What A Time It Was

2008 will long be remembered for the momentous election that brought America its first Black President. It will also be remembered for the disastrous economic collapse. The American people bought into Barack Obama's message of hope and possibility, while watching the economy collapse around them. It was a year in which America showed that it still had some idealism in it while bearing witness to the catastrophic results of unbridled greed and cynicism.

I'm not sure how you wrap up a year like this one. However, I prefer to focus on the positive aspects of 2008. I don't know if there's a lot left to say, so I'll just include a portion of an article that I wrote back in March.

Imagine what it would be like to wake up the day after the general election in November and realize that America had elected it's first non white-male President. It would say so much about how far the country has come. It would be a significant step to showing how far we have come toward fulfilling the ideal of America. We are supposed to be that "shining city on a hill", we are supposed to believe "that there is a placed called hope", we are supposed to think that we are guided by "the better angels of our nature". That is the dream that we have been asked to buy for so long.

I don't know the answer to the question of whether Obama or Clinton would be a better President than McCain, but no one does. If we allow fear and hatred to make that decision for us then we turn our back on everything that this country is supposed to stand for. I am not saying that people should vote for the Democratic candidate to prove a point. What I am saying is that each candidate must be judged on the merits and not pre-judged on their race, religion or gender. That really is all I ask. Is that so much? Judging by what I hear and read every day, apparently it is. I do hope that this election cycle will prove me wrong. I can hope that we have a fair and above board election. I can hope that the majority of Americans stand up and reject the politics of hate and fear. I can hope that this is the year, that we as a country, (as Dr. King so eloquently stated), "rise up and live out the true meaning of our creed". I can only hope.

I'll end this post with the lyrics to "Bookends" by Paul Simon:

"Time it was, and what a time it was, it was. A time of innocence, a time of confidences. Long ago, it must be, I have a photograph. Preserve your memories; They're all that's left you."

Beating a Dead Horse

The Rod Blagojevich scandal is continuing to drag on with no end in sight. He US Attorney Fitzpatrick is refusing to release the wiretapped conversations of Blagojevich, which are the backbone of the case against the Governor. Therefore any planned impeachment hearings against him are basically stalled because they don't have the primary evidence needed to remove him from office. The Obama camp has released their internal investigation which shows that at least two of members of the President-elect's staff had contact with Blagojevich. The nature of these contacts is basically what is being questioned by the more desperate elements of the Republican Party and the press. Fitzpatrick has already stated that nobody on the Obama team is under investigation and the facts that have been released to date seem to point to the fact that they never offered or seriously discussed any sort of payoff for the Governor for the Senate appointment. That doesn't seem to be enough for those who are hell bent on trying to stain the incoming President.

The internal Obama report said that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel spoke with the Governor on two occasions. The Fitzpatrick report seems to suggest that they may have been a couple of more instances than that. That discrepancy should not scream COVER UP to any rational person, especially when the nature of the contact is not in dispute. However the Right Wing would have you believe that the discrepancy is evidence of a lack of transparency from the Obama team. The release date of the Obama team report was itself a cause of a great outcry because it was delayed at the request of the US Attorney's office. The press tried to make a story out of this along with the usual suspects on the Right.

All accounts of Blagojevich's contact with the Obama team confirm that no one was willing to offer him anything other than "appreciation" for the appointment. His recorded conversations include some profanity laced tirades in which he blows off Obama and his team because they are unwilling to offer him anything for the seat. This is clearly a national story because it involves corruption at a high level and it impacts the Senate seat from Illinois, however this story is not about Barack Obama. The press and the far right continue to try to play the guilt by association game (which worked so well for them during the campaign) but there is literally nothing there.

I have even heard the ridiculous claim that if somehow Obama had been more forthcoming initially, this would no longer be a story. First of all, Obama delayed the release of his report at the request of the US Attorney and secondly that is just a bunch of nonsense. The Obama name is like gold for a news starved press and there is no doubt that regardless of the speed of his response, there would continue to be "questions" raised in order to maintain the appearance of a scandal. If this is the level of nonsense that we can look forward to in the coverage of the President-elect, then we are in for a long four years indeed.

