's answer to Obama' s speech? I'll pick my teeth on camera in front of a German restaurant. Yeah, those are some good optics.

But don't be fooled. We love to watch fabulous, but we're more comfortable with ordinary. That's why numerous polls show a tight race in spite of Obama's non stop coverage and pristine event production. On top of that, McCain knows how to fight inside. He's landing some unspectacular but consistent body shots. He's Joe Frazier to Obama's Ali. And even though his surrogates whine about media coverage, the man gets more gaffe relief than anyone since Ronald Reagan. That's right, I said Ronald Reagan (Mr. please-wake-up-you're-in-a-negotiation-in-Helsinki).

So, as the GOP tries gamely to parry Obama's tour de force with all manner of shots, petty and legitimate, I simply ask you to read the speech. Parse the words. Then ask yourself: do these sentiments uttered by a fellow citizen...make you proud of your country?

Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Everything Keeps Coming up Roses...

There still could be a stumble on Barack Obama's world tour. I mean, he has yet to visit Israel, where he could violate some kosher edict; or Jordan, where he might attract the furtive glances of Queen Noor. He could joke into a hot mike that Berlin doesn't seem to have a 'soup Nazi', like New York. You just never know what can happen when the pressure's on.

But so far, everything 's been coming up up roses for Obama. Let's review: as Obama leaves on his 8 nation junket with Senators Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel, Iraq Prime Minister Maliki gives an interview with Der Spiegel in which he explicitly says he supports Obama's 16 month troop withdrawal plan. After what must have been some frantic calls from Amabassador Ryan Crocker and, who knows, maybe some McCain reps, Maliki issues a tepid denial of his statement, saying he was 'mistranslated'. Yeah, right.

Then, after ridiculing Obama's willingness to negotiate with Iran, The White House sends William Burns to Europe to... negotiate with Iran. Which kind of looks like they support Obama's position. (McCain must be asking himself, "and I sold out to Bush for this?). Then the White House starts talking about 'time horizons' (ah, George Orwell, you're still relevant) for troop withdrawals from Iraq. Which, again, is something that Obama has been talking about for, oh, 16 months or so.

And then, Obama shows up in Afghanistan, which he has insisted has been the neglected piece of the war on terror, after militants have killed 9 Americans and the Taliban is gaining ground. He says all the right things in a meeting with President Karzai, including describing the situation on the ground as 'urgent' and 'precarious'. He then moves on to Kuwait, for his second visit, which usually doesn't happen if the first visit was a bust. Now he's in Iraq, and so far, so good.

If you're an Obama fan, that is. Unfortunately for McCain, he's left grasping for any spin to slow down the coverage and deal with the increasing prospect that Obama will not make a Sunni, Shia gaffe. And remember, Obama doesn't have Joe Lieberman to help him through those episodes. Mac must be wondering how he's doing it.

The press, too, is desperately trying to sound evenhanded about this trip. Editorials and articles abound about the risks this trip could pose for Obama. However, they know that they're giving him the coronation treatment and he's got to come up with a doozy to fall flat.

But there is time. And several more countries to visit. Anything can happen.

He could tell Nicolas Sarkozy to "let 'em eat cake". That would be bad. On the other hand, if Sarkozy's sexy wife, Carla Bruni, sings 'Happy Birthday' to Obama, a la Marilyn Monroe, forget it. The trip was a success.

Will this trip improve your image of Obama as commander-in-chief if he comes away unscathed? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments'below, bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

Apologies for not checking in for a while. Life gets in the way of political reporting, unless you get paid to do it. And then it is your life.

So let’s get caught up. Last tiome we met here, I lamented a lull in the presidential race. Silly me. Suddenly, things picked up with a call for castration, an ‘oops’ fundraising moment, surprising fundraising results, surprising theories of mental economics, two cute little girls, too cute energy plans, a new plan to kill Iranians and Iranian plans to kill others, a stunning reversal on an important vote, a stunning reversal of an alliance, a potentially stunning reversal of policy, a shameless pander to the people of Pittsburgh, and one really tasteless magazine cover.

So what's it all mean? Well, forgive me for dating myself, but we can start with the conclusion that we are living in a Mad , Mad , Mad, Mad World. Then I draw four other conclusions.

