Hi, Ted - Love Ya, Sarah

Freshly scrubbed from Palin's Website...

Bus, Ted, Under, Thrown, Straight Talk Express

What? It's a news flash that Ted Stevens is corrupt in Alaska? Even in 2006?

Be Careful What You Wish For

A long time ago when I was first sobering up I made a mental note about Prayer - be careful what you wish for. Like many alcoholics/addicts I had very little going for me in the line of patience; immediate gratification after all is a hallmark of the disease. One day I started to pray for patience and then a little light went on in my head, gods or higher powers or whatever object of prayer have other ideas and asking for patience might get me lots of opportunities to practice patience...I didn't need more opportunities. I really already had my hands full.

I was struck by that thought as one of the Evangi-nuts appealed to his Christianist fellows:

COLORADO SPRINGS – A video producer for Focus on the Family is asking people to pray for rain when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Illinois) makes his speech at the end of the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Obama is giving his acceptance speech outdoor at Invesco Field at Mile High on Thursday, Aug. 28.

Stuart Shepard made the prayer request in his latest Internet video for the evangelical Christian group.

He says he's only partly joking.

"Sure it's boyish humor perhaps to wish for something like that, but at the same time it's something people feel very strongly about. They're concerned about where he would take the nation," said Shepard.

Shepard does a weekly commentary called Stop Light, produced for the Internet by Focus on the Family Action.

(Copyright KUSA*TV. All rights reserved.)

Now it hasn't escaped my notice that Hurricane Gustav appears to have pasted a bullseye on New Orleans, not quite on the anniversery of Katrina, and also coinciding with the Republican Convention and Bush's speech. This might be attributing more power to a nitwit from Focus on the Family than is merited, oh hell, it certainly is; but the irony is too rich not to mine.

Since some of this ilk were so ready to blame Katrina's disasterous outcome on the new Soddom and Gomorrah aspects of New Orleans and a gay parade and there isn't one scheduled it would only seem right for that vengeful Jewish god to be making this about St Paul and Republican Conventions. (why note the Jewish god? - well I'll answer that)

[These pissants regularly make claims to Christianity, they invoke the guy at every possible opportunity. The problem is that they seem to take really large portions of their god view from the Old Testament - really big portions. The namesake of their "religion" said "I bring a new way" and that new way would be what he had to say and the god he talked about had Love as a basis - not vengence. That would be why there are Old and New Testaments, the Old one is supposed to be a history lesson - 'this is how we got here where I tell you the rules aren't the same as you thought.' But the Christianists are all caught up in the Jehova of vengence, plagues, destruction, and general meanness and small mindedness. (If you're Jewish, take no offense at me, I don't believe a bit of it - re: god or you) It boggles the mind that they'll use the name of Christ in their rants. "Adam and Eve not Adam and Andy" or AIDs is payback for sin or 9/11 was allowed because...] (If you're a Christianist and take offense - tough, do it differently)

I suppose if we were to get really Fundamentally Insane it would be apt to blame Gustav on McCain's elevation of a woman beyond her station - despite her insistance that...oh cripes the Republican "family values." What you need to keep in mind that this 'elevated' woman has slobbering approval from people that scare fairly conservative Christians. It is too bad that a woman VP candidate has this much going against her because I surely have a real desire to see women take a real place in American politics, but not this one.

Sarah...Who???

There are plenty of things about Republicans I do not understand, like the piece where they talk as tough as nails and then squeal about threats requiring the scrapping of civil liberties. I may be missing something but I don't understand why the extemely wealthy need help being wealthy. All that may be primarily ideological, but it takes a thinking process I don't understand to get there.

Now we have anothe example of Republican ability to contradict themselves in essentially the same sentence - Sarah Palin. McCain has made an issue out of Barack Obama's "inexperience" and celebrity versus the "grand old POW candidate" so a 72 year old cancer survivor picks as VP a woman who is a 2 year governor of the 47th most populated state and previously mayor of a 7800 population suburb. Their VP pick had to start out, in her first speech, telling whoppers. She claimed to have told Congress thanks but no thanks to Sen Ted Steven's (R-AK) Bridge to Nowhere; when in fact she said in 2006 that it was important to get Alaska's infrastructure projects under way with a favorable majority in answer to a question regarding that Bridge. In March she called Hillary a "whiner" and today she praised her - odd... Not really if she's supposed to be the "Hillary dead-ender" draw. This woman stands in opposition to virtually everything Hillary campaigned on, anti-abortion rights, drilling ANWAR, global warming as not human influenced...take your pick.