Money For Nothing

$1.6 billion. Let's just think about that number for a moment. $1.6 billion. That's one thousand and six hundred million dollars. According to the AP, that is the total of the salary and bonuses that were given out to the top executives at the banks and financial institutions that were involved in the government bailout. I know that some financial institutions were in better shape than others, but I don't remember hearing about any that had a great year. Certainly if there were banks that had not invested heavily in derivatives, then they would not have been in line to get a government handout. Every single institution who accepted a government handout played fast and lose with the money that was entrusted to them by the public. They were reckless and greedy at best and immoral and criminal at worst. Somehow, even while pushing the international economic system to the brink of collapse, it turns out that the executives of those institutions were doing a stellar job.

Apparently there is no executive in the financial industry who feels the slightest bit responsible for squandering billions of dollars and for creating a situation that will force millions of people to default on their home loans. Do these people have a conscience? How do you suppose they feel as they spend this holiday season at one of their seven homes, which they flew to via private jet provided by the same companies that are receiving billions of dollars in aid from a public that can't even afford to pay their mortgages? Actually, I'm sure they feel pretty good. Isn't a free market system based on the principle of survival of the fittest? Therefore they must be the fittest people in America.

Clearly, the people upon whose blood, sweat and tears, the fortunes of the privileged few have been made, don't deserve to be helped the way the fittest have been helped. Why should the government help the least among us, when it can secure the fortunes of the ones with the most among us? Why would this administration, in particular, come up with solutions that might actually help someone other than the people who contributed heavily to their election? Why? Why you ask? I'll give you 1.6 billion reasons why! The ridiculous compensation of top executives cannot continue without a reasonably healthy middle class. Even out of their own greed-driven self-interest, Wall St. and the White House should realize that if the middle class collapses, their seemingly endless gravy train comes to a complete stop. Our economy, as we know it, comes to a complete halt and crumbles under the weight of the artificially inflated wealth at the top of the scale.

It does seem extremely shortsighted, for the government to bailout banks in order for them to be able to extend more credit to people who can't pay their bills now. How does that fix the problem? The financial institutions think it's a great idea because they get to buy other banks. The executives think it's great because they get huge bonuses and they still afford to keep their wives and their girlfriends happy. The Bush administration thinks it's great because they look like they get to look like the heroes on the white horse coming to save the day. And that is all great for them, but what about the tens of millions of people who actually make this economy work? Where is their bailout? Where are their bonuses? Where are their stock options? The bottom line is that when more than 1 in 10 people can't find a job (if you include temp workers (who are not included in the unemployment statistics), and those that have run out unemployment insurance and those that have simply given up trying to find work) and perhaps double that are at jobs that don't pay them enough to afford a reasonable standard of living, then you can see that we are living on borrowed time. If something isn't done soon, we will look back on the financial crisis of 2008 as the good old days.

There will be many parents who don't have the money to give Christmas gifts this year. There will be many a young child who will not get that bike or big wheel or barbie doll or Hannah Montana CD or MP3 player or computer that they wanted. But the adults can always explain to those disappointed children that they took part in real spirit of the season by giving to those in greater need. And as those kids curl up in their beds with a tear of disappointment rolling down their cheeks, perhaps they will find some comfort in knowing that there are 1.6 billion reasons why they shouldn't feel so bad.

No Rest For the Wicked

Barack Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration has created a firestorm of protest from the left and the right. The people on the right are upset with Warren for accepting the invitation and Obama's supporters are upset with Obama for inviting someone they see as an agent of intolerance to such a historic and symbolic event. Obama has explained his pick by saying that he has always believed in trying to find common ground with those who hold opposing views.

Rick Warren has stated that he sees no difference between Gay marriage and pedophilia, incest or polygamy. In his mind they are all equal. He not only doesn't think that gays should have the right to get married, he sees their unions as equal to the most despicable form of child abuse. He has equated abortion to genocide and said that the supporters of abortion are basically supporting murder. I would like to ask the President-elect to show me the middle ground in that argument. My co-contributor SJ made perhaps one the most astute observations I have ever heard when he said, "you can't argue with people who think they're going to heaven". Mr. Warren believes that he's going to heaven and unless you believe everything he does, you are not. There is no ground for compromise in his position.

Mr. Warren has put a kinder, gentler face on the same kind of intolerance that the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson made so popular. His great claim to fame for being a "new" school evangelist is that he is "environment friendly". He thinks that we should be doing more to reverse global warming. Well, that and the fact that he doesn't wear a jacket and tie every day. However intolerance dressed down and warmed over, is still intolerance. It is true however that his stance on gay marriage essentially mirrors the public stance of the President-elect. While Obama has never said that he equates gay unions with vile criminal activity, he has publicly stated his opposition to same sex marriage.