Conclusion One

Barack Obama is the luckiest politician on the planet. This is not to say he’s not skilled and that his operation doesn’t know what it’s doing. It is saying that he is the constant recipient of positive developments that occur right when he’s having some difficulties. For example, his reversal on FISA was a big deal, anyway you slice it. If he simply believed, as he said, that the legislation provided necessary resources to fight terrorism, that’s well and good. But he disappointed everyone who believes in the fourth amendment. And he disappointed Americans who believe the rule of law should apply to the President and telecomm companies. But while his own supporters attacked him for his yes vote (which kept telecomm immunity intact), John McCain couldn’t make any flip flop charge stick because he abstained from voting. That’s right, the national security guy in the race didn’t even show up to vote on the Bush administration’s cornerstone terror legislation.

Then, Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki indicated publicly for the first time, that he will request a timetable for withdrawal of American troops. Which is what Obama has been advocating. Follow that with the Bush Administration indicating that a serious reduction of troops was imminent and Obama seemed to be the guy with all the right ideas. And on top of all that, as Obama moved to the political center, Jesse Jackson gave him his own Sister Souljah moment.

And all the while the McCain camp was misfiring on all cylinders. While Mac looked and sounded awful in an interview with Brian Williams, Phil Gramm killed Mac with the sound bite from hell about Americans whining and suffering from a ‘mental recession’. Then Mac buried himself with an off the cuff remark about how our cigarette exports to Iran are another way ‘to kill all the Iranians.’

Then back to Obama. Access Hollywood interviewed him with his wife and two children, who happen to be adorable, smart, and completely normal. And the New Yorker’s attempt to lampoon the whisper campaign against Obama’s patriotism and faith fell completely flat, prompting even McCain to support the junior Senator.

Jeez. Throw a rabbit’s foot and two horseshoes around this dude.

Conclusion 2

John McCain is the luckiest politician on the planet. After everything that went down last week, some pundits (Mark Halperin) actually sad that McCain won last week. If any other politician had changed a POW story to pander to a city, or associated with such an impolitic surrogate like Phil Gramm, or shot from the hip on another dumb ‘let’s kill all the Iranians’ comment, he’d be out of the race. Not only is McCain still in, he had a great fundraising month in June. This can only help his fundraising this month, which will buy him time to right his ship. And if he stays close in this race, he always has a shot.

Conclusion 3

Both candidates have some serious issues to overcome. Obama still has a Hillary problem. His fundraising may be dropping off because his supporters aren’t thrilled about helping her retire her debt. I also recently talked to a former Hillary supporter (just a regular voter) who is still pissed. She is talking about sitting this election out. There are a lot of those folks out there. Obama may have to consider her for Veep.

McCain has to get his act together. Stop with the gaffes. He has to shift attention away from his positions on Iran and on Iraq. They are not serving him well. I also don’t think his full throated support for NAFTA is going to help him in swing states. If he believes in it, fine. But come up with another idea to counterbalance it. For example, I would start by showing how lower taxes on businesses will really help the economy. And say it like that. Don’t say ‘corporate’ taxes, say ‘business’ taxes. And show how this is double taxation on small business owners. And maybe get someone else to make speeches.

Conclusion 4

Never fear that a presidential race will be dull. After all, it’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

What's the weirdest story of the past two weeks? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments', bypassing the Google sign-up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Let's Be Honest...

Let's be honest...it's a little dull out there in Presidential campaign land without Mr. and Mrs. Thing. I mean, where's a little Tuzla honey or a good stiff finger jab when you need to spice up the news cycle? Never thought I'd say it, but I miss the Clintons.

And that's because Obama's playing it safe and McCain is...trying to find his teleprompter? Really. Is it so dull that the press needs to run with Obama's 'refine my position' and McCain's mispronunciation of 'Lexington' for three days to stir the pot? Man. We're in for a long, hot summer if that's the case.

So how about this piece of news: the Prime Minister of Iraq wants to set a timetable for troop withdrawal. I think that's interesting, especially since it also sheds a little light on this secret negotiation to permanently have a bunch of military bases in Iraq. But I wonder...are these the type of negotiations that ABC has with ESPN to exhibit NBA Basketball on TV? (Someone tell our non sports fan readers that ABC owns ESPN, so they get the joke. Thank you.) Seriously, though, this is a potentially big story because it reinforces Obama's long held position on getting our troops out of Iraq and accentuates the already exaggerated '100 years' thing McCain stepped into. It also exposes the White House's continual chutzpah to think it can make this kind of an agreement without the approval of Congress. Amazing.