Sarah Palin seems warm and friendly, that might balance McMaverick's temper, but she's an empty hair-do. It will pay the Democrats to define her before the Republicans have that chance. She has no standing whatever nationally and can be easily defined. Her entire reputation seems to be her fight with the Alaskan legislature over corruption. Some questions may be raised about her relations with Ted Stevens since she has some pretty friendly pictures floating around.

She is McCain's bow to the socially conservative wing (read whackos). You will get the Christianist theocratic drum thumping you've waited for. On abortion, rape and incest don't count, it is a case of so-what you bear the child. You have to work very hard to understand that mind set and I'm not willing. I find McPOW offensive at best, this woman makes him look reasonable. I fail to see how prostituting to the Religious Right once again is Mavericky. I guess if you're a Republican or media shill you'll figure it out. Oh yeah John, in search of a VP safety valve for a candidate older than dirt you pick a 2 year governor of a State with a smaller total population than most states have in a single city - there's an expert for you. (Somebody ought to point at Alaska's sucking at the Federal tit)

I'll admit that the idea that one needs years in foreign policy experience to run to be hoo-hoo, I vastly prefer judgement to practice at getting it wrong - John - but some demonstration of one or the other is required. Whatever the grandstanding of the surprise pick, there is a nation to run at stake.

Wanna Come Play VP Poll? Vol.I

These folks are in no order and in no preference of mine. The list is not inclusive, so the deal is, if you pick somebody else go to the comments and put their name there. Tuesday I'll drop the bottom votes and republish with additions from the comments and we'll continue this game as long as you're interested... The entire poll will be refreshed so vote again after the additions. Or - if you don't want to play we'll just quit.

Obama and who for VP?
	Hillary
	Hagel
	Biden
	Sibelius
	Stabenow
	Wes Clark
	Richardson
	Dodd
	Rendell
	Somebody else - see comments
pollcode.com free polls

If you want to pump for somebody I don't mind, but "somebody else" costs you a comment. This is exactly as scientific as monkeys at a keyboard but it might be fun.

As The Primary Continues...Sorta

Huffington Post carried a story today about Hillary Being Vetted which is a topic I care just enough about to read the article, just. The piece I'm interested in is the Comments section, not because I expect to see anything particularly new or especially intelligent written there, the prevailing sentiment is what interests me. (if the topic were not Hillary, I might expect to find something intelligent there) The stand-out piece is that six hours after it was posted there are 1268 comments with 219 pending. A rough guess would be 5:1 'no to Hillary,' there is naturally the mix of rehashing the Primary campaign and some slanders against Obama and multiple comments from individuals. All that said, Hillary isn't going away as a net topic. You'd noticed that without my 'news flash?'

A lot of people voted for Hillary and the election was actually fairly close - revisiting history with what ifs and coulda's/shoulda's is silly - it was pretty close. The intensity remaining is what interests me and it isn't all that much about Obama or the current McCain/Obama battle, it seems to be Hillary. There are the Hilloons like "No Quarter," Larry Johnson's home of craziness and anti-Obama stupidity - Obama shoots some hoops and Taliban execute two women and NoIQ blames Obama... But what counts isn't the nutcases, it is the heat Hillary still stirs. I, personally, doubt that Hillary will be on the ticket and wouldn't like to see her there. My strategic doubts have to do with this intensity, it is high on the Democratic side, but as a vote issue it is huge on the Republican side. While there certainly is a rabid anti-Obama fringe on the Republican side it is small potatoes compared to the anti-Hillary feelings. McCain has an interest problem of large consequence, he is at less than half of Obama's very favorable polling, anything that generates greater intensity for McCain could produce problems, or at least unnecessary efforts. While Hillary's appearance on the ticket would produce less satisfaction on my part it would not affect my vote or willingness to help the ticket. At this point I am not satisfied that any hypothetical vote gain by her presence would undo the damage from Republican intensity.

While in Oregon it only takes a few minutes to fill out the ballot and a stamp or stop by a drop box; most states require some actual effort to vote. The impetus to make that effort is largely driven by satisfaction with a candidate and the ticket...or dedicated opposition. These are serious considerations and would be ignored by the Obama campaign with risk. It is hard to see where a high risk marginal return Hillary makes the cut.