I have already stated my position on same sex marriage, however I think it's important to realize just how fundamentally wrong it is to arbitrarily decide that certain people don't have the same rights as everyone else. Suppose Rick Warren were opposed to left handed people marrying each other. That position would be viewed as ridiculous, but his argument would be that those people are choosing the left handed lifestyle and until the decide to do things the right way, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. The position of evangelicals is that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle choice, therefore those who make that choice should not have the same rights as the rest of society. Throughout history, people have been persecuted for things are ridiculous as hair color, eye color, and believe it or not being left handed. They all seem unthinkable to us today, but at the time, people believed that had perfectly legitimate reasons to discriminate and shun those afflicted with the various "maladies".

There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those "practicing" the homosexual lifestyle are not doing so by choice. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that there are currently more homosexuals "practicing" the heterosexual lifestyle than there have ever been of the reverse situation. Homosexuality is no more a choice than being a heterosexual is, or being white is, or being left handed is, or being blue eyed is. Why would someone chose to be part of one the last minority groups that it is still perfectly acceptable to discriminate against? The line to sign up for daily persecution would be very short indeed. And yet this is the premise that people like Rick Warren ask us to accept. And trust me, they know they're right because they are going to heaven and you're not.

Ultimately, I have to have to believe that Barack Obama's reasons for making this choice will bear fruit is some manner. Perhaps he's just using this selection to provide him some cover for some sweeping announcement that will benefit the gay community. I have to believe that because otherwise this choice makes absolutely no sense to me. Has he chosen to offend a significant portion of the people who supported him in order to make a point? And what point would that be? That hatred and intolerance are part of the fabric of American society? I think we all got that point a long time ago. The inauguration is the wrong place for that kind of civics lesson.

Look Back In Anger

President Bush is on his so called "Legacy Tour" in which he is attempting to make the case that his presidency has been an unequivocal success. Among his claims are that he kept America safe from terrorism, won the war in Iraq and stabilized the Middle East. He takes no blame for the current economic situation because he says, he inherited these problems from his successors (including his father). His Vice President is also in the process of reinterpreting the past. He feels so secure in himself that he is actually admitting in public that approved the torturing of prisoners and that we are safer because of it.

I'm sure that every President tries to make his case on the way out of office, but this administration has been particularly dismissive of the public’s perception of their actions. Vice President Cheney infamously answered “So”, when he was informed of the fact that the majority of Americans wanted the US to leave Iraq. A monarch never feels the need to explain to or seek the approval of the people and the Bush administration has certainly been run as if they had that power. They have ignored and trampled on the Constitution and blatantly ignored the rights of everyone and everything that came across their path. This Imperial presidency was planned for and carried out with ingenious precision by George Bush and his team. Just a year ago, the President seemed confident that history would show that he was not only correct, but that he was prescient in taking the steps that he did.

The failures of this administration are almost too many to list, but they never felt the need to explain themselves before. Did you know that everything is great in New Orleans? The President himself said so a mere matter of weeks after the Katrina disaster. Never mind the fact that to this day, there are still people who are living in trailers. Never mind the fact that the emergency trailers that were provided were later found out to have been built with toxic materials. Never mind that there are people who lost their lives needlessly. The President said everything was fine and so in his mind, it is so. The war in Iraq, which this President declared over five years ago, is now a success because of the last 12 months. Never mind the fact that over 4,000 Americans have lost their lives. Never mind the fact that up to a million Iraqi’s may have lost their lives. Never mind the fact that terrorists continue to kill innocent Iraqi’s to this day. Never mind that fact that Al Qaeda never existed in Iraq until we go there. The President says it’s a success and so it is.

This is an example of the revisionist history that the President and Vice President are now trying to sell to the American people. It seems they have forgotten the rule about monarchs and their lack of accountability. They now seem to be worried that their legacy is not going to be the stuff of Mount Rushmore. And they have every right to be concerned. If there were a monument for the worst Presidents of all time, George W. Bush would be sitting for a sculptor as we speak. I’m thoroughly convinced that Dick Cheney’s soul is a dark place that long ago had a place reserved on one of the lower levels of hell.