On another front, Jim Webb has unequivocally removed himself from the Obama Veep sweepstakes. I think this is a blow to Obama because Webb was able to do four things: help him with Virginia (Virginia Senator); help him with National Security (ex-marine); help him with the post partisan argument (Webb was Under-Secretary of the Navy in Reagan's Administration and pushed through the new bi-partisan G.I. Bill ); and, for crying out loud, Webb wrote a book on the Scotch-Irish in Appalachia. Talk about an entree to a tough demo group. So, adios, Jim. Ya coulda been a contendah.

Speaking of contenders, MSNBC's Chuck Todd made a great point yesterday on 'Hardball'. He said if the economy had been the dominating issue 8 months ago, today you might have Hillary versus Romney for President. It was the War, stupid, last year and that's where Mac and Obama separated themselves from their respective packs. Not so now.

And speaking of 'Hardball', Philadelphia conservative radio host Michael Smerconish sat in for Chris Matthews last week and showed what a skilled media talent can do with that forum. 'Smerc' as David Gregory calls him, was focused, funny and ran a tight ship, both with his pundits and with the technical performance. Chris needs to step aside as he becomes more and more a bumbling 'Saturday Night Live' caricature of himself.

Speaking of bumbling, I wrote last week that FARC, the Colombian rebel group, had turned over its hostages (which included Ingrid Betancourt) to the Colombian government. While that might be one way to describe it, the better way would be to report what really happened: as part of a brilliant rescue mission by the Colombian Government, the rebels were duped into boarding the hostages onto what they thought was their own helicopter to be moved to another secret location. Totally, my bad. Though it did prove once again, that some governments can fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

Nice going, Colombia. Now if you'd just stop beating union organizers, you'd get a free trade deal that could really help you.

Sorry. Just being honest.

What's your unoticed big story in this Presidential race? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on the 'comments' button, bypassing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Moving Days

Both Presidential campaigns did some moving in the past few days--Obama to the center and McCain to Colombia.

McCain sought to burnish his foreign policy credentials with the visit and he even had a mini Reagan moment. Shortly after his departure from Cartegena yesterday the Colombian government announced that the Revolutionary group FARC had released four high profile hostages. Like the Iranian hostage crisis, it's always great when you can do none of the work but have people say 'Well, maybe he had something to do with it'. McCain moves on to Mexico.

Many strategists find this trip curious. With an American economy in shambles, visiting a South American country and praising free trade (we have a free trade pact with Colombia that is stalled in Congress), is a gambit that could cause trouble down the trail. Perhaps that's why his campaign implemented a major personnel shake-up. Hard-nosed politico Steve Schmidt, who ran Arold Schwarzenegger's gubnatorial campaign, is taking over operations. Apparently, this move came at the behest of Republican bigwigs who weren't liking the McCain organizational or fund raising game plan. Normally, this would mean huge trouble for a candidate, but not neccessarily for McCain. For one thing, Schmidt is a seriously effective operations guy. For another, Mac did the same thing last summer (to the day) and went on to win the nomination. Let's face it, politically, the dude is like Jason. He just won't die.

Obama has continued his 'Values' week with a couple of more events meant to re-brand himself as a God-loving, patriotic Amurickin. After a faith-based speech in which he declared that he would expand on Bush's faith based initiatives (allowing Federal dollars to go to religious organizations who do public service good works), he gave a speech yesterday on 'Service'. No matter what you think of Obama, please watch this video of the speech. It is unassailable. It's what we ask leaders to pitch to us.

Predictably, voters on the left are getting nervous about this rightward tack of Obama's. If you want to see him win, this is good. This election, like most of them recently, will be waged in the middle. If Obama can ease the doubts about himself as an ultra liberal to just a small percentage of centrist voters, he wins. And one of the ways to do that is to make moves that shows he's not afraid of defying his base once in a while. To wit, when Arianna Huffington says he making a big mistake by moving to the center, he is succeeding in that mainstreaming process.

Speaking of mainstreaming, just when you thought it was safe to be a regular Joe and keep hitting Obama with the elitist club, out come some damning numbers on Cindy McCain's spending habits. Like $750,000 in credit card charges...for one month! Wow. Must be nice.