Hillary Diplomacy

I've watched a lot of freaking out on TV and in blogs and other reports regarding Hillary's speech preceding Obama's St Paul speech. Oh no, she didn't suspend or concede or... She did start out referring to SD as having the last word, just over an hour later MT was the last word where Obama did win. She did make a few possibly flawed arguments and patted herself on the back and managed to compliment Obama on a great campaign. She wants to look at where to go and how to care for her 18 million voters. She wants leverage.

Hillary has a very narrow window to make any plays with her leverage. All her voters are not fixed in place, some are. The some are the question, the ones who won't vote Obama per the exit polls. Those voters are a minority and not a coherent group, there are those who await Hillary's word, there are those who will ignore any unity call. Most of Hillary's supporters are Democrats who will back the Party nominee, they won't be held hostage by a losing candidate.

It is surely the case that the voters awaiting Hillary's unity call will wait for her and absent it what they would do is questionable. These people are an important piece of the Democratic vote and not to be lost lightly. But here is the rub for Hillary whatever her level of Party loyalty may or may not be, the Party has the power to destroy her. If the Party sees Hillary playing too loosely with its chances for November the warnings will be stark.

I do not buy into the school of thought that places Hillary in some totally egocentric category where the Party that has allowed her and her family to thrive has none of her loyalty. I believe that she and her advisers ran the campaign they knew how to run and that it took her very nearly to the nomination - at the expense of driving up both candidate's negatives. If you look at Hillary and the people surrounding her and their histories the campaign makes perfect sense. I may believe it was fatally flawed in strategy and tactics both for her and the Party, but it very nearly worked for the Primary. It may have been a good General Election operation, though I believe the strategy would have come up short, the tactics might have been good. She benefited tremendously in her tactics from running against a candidate who did not take off the gloves. Her campaign does not signal a Party disloyalty, it does not signal egomania, it does signal an old style attack politics.

Hillary does not want this Primary to be her swan song, she wants to be a power in Democratic politics and a player of national import. This is an important piece, what has happened in this election just created a new power bloc, Obama's. Obama should be able to win this election, with Hillary's help, but that will mean four to eight years of time for a new power center to entrench itself and begin drawing to itself the strands of power and it will not be the Clinton power bloc finding a new home beyond what Hillary can carve out. The McAuliff DNC is now officially dead. Terry McAuliff and Harold Ickes are done, they can be bit players here and there but their model of Democratic politics is done for the foreseeable future and they're not young.

The road to keeping a Clinton power base is not in the Vice-presidency, the office holds no actual power. Dick Cheney is an aberration (and some other things). If Hillary took the VP Obama would be forced to bury her - and more importantly, Bill. Hillary must know this, this has to have been discussed late at night where only walls could hear, she hangs with some hard ball players. The VP is a place to go and watch her power slowly drain away. Cabinet posts might give her a basis to actuate some things she cares about, HHS would put health care very much in her hands - beneath the President - but it is also an invisible position. Anything inside the Executive Branch is a place for political power to dissipate.

Her position of 34th in Senate seniority doesn't hold a lot of swat, in itself. She is now a Senator with a powerful public voice in her own right; not as Bill's wife with a so-what junior senator ship on his coattails. Majority Leader isn't in the cards, there are way too many experienced and well senior Senators between her and it. She can make a case for a Chair and with a President's backing and a grateful Party that case could be strong.

There has been speculation about the Supreme Court, her legal background is very thin in that regard, but that has not been a bar previously. With election politics removed she might well find a backbone on the matter of principles. I am not comfortable with her stance on some issues involving the Bill of Rights and I'd probably oppose her (for all that counts). I do have to admit that there would be a certain amount of enjoyment to be found in watching the wing nuts' heads explode. This would remove her and her family from influence in electoral politics, pretty completely. That might be a trade I could live with.

If Obama wins the General Election Hillary is done in Presidential politics, her power base is now falling apart - witness the DNC RBC. Alliances based on influence are beginning to wane and that process will only accelerate under Obama. Other women will begin to gain national prominence whether Obama picks one as VP or not. Even if Obama were to pick a male for VP that would not bar changing to a woman for a second term if the male were an older man.

Hillary Clinton will be an asset to Obama's campaign because she will want a Democratic victory and because strategically she has no choice. If people don't lose their minds and start throwing conniption fits this will be fine. So, let's get to work getting Obama elected.