The Legacy tour should instead be a tour of apology. He should personally apologize to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, children and friends of every single soldier who has died for his folly. He should have to apologize to every family who lost a loved one in New Orleans. He should have to apologize to every Iraqi family who has had their lives irreparably harmed by the baseless incursion of our armed forces into their country. He should apologize to every family who has lost a home in the mortgage crisis. He should apologize to every person who has lost a job during this economic disaster. He should apologize to every single inmate who was tortured or held indefinitely without the benefit of counsel. He should apologize to every American for stripping our rights away and making us fear our government. That is what he should be spending his time on. Not on making speeches in which he tries to take credit for successes that could only be seen that way by someone with blinders on. If he would like to take credit for keeping us safe from terrorism then he should have to talk to the families of every victim of the 9/11 attacks and ask them how safe their loved ones were from terrorism.

Heir to the Throne

Caroline Kennedy has risen to the top of the list of candidates for the New York Senate seat that will be vacated by Hillary Clinton when she is approved for Secretary of State. Caroline Kennedy has never served in public office or run a campaign or frankly taken a public position on any controversial issues. In fact, her sole foray into politics was campaigning for Barack Obama's election. It is crystal clear that this ascendancy is based solely on her last name.

Caroline Kennedy has degrees from Harvard and Columbia, so her intelligence is not in question. What is in question is how someone who has no political history can rise to the top of the list of candidates for appointment to a Senate seat. If Mrs. Schlossberg's last name happened to be Johnson, do you think that she would even be in the conversation? I have railed against the Bush administrations policy of appointing unqualified people to important positions (Alberto Gonzalez anyone?), but I also feel the need to point this out when the Democrats engage in the same underhanded activity. New York City has had to put up with a Mayor who refuses to leave office regardless of the law and now we are being asked to swallow an appointment based some sort of "Kennedy privilege doctrine". What about what's best for New York? Is Caroline Kennedy the most qualified person to advocate for this state during these difficult economic times? Will she be able to effectively lobby her fellow Senators for help on legislation that will benefit our citizens? Is having a "celebrity" with no legislative experience the best that we as New Yorkers can hope for?

There are direct parallels between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin. Palin was chosen for a variety of reason, but none of them were about her qualifications for the position. Caroline Kennedy is undoubtedly more intelligent than the Governor of Alaska, but her qualifications for the position are as dubious as Palin's were. In fact they may actually be worse. While Governor Palin was in over her head as a Vice Presidential candidate, she had at least been elected to multiple positions and had to take a public stance on a multitude of issues. Caroline Kennedy has never had to face the public and answer for anything. She has never given a press conference on her political positions, she has never faced the voters in an election, she has never faced an opponent in an election, and yet she would like to be anointed (oh, sorry), appointed as our next Senator.

Some will point to other "celebrity" politicians who didn't have any experience when they entered politics. They will point to Hillary Clinton or Arnold or Jesse Ventura or Al Franken, but the difference with all of those individuals is that they had to face the voters and opponents in elections. In fact, I question whether Caroline Kennedy would even have gotten involved in this at all if this seat were up for a vote instead of an appointment. Caroline Kennedy has never shown any interest in running for public office and has fiercely protected her privacy. She has never really been a "public figure". She has always been in the public eye because of her name, but she has never sought the limelight. She is not like Hillary Clinton, who was willing to state her positions and face the public in order to get into office. Kennedy is basically using her name to try and avoid this step.

The Kennedy's are political royalty in this country, but none of them have ever been given their positions in Congress. Robert Kennedy was appointed as Attorney General by his brother, but even he had to face approval from the Congress. And when the Senate seat from New York opened up, he ran for and won that seat. Clearly a lot of his support came from the fact that his name was Kennedy and that his brother had been killed in office, but he had to run on his own. He had to face an opponent. He had to face the voters of New York and tell them what he was going to do for them.

I have to assume that Caroline Kennedy's views are basically in line with my own on most important topics, but that has nothing to do with whether she is qualified or whether she deserves this position. If Caroline Kennedy really wants to be the Senator from New York, then let her run for it in two years when the seat will come up for election. She can certainly spend the next two years explaining her positions to New Yorkers and building up her qualifications for the job. I have no doubt that she will be able to easily raise tens of millions of dollars for her Senate campaign. I have no doubt that if her name (or her last name to be exact) were to appear on a ballot that New Yorkers would be falling over themselves to vote for her. I have no problem with a candidate who faces the voters and is then approved by them. That's our process. That's the way things work.