And finally, what's with the Joe Lieberman "I'm with him" tour? I mean, everywhere McCain travels, there's Joe. What's he doing? Is he there to keep correcting McCain on the name of foreign sectarian groups? I live in Connecticut. The guy's my Senator and I feel ripped off. Do your day job, Ace.

Yesterday, at a press conference in Colombia, Cindy walks up on stage, Mac walks up on stage...and doh, duh, doh, doh, doh, here comes Joe. I mean, it's like he's Zelig, or Forrest Gump. And I really don't mean to be catty, but I have to say when I saw the three of them up on the stage, all I could think of was "Cindy McCain looks like a beard". For those of you too young to know what that means, go ask your parents.

And one piece of advice to Steve Schmidt. Ban any video where Lieberman is wearing a baseball cap. He looks like a combination of Chico Marx and Michael Dukakis in a tank.

Will either campaigns' moves be beneficial to them? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on'comment' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Words...And Action

Yes, I went back and watched it. The supposedly defamatory statement by Gen. Wesley Clark Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation. The one where he simply said "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and being shot down is a qualification for President of the United States."

Ok, it's not a flattering statement. First of all, I think John McCain was the pilot of the plane, so he wasn't just 'riding'. And he was risking his life, as he had almost two dozen other times. But is it any worse than Charlie Black's statement that a terrorist attack would play to McCain's political advantage? Clearly not. Because like Black's statement, it's true. And for all those who think Clark was dissing McCain, watch the whole segment of the interview. He says that McCain is his hero. But he wants to debunk the notion that an officer in the military will automatically make a great Commander-in-Chief.

Of course, Obama had to retreat from the statement. He used these very good words in his speech in Independence, Missouri to do that. Plus, his campaign came out with a full denunciation of Clark's comments.

But what does it all really mean? Surrogates suck? Democrats, even ex generals, can't sound pro-armed service? We're playing a national game of 'Gotcha'? Or is it as Hamlet said, just 'Words, words, words..."?

Fortunately, today there was also action. President Bush, over his dead body, finally signed a 162 billion dollar war appropriations bill that contained Senator Jim Webb's new G.I. Bill. This was years in the making and had to be added to the supplemental package because those pro- armed services guys like Bush and McCain fought against it. In the end, sanity made a comeback. Even though Bush praised McCain for helping to pass it, (really, he fought against it), Webb was the guy who had made it his mission to give post 9-11 service men and women access to a four year college education--just like their greatest generation forbears.

So in the election cycle there are plenty of words that in the end don't really matter. But every once in a while there is action that really does matter. Four years from now, when we choose another President, there will be more words. On the other hand, four years from now, when the first G.I. Bill servicemen and women graduate from college, we'll see some real action.

Do you know someone who will take advantage of the new GI bill? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

What Price Unity?

For Obama supporters, and Democrats who really want to take back the White House, it will be refreshing to see their nominee finally focus on John McCain. Any month now. Yesterday, in an an event every one is describing as a 'picture perfect' display of party unity in Unity , New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton made nice with Barack Obama and urged her supporters to get behind the Democratic nominee. She seemed genuine, her speech was well written, and her delivery was flawless. She delivered for Obama. After Obama had delivered for her the night before by making it clear that he would rally his supporters to her financial rescue . The word in political circles is that the price of unity is roughly $10 million big ones, which is what Clinton owes the vendors that proffered services to her campaign. Obama will help with that debt. In exchange for unity.

This arrangement is not unusual in presidential politics. The scope of this arrangement, however, is unprecedented. Starting with a concession speech that came four days after his victory and continuing with an extended negotiation to figure out how Hillary (and Bill) can come together behind Obama, this type of attention paid to a primary loser has never been seen before. And, sure, we understand that Hillary's campaign was historic. We understand that special attention must be paid to assuage the hurt feelings of legions of women. But it's hard not to feel as if the Clintons are holding Obama hostage.

This kind of internecine squabbling is not unusual for Democrats. In fact, one could argue that this is a primary reason why they have not captured the White House more often. Their battles in '68 lost one of the closest elections in history and had direct repercussions in '72. Same thing in '80, though in fairness, that was a change election and Carter was doing a miserable job.

This election, despite the early polls, will almost certainly be a nail biter. For Obama to spend valuable time, energy and funds on a vanquished opponent is a drain that may wind up hurting him. Yes, Hillary's supporters are crucial for victory, but not if they prevent him from actually running against John McCain.

In one of the debates, Obama referenced a barb thrown at him by Bill Clinton, to which Hillary replied that she not Bill was running for President. Obama fired back, "Well, sometimes I'm not sure who I'm running against."

That's getting cleared up now. For a price.

Does it make sense for Obama to treatr Hillary with kid gloves in exchange for her support? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Roe For Joe

Where, oh, where to begin with the Supreme Court's landmark 5-4 ruling in favor of Dick Heller in the case of District of Columbia V Heller. It is the first time since 1939 that the Court has weighed in on the tricky issue of individual's gun rights.

If you're a gun owner, you hail this ruling as a victory for common sense. Especially since the case revolved (sorry) around a security guard who was not allowed to have his licensed gun in his home because of the District of Columbia's draconian ban on personal gun ownership. (Of course, the law was created in response to the unbelieveably high numbers of gun related deaths). If you're Wayne Pierre, head of the NRA, you can pretend to hail this ruling as a victory of Second Amendment rights, when you know it really means unfettered profits for the firearms industry that you represent. And if you're the rest of us, you'll look carefully at the majority's opinion and see how a truly activist court inartfully cloaks itself in phoney constructionist gobbdleygook. The fact is, this ruling is Joe Sixpack's Roe v Wade. It's questionable jurisprudence, that validates what is for many, a cultural norm.

So how did the majority reach their opinion? By reaching back into the English history books--and interpreting what they found to suit their purposes. Unfortunately, the conclusion they reach, that the right to bear arms for personal defense has been long held in English law, is not supported by any of the sources they reference. In each case, the right to bear arms in English history came from the wish to preserve the individual's right to defend himself, not against his fellow citizen, but against an oppressive regime.

But one thing this majority does know how to do is say "they're wrong and we're right". Unfortunately, it doesn't realize its proof contradicts itself. Check this out:

"It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. "

Oh, really? Can you give me some examples? No? Oh, ok. They continue:

"But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself."

Who says? Not the Constititution.

Or how about this:

"Our interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment. Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them—Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state. . . ” In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State . . . ” This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly."

So in other words, all of these states, reference a defense of the state as the purpose to bear arms in each of their constitututions...which means that...the defense of the state is not what the right to bear arms is solely referencing. And we know this...because...we say so.

Now here's another thought. The good news is that this ruling at least puts the cards on the table as far as the NRA's premise that if every law abiding citizen had a gun, we'd have no violent crime. Of course, that pre-supposes that if every law abiding citizen carried a hand gun everywhere, there would never be an instance where that law abiding citizen might become a criminal based on the use of that weapon. Which is a reach. I mean, the Columbine kids were law abiding, until they weren't.

But the point is, if every one should have equal access to guns, as the NRA believes, why not give guns away? Stop making guns for profit. Offer them as a public service. Take the profit motive out of firearms and then see how much support there would be for the Second Amendment.

Finally, these two statements say it all. The first by Justice Scalia, who exposes the majority's flimsy interpretation of the Constitution by acccepting limitations on the right to bear arms:

"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

And of course, the dissenters could only say this:

"Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

So, no matter what you believe is the right policy for gun ownership in this country, understand this: we have an activist Supreme Court, who will protect profits above all else.

For the political fallout, firearms issues are to Barack Obama what welfare was to Bill Clinton: he needs to break with his past policy to get elected. McCain has already called him out on it and Obama will have a few days of discomfort, but in the end it becomes a non-issue. And in this way, the Supreme Court ruling gives him cover. It's done. The debate is over. The right for individuals to bear arms in self defense is established.

The last question, of course, is that of limitations. Chris Matthews asked Wayne LaPierre if it was ok to tote a machine gun in public. He responded by saying Matthews was trying to scare the public. When pressed, LaPierre admitted that any mainstream firearm, even an automatic, should be considered ok for personal use.

So maybe, we just eliminate police departments. Give everyone over 16 a gun and see if violent crime goes down. There are many web sites dedicted to this proposition. I don't know. I thought we tried that before in a place called the Wild West and decided that professionals should take care of law enforcement. But maybe backward is the new forward.