The thing is that we have a person here in New York who I do think would make a perfect choice. I'm sure he was never considered because he isn't a Democrat, but the person who could make the best case for New York during these trying economic times is none other than our Mayor (or Emperor as he likes to be called) Mike Bloomberg. He understands the legislative process, his economic experience is unquestioned and he would be a great advocate for the people of this City and this state. Of course that would never happen because Mike Bloomberg initially ran for Mayor as a Republican, even though he is now listed as an Independent. His actual party affiliation is Pragmatist. He ran as a Republican because he saw that as his best opportunity to win in the primaries. He's now an independent because he doesn't need the party affiliation to win. Everything comes down to politics though, even at the expense of the well being of the people of this state. But as I've stated before, the welfare of the people is always the last factor in the equation. Clearly our job is to stand silently by as the aristocracy divvy up the spoils.

Three is a Magic Number

The Republican Senators who killed the proposed bridge loan to the Big 3 automakers did the people of America a disservice last night. The southern Senators who have big foreign car plants in their states have a two-fold agenda. First they want to try and kill the domestic competition for their new best friends and secondly they want to break the UAW. Last night they succeeded in killing a bill that would have helped to keep Ford, GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. By doing so, they have left a handout from the previously approved $700 billion bailout as the option left to help the companies.

There are multiple reasons why I believe the loans to the car companies was the right thing to do, but there is one that is paramount. The 3 major car companies are directly tied to millions of jobs in this country. If they are allowed to fail, literally entire towns and cities will be devastated. 1.5 million auto workers will have to find other jobs to help pay their mortgages and credit card bills. Retired or disabled auto workers who rely on their benefits to get by will either have to go back to work or receive government help. The state of Michigan would probably default on every loan it currently has outstanding and would certainly not be able to pay its healthcare bill. The ripple effect on the US economy would be catastrophic.

The reason that the bridge loan was my preferred way to go about a temporary solution was that it came with strings attached. The car companies would have to be accountable to Congress for their actions. Their was going to be oversight and they would have make positive steps to creating more fuel efficient cars and funding alternative fuel research. Bailout money for AIG didn't have any strings attached. They are currently funneling millions of dollars to their high ranking employees. They aren't calling them bonuses of course. They are called "retention payouts" or something equally ridiculous. So a company, whose business it is to assess risk is rewarding the very people who failed to see the risk involved in their business practices. That is appalling to me. The bank bailout, in which the bill to the American tax payer was $700 billion has had no effect on the credit markets that it was supposed to help free up. In fact, most of the banks that have received money from the bailout have spent it by buying other banks and laying off employees. That feels like money well spent, doesn't it?

The ridiculous statement about the employees of the American car manufacturers making $70 an hour has been used over and over to justify beating down the UAW and trying to get concessions from the workers. That dollar figure takes into account all the retirement/disability payments that are being paid to millions of people who no longer work for the companies. The actual hourly dollar figure is almost exactly what Honda and Toyota pay their employees. The Senators who continue to harp on the higher number know exactly what they are doing. Their goal isn't based some high minded ideal about being fiscally conservative. They want to help big business at the expense of the worker. Auto workers and the UAW have very willing over the years to help out when their was a crisis, after all, having a job is better than being unemployed (even if it is one that pays less than it used to). But asking workers to take less because the people who run the company have been incompetent is just wrong. Where is the accountability for the people in the board room? American auto workers want to make the best cars in the world. They want to make cars that make sense for the future, but they don't decide what they build. It wasn't their idea to keep on building more and more SUV's, but they are the ones who are being asked to pay for the mistakes made by people who don't have to worry about living paycheck to paycheck.

I understand the feeling that we should let the free market decide who makes it and who doesn't. However, the government has already decided that it can play God. Is now the time to say enough? Does that not seem arbitrary to you? It does to me. This is just another example of the class warfare that takes place in this country every day. The Government acted with all speed when the financial markets needed help. The Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury were on TV every day explaining why a bailout was needed. We couldn't allow these institutions to go under without facing an economic catastrophe. Well some of those institutions did go under and despite almost $350 billion in aid, there has been no tangible evidence of any change in the situation. Of course their answer to that is to ask for Congress to release the other $350 billion that it approved. I guess it doesn't hurt to have friends in high places. People on Wall St. ask DC to jump, the only question coming back is, "how high?". The bailout still hasn't addressed the millions of people who will be defaulting on their mortgages, but then again, those people don't have the Fed Chairman's cell phone number handy.