What I know for sure is that Smith and Wesson stock is a good buy today.

Give me some thoughts on this landmark ruling or anything else you'd like to talk about by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.

Hysterics

Call me crazy but I just can't get too worked up over Charlie Black's comments in Fortune magazine. John McCain's senior adviser said of a terrorist attack on American soil: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him." And he didn't mean Osama Bin Laden. He meant John McCain, because of his so called edge in the Commander-In-Chief sweepstakes. Now everyone's in hysterics about a comment that is crass, but widely believed as true.

But is it? I remember when everyone said right after 9/11, "Boy, I'm glad we didn't elect Al Gore". All I could think of was, "Why? In this kind of a crisis, wouldn't you rather have a guy who'd spent eight years in the Situation Room and knew every international player on the planet over a 1 1/2 term governor from Texas who had never even traveled to Europe?"

Well, if the answer is "No", then who's to say a 1 1/2 term Senator from Illinois isn't just as capable of leading in a crisis than an ex-Navy squadron leader? The fact is, what matters is keeping your cool under fire. I'd take either of them.

The other fact is, it's impossible to control everything that campaign staffers say and do. Charlie Black was careless. So was Michelle Obama. It happens, it'll happen again.

But if you want hysterics, how about Mac talking about the "psychological lift" that tapping into our oil reserves will give Joe Sixpack at the pump, even though it'll still cost him 80 bucks to fill up his Silverado. And that was Mac's round-about-way of saying that he knew that none of his bright ideas-- gas tax holiday, off shore drilling or emptying our reserves--would actually lower gas prices. Reality bites.

But wait, there's more. How much would you pay for easing the energy crunch? $300 miiilllion dolllars? Good, because that's Mac's latest scheme. Give $300,000, 000 to anyone who creates a good enough battery to power a car. Oh, boy. Will someone get the man a copy of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE! THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS! RIGHT NOW!But the oil companies are making sure it never hits market. And if you don't know that, you shouldn't run for President. And if you do know that and you're just pretending you don't know it, congratulations. You're like every other Presidential candidate. Hysterical.

At least Obama made a reasonable pass at dealing with the problem by saying he'll get serious about the Gramm, I mean, Enron loophole, that allows oil and gas futures to be traded in a wholly unregulated environment. Speculation, many believe, is a primary cause of high gas prices. Joe Sixpack believes that 10 billion dollars of profit a quarter may also have something to do with it. I'm with Joe. Common sense trumps hysterics.

Read about the campaigns' dueling energy fixes here .

Finally, speaking of hysterics, a nod to the comedian who embodied the spirit of Power to the People: George Carlin. He died at 71, a classic iconoclast who had so many good political bits you couldn't list them all on the Washington Monument. But my two favorite bits were non-political: in a routine about getting high and going shopping, he said, "I love to go up to someone else's shopping cart and just start walking off with it. When they say, 'Hey! That's my food!' , I just smile and say, 'Not yet it isn't." Or in his routine about snappy comebacks to tired cliches, he cites the single parent who admonishes a teenage child by saying, 'I have tried to be both a mother and a father to you!' To which the teenager replies, 'Oh, yeah? Then why don't you go f*** yourself!"

That's hysterical.

So, who's funnier, George Carlin or candidates who think a President can lower gas prices? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and clicking on the anonymous or nickname button.

Big Week

June 21. My favorite day of the year, because it's the longest day of the year. Actually, the 20th is the longest day, but the 21st is the first full day of summer.

In any event, it was quite a week for Presidential politics. With the ghost of Tim Russert inspiring our brightest minds to share eloquent memories of his life in an ongoing media celebration, the two candidates went at each other, scoring points and taking hits. Since I haven't written all week, I'll try to recap in entertaining fashion.

Gore
Barack Obama rolled out another rock concert style event in Detroit, this time starring Al Gore. Gore's rousing endorsement of Obama continued to make older Democrats shake their heads as they wondered why this Al Gore, this 'Inconvenient Truth' Al Gore, relaxed, witty and purposeful, couldn't have run for President in 2000. In any event, Obama scored big on the enthusiasm meter.

Oops
What we didn't see happen at that same event was that two Muslim American women were denied seats behind Obama because they were wearing traditional Muslim headscarves. One volunteer actually said to them they couldn't be seen in the camera shots because of the '...political climate'. On Thursday, Obama personally called them and apologized. Apology accepted. Issue may linger.

Habeas Schmabeas
Obama drew criticism from McCain on Obama's endorsement of the Supreme Court's ruling last week, allowing Gitmo detainees to challenge their detention in American courts. Obama went on to further say that he thought a captured Osama Bin Laden should be tried, not summarily executed. McCain, predictably, called this approach 'naive' and characterized Obama as soft on terrorism.

Reversals
Thanks to the dastardly, but brilliant, Karl Rove spin machine, Republicans have entered a phrase into the political lexicon that has done more to limit political discourse than any other phrase since Reagan's "There you go again" chide of Jimmy Carter. It's 'flip flop'. This derrogation summons the image of a helpless fish thrashing about on a boat deck, and doomed John Kerry's candidacy in 2004. The sub-text of flip flop, of course, is political expediency. Unfortunately, it has now come to mean any change in position, for whatever reason. This interpretation has discouraged many a politician from legitimately changing a stance on an issue based on new information or new understanding. For example, I have flip flopped on the issue of the boogeyman. I once thought he existed under my bed. I have now come to believe that he does not. I suppose I'm a flip flopper. A fellow named Abraham Lincoln also flip flopped on the issue of slavery. Lucky for us. Anyway, you'll never hear me use the term 'flip flop' unless referring to footwear. I will use 'reversal'.

This week both candidates reversed themselves on different issues. Both reversals could hurt them in the 'flip flop' (damn!) department, but help them in the long run. John McCain has decided that he now supports lifting the federal moratorium for off-shore oil drilling along US coastlines. This simply means that states can decide for themselves if they want to set up rigs. The experts disagree on how quickly this exploration could yield enough oil to ease our energy crunch. Most estimates put it at 5 years, minimum. The companion idea to this is that it would scare oil producing nations to lower costs or increase production. That's debatable, as well. What isn't debatable is that McCain's reversal is a political pander. It's not. We have an energy crisis and he wants all options on the table. Fair enough. The bad news for Mac is that it once more aligns him with George Bush on policy.

Barack Obama reversed himself when he announced he would opt out of the public financing pledge he signed last year. This is a true reversal and McCain has been correct to characterize it as 'breaking his word' to the American people. Unfortunately, when a one legged man complains that his two legged opponent didn't cut off a leg to make the butt kicking contest fairer, it sounds a little like sour grapes. Especially, when the one legged man borrowed money for a prothsesis by saying he would remain a one legged man.

Obama has taken some short term heat for the decision, which is fair. But detractors can't have it both ways. They can't say he's naive and untested and not tough enough, and then when he makes a savvy, pragmatic decision to advantage himself in a fight, they say he's just another politician.

Advantage?
Generally, most observers would agree that John McCain had a slightly better week. Fewer controveries, lots of policy statements. Plenty of openings to attack Obama. My own observation is that McCain should be troubled by one thing: None of Obama's controversy has stuck. He takes his hits and moves on. If he has to apologize, he does. The public likes that. I'm not into polls, especially this early, but major polls show that Obama got a huge bounce from his primary victory and now leads in swing states like Pennsylvania. As I say, this means little now; but it does energize the Obama campaign and could deflate McCain supporters enough to affect fundraising and general perception. We'll see.

Ok that's enough for now. Summer's officially started.

Time to put on my flip flops.

Whose reversal will hurt them (or help them) the most? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname button.

Russert

I cried. And I didn't even know him. But at 3:30 on June 13--yes, Friday the 13th--I cried when I read that Timothy J. Russert had died suddenly of a heart attack while working at the NBC studios in Washington.

I can't provide a fitting obituary for this giant of TV journalism except to say this: his was the voice I trusted when I needed to get the straight dope on American politics.

We all know that Russert was the moderator of the hugely successful "Meet The Press", which he single-handedly revitalized 17 years ago. On that show, he was able to let newsmakers' own words make or break their cases. His dreaded quote cards that sat on the screen as he read them out loud, was a Washington media ritual that must have given politicians and newmakers nightmares. As all the tributes have stated, Tim Russert was the most prepared journalist anyone has ever seen.