The Big 3 have agreed to repay the loan from the Government, they have agreed to federal oversight, they have agreed to design and build more fuel efficient cars, they have agreed to work on alternative fuel research, they have agreed to wage concessions, and yet, unlike the financial institutions (who didn't have to promise anything in return for their payday), they have yet to get any help from Congress. I personally don't care about the people who run these companies. Clearly they are all really bad at their jobs. What I do care about are the millions of regular Americans who will suffer if these companies fail. I don't know if America can sustain three car companies anymore. Perhaps there needs to be a merger (Ford and Chrysler merging would seem to make sense from a size perspective) of some sort. I do know that without some Government aid these companies will go bankrupt in the very near future. They can file for Chapter 11 reorganization but that would mean that some of those bailed out financial institutions would have to give them loans and they seem to be too busy giving out bonuses and buying each other to actually get around to lending any money these days.

Separate but Equal

The most disappointing moment of the 2008 campaign for me came when Joe Biden said that he and Barack Obama did not support the right of homosexuals to marry (it was even more disappointing than Obama's vote on the FISA bill). It can only be seen as ironic that in an election when the American people decided to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land, the voters in four states decided to deny homosexuals the right to get married. In California, even more ironically, African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for the ban. I am positive that neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden are opposed to homosexual marriage, but in order not to ruffle the feathers of the country, they took the more popular public stance.

This battle is very reminiscent of the bans against interracial marriage which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court stated:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." (Just as a side note, Alabama had retained their law against interracial marriage on the books until 2000)

According to the Supreme Court, marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man". However the bans against homosexuals marrying have been upheld in various court challenges. The highest court in New York basically said that the homosexuals cannot be given the same protection under the law because discrimination against them hasn't been recognized until the recent past.

The New York Court of Appeals held in 2006:
"[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries...This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s... It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

I do believe that in time this will become a non-issue. It's just a shame that the American people always seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into giving oppressed minorities equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has usually has had to take the first step and I do have hopes that over the next 8 years, the Court will address this issue and lay it to rest once and for all. Here is what Barack Obama said in his now famous Keynote Address at the 2004 Democratic convention:

"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga. A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work."

And I would add that if there is one person or group who are having their "fundamental" rights denied, then we are all oppressed, even if my rights are not being infringed upon. Denying the fundamental rights of citizens to marry is separate from the fight for Civil Rights of African-Americans (and clearly less violent), but the right to vote, the right to live where you want and the right to marry who you want are unalienable rights that are essential to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, that according to the Declaration of Independence, we were all endowed with by the Creator. Eventually we, as a country, realized that denying basic rights to an entire group of citizens based on something as arbitrary as skin color was wrong. I hope for the day when we as a country will realize that denying the fundamental rights of any minority group makes us smaller and uglier in the eyes of history. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was implemented to protect the rights of former slaves, but it should be applicable to every citizen regardless of their race, color, creed or sexual preference. The 14th Amendment, Section 1:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Spoils of Victory

It has been less than 48 hours since the results of the historic election on Tuesday and the Republican response has been swift. There has not been an official from the Republican party to appear on TV without mentioning that America is "a center-right" country and that Obama would be best served to govern with that in mind. The Republicans were unable to come up with a strategy for the McCain campaign, however it seems they have decided upon their post-election strategy. Their idea is to try and convince the American people that Barack Obama has to govern as a Republican would in order to be effective.

Apparently it has not occurred to them that they lost this election. They do not get to dictate the terms under which the Obama administration goes about its business. And where do they get the idea that America is a center-right country? The Right has certainly been very vocal and organized, but with the rise of the Internet, the Left has found its voice as well. We are a 45/45 country. The 10% in the middle (who are truly persuadable) decide the fate and the direction of the country in every election. In this election they have decided that we are a little more left than right. In fact in they had pretty much decided that during the '06 election, where the Democrats made dramatic gains in the House and regained control (tenuous though it may have been) of the Senate.

Barack Obama may indeed govern from the center, but it won't be because he feels that he has to follow the dictate of the Republican party. One of the main themes of his campaign was civility. While I believe that there will be times when he takes advantage of the Democratic majority in Congress, for the most part I think that he'll try to find a position that can attract the moderate Republicans, at least, to his side. The economic realities that he will face won't allow for much creative law making anyway. The economy will dominate his domestic agenda and I suspect that while he will find very vocal opposition (to whatever position he takes) from the far right, he will also find those who are willing to cross the isle and work with him.