But it was his ability to distill the facts into a simple storyline which set him apart. His famous "Florida, Florida, Florida" whiteboard in the 2000 election set the stage for those momentus events. His controversial (but correct) statement after this year's Indiana and North Carolina Democratic primaries, that Obama was going to win the nomination, sent a shudder through the Clinton campaign. They knew that if Tim said it, it was true.

In the extended tributes that flowed Friday night on MSNBC, much was made of Russert's everyman quality. His Buffalo, NY working class background and his obvious appreciation for his station in life made him such a universally appealing TV presence. He took his work, his friends and his family seriously. But never himself.

Some people you know are singular as you watch them. When Tiger Woods makes an impossible eagle at the U.S. Open, we know he's one of a kind. There are others who we realize are singular when we have to contemplate life without them. Russert, I think, falls in that category.

There are good TV journalists out there, but without Tim Russert, there's no one I'll really trust to give me the straight dope in this year's election. And what are we going to do at 10:30 on Sunday mornings?

Go back to church more often, I suppose. Or spend quality time with family. Because as Tim Russert's untimely death proved, life is precious and much too short.

Talk about Tim, if you'd like, by clicking on 'comments' below, by passing the Google sign up and hitting the anonymous or nickname buttons.

Hoo, Boy

If we thought we were going to have a general presidential election based on just the issues, this first full week of the campaign snapped us to our senses.

In the 'gotcha' sweepstakes the winner is...no one. The loser is...the American people as honest debate gets replaced by sound bite one upsmanship.

Yesterday, there were two separate developments that had the campaigns firing shots and emails all over the place. First, on 'The Today Show', Matt Lauer's asked whether the success of the surge in Iraq has made it easier to predict when American troops could come home.John McCain started his answer with, "No, but that's not too important... casualties are what's important..." Mac then went on with his usual South Korea and Germany occupation analogy.

Predictably, the Dems jumped all over the '...it's not too important' line. Sen. John Kerry said on a conference call that this latest statement proved that Mac was, “unbelievably out of touch with the needs and concerns of most Americans,”. The McCain campaign responded with a full explanation of the statement. You can read some of the back and forth here .

While McCain's unfortunate statement gave the Dems an opening to hammer him on Iraq, their response has not elevated the debate or provided a 'different kind of politics' as Barack Obama has promised. And worse, it has squandered the opportunity to have a real debate about McCain's philosophy. The fact is, his premise about occupation versus casualties is flawed for this reason: Iraq, unlike South Korea or Germany or Japan, has an ongoing sectarian conflict that makes it impossible to eliminate casualties for our American troops. Unless there is an historic political settlement between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, American forces will always be in the crossfire of a potential civil war.

That's one argument. There are opposing viewpoints. But this is a legitimate disagreement that two reasonable candidates should debate for the elucidation of the American people. This latest round of 'gotcha' politics precludes that.

On the Obama front, the big news is that one of his three VP vetters, Jim Johnson has decided to resign. Johnson is the ultimate Washington insider, almost universally respected. However, he had recieved a $1.7 million sweetheart loan through his association with the CEO of subprime mortgage villain Countrywide. Though Obama first defended Johnson, it became clear that having a member of his team entrenched in the subprime industry would look hypocritical in the face of Obama's critisicism of that industry. When it also became clear that the story would not go away, Obama accepted Johnson's resignation.

For McCain's campaign this was a juicy nugget. They could hammer Obama on ethics and neutralize his attacks on their own staff issues surrounding lobbyists (one of whom worked for the military Junta of Myanmar). But again, this misses the more substantive debate. How does Washington really work? It is a free country, people can work for whomever they want, but where are the real ethical lines in the sand? Can candidates actually staff their campaigns with people who have never been lobbyists or who have never advantaged themselves within legal frameworks of the political/business nexus? Is it fair to ask them to do that?

These are real questions that go to the heart of why government may or may not be as responsive to the needs of the people. And to Obama and McCain's credit, they are trying to set the standard high for ethics within their campaigns.

I just wish they'd extend that committment to an ethical debate on the issues, as they've promised. This way, we'll know how well they'll run a government, not how fast they'll email reporters.

This election has the potential to be transcendant. But so far, it's looking an awful lot like business as usual.

Are the ethical bars that these candidates have set too high? And when is enough 'gotcha' enough? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google search and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.