Republicans have to come to terms with the fact that the American people have rejected the center-right or far-right policies of the Bush administration. In the end, voters do not elect a Democrat as President for his center-right policies.

Speechless

The President-elect.

One of the People

What is the future for the Republican party? Whether they win or lose on Tuesday, it seems that there are more than a few members of their party who seem to think that Sarah Palin is going to be the face of the party going forward. Many believe that a victory tomorrow means that she will become the standard bearer for the party as she serves an apprenticeship under John McCain, a loss leaves her positioned to run for the Presidency in 2012. The most often mentioned reason for her support is that she's "one of the people". There is a general consensus that she more like "Joe six-pack" than Joe Biden, and that is seen as a positive.

Sarah Palin recently complained that the press criticism of her, may in fact be infringing upon her First Amendment rights. The First Amendment protects the American people from Congress enacting laws that would infringe upon their right of free speech. How does that relate to the press criticizing Sarah Palin? It doesn't, but since when do the facts have anything to do with the popularity of Governor Palin. In her world, the First Amendment would protect the government from the criticism of the press even though the document actually says the complete opposite. In her world, the Vice President is not only part of the Executive branch, but the most powerful member of the Legislative branch as well. It is that lack of basic understanding of the Constitution that makes Sarah Palin not only unqualified to lead this country but highlights one of similarities between her and the current administration.

Governor Palin has said that she never wavered when asked to be John McCain's running mate, but in hindsight, perhaps she should have. I don't believe that George W. Bush always wanted to be President. I think a group of interested parties believed that they could make him President and he went along for the ride. As with President Bush, Sarah Palin's ambition got in the way of common sense. There clearly was no vetting of her before she was picked by John McCain. From her unmarried pregnant teenage daughter, to her ethics violation investigation by the Alaska state legislature to her husband's ties to an Alaskan secessionist party, she was a ticking time bomb when she was tabbed for the VP slot by John McCain. McCain hoped that she would not only excite the base of the party, but bring in disaffected Hilliary Clinton voters as well. While she has succeeded in the former, she has not been able to bring over Hillary Clinton supporters in any great numbers. She knew what kind of baggage she would be dragging with her into the national spotlight (including exposing her children to excessive scrutiny), but that all took a backseat to the chance to advance herself.

She has shown a glaring shallowness of knowledge about national and international politics. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were disasters. She has been abandoned by some of the leading figures in the right leaning press (who are now branded as "elitist" for failing to support her) and many prominent Republican figures have thrown their support behind Barack Obama, while pointing to her selection as a major reason for their decision. None of this has seemed to matter to the base of the Republican party. Sarah Palin is one of them. All attacks against her are viewed as unwarranted and just symbolic of the bias of the "liberal media" (that of course ignores the fact that people like David Brooks and Peggy Noonan are far from being liberals). According to her supporters, she is the perfect face for the Republican Party because of her mistakes, not in spite of them. Her lack of understanding, her misstatements, her outright gaffes, all show that she is a regular person and that is what they value in a leader. Well, that and a committed opposition to abortion.

The standards for leadership in this country have fallen to the point that actual competency no longer matters. Intelligence is now viewed as a detriment. Who wants to hang out with someone who's going to make you feel stupid? We would much rather have a President who we want to have a beer with and talk about the game with than one who is going to bore us with their "elitist" rhetoric. Ronald Reagan started us off down this path, but he was playing a part. While he may not have been a Rhodes Scholar, he spent his entire political career being indoctrinated in Conservative dogma. He learned his politics from Richard Nixon and Barry Goldwater, so upon arriving in the White House, he was well versed in the game. He decided that folksy was the way to go and as an actor used to playing roles, he played that one to the hilt. He was Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. He was the regular guy who happened to have made it to top, but never forgot where he came from. He claimed to be the champion of the little guy and a true patriot and that's the role he successfully pulled off. George Bush, who followed him into the White House, was as far from a regular guy as you could find, but even he dumbed himself down, so that people would feel more comfortable with him. Bill Clinton (who actually was a Rhodes Scholar) also played the regular guy role. He felt our pain and earned the nickname "Bubba".

This succession of leaders who felt the need to play the role of "regular guy", led to the election of someone who wasn't playing a role. George W. Bush clearly lacks the intellectual capacity of his immediate successors and has led this country to the brink of disaster. He came into office as a "compassionate conservative". His eight years in office have shown him to be neither particularly compassionate (ask the survivors of Katrina) and certainly not a Conservative (how exactly do you inherit a surplus of $200 billion and turn that into a deficit approaching $1 trillion?). He will leave his eight year term having taken almost a full year of vacation time. George W. Bush was undoubtedly "one of us" but the truth is that "one of us" is not qualified for the job.

So now we return to Governor Palin, who claims that whenever she gets a question from the media that she doesn't answer correctly that they are engaging in "gotcha" questioning. If asking a question about what newspapers you read is a "gotcha" question, then every question ever posed to a politician in the history of makind is a "gotcha" question. Sarah Palin is undoubtedly one of the people, but the question becomes, is that who we want to lead us? Do we want someone who doesn't understand the Constitution? Do we want someone who thinks that being able to see Russia from their home state gives them foreign policy credentials (I can see the moon from my backyard, but I don't think that makes me an Astronaut)? Do we want someone who can only talk about issues in soundbites? Do we want someone whose greatest ambition in life was to be an anchor on Sportscenter? Do we want someone who can't pronounce the word nuclear (oh that's right we already have that)? Do we want to settle for mediocrity? If you answered yes to those questions, then Sarah Palin is the person for you. And it seems that a lot of people in the Republican Party would agree.

A More Perfect Union

I have been and remain very skeptical of Barack Obama's prospects in next Tuesday's election. The polls, while showing McCain behind also contain enough wiggle room for an unforeseen victory. Up to 8% of voters have remained stubbornly "undecided" and I have my own thoughts about what that actually means. An Obama victory is premised on a huge turnout from the African American community and young voters. These voters are often underrepresented in polling, so Obama's lead may actually be larger than it appears, however many a candidate has been disappointed on an election night because these constituencies did not turn up as expected. I have decided to write an article about what an Obama Presidency would mean. This is not a review of policy, rather a look at the bigger picture.

Our Declaration of Independence contains these words, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...". America has never really lived up to those words. From slavery to the genocide of the native Americans to Jim Crow to denying women the right to vote to the internment of the Japanese during WWII to de facto segregation to trickle down economics to the continued abuse of illegal immigrants to denying gays and lesbians the right to marry, America has used and abused the least among us for the enrichment and benefit of the wealthiest and most powerful among us. We have allowed fear and ignorance of the unknown to deprive us of the thing that makes us special. The diversity of this country is what had made America great, yet we have found many ways to try and protect our perceived homogony from every "attack" from every wave of immigrants who have found their ways to these shores either willingly or unwillingly. As we enter the final days of this most important election, the Democratic candidate has been subject to every type of label to inspire fear that can be mustered. He is a Socialist, Marxist, communist, Arab, Manchurian Candidate, terrorist, friend to terrorist, enemy of Israel, Anti Christ, foreigner, baby killer, anti-American, racist. These are labels that attempt to inspire fear and hatred. They are attempts to show that Obama is not one of us, he's one of the "them". One of "them", who doesn't deserve to be treated as an equal. One of "them" who doesn't deserve our respect. And one of "them" who certainly doesn't deserve to President of the United States.

If Barack Obama were actually to become the next President of the United States would the country be transformed overnight? Of course not. We face an economic crisis of untold proportion and there is nothing that will make that go away, least of all the election of a new President. The rich will still be rich, the poor will still be poor, the homeless will still be homeless, hundreds of thousands of our troops will still be deployed in the Middle East and our economy is still going to be in very poor shape. The new President is going to be left with multiple issues to deal with from the current administration. An Obama presidency would not mean that our problems would disappear, in fact, the next President is going to face some monumental challenges that no change in policy is going to be able to overcome in a few months. The country would head in a different direction under an Obama administration, but the issues are and would continue to be very challenging for the country.

However, an Obama presidency would mean more than just a change in the policies of the country. The election of an African-American would signal something much larger than that. Our immediate domestic situation may not change greatly, but our reputation and standing around the world would be enormously affected. America has always held itself up as an example of what is possible. America was able to exert its influence around the world not only because it is a military super power, but because it was a symbol of morality. We held an image (of ourselves at least), of having some moral high ground from which to preach to the rest of the world. That image has been tainted by the current administration. From torture to warrantless wiretapping, this administration has ceded that position. Our current administration has toiled under the motto of the ends justifying the means. We are no longer an example of the best of what is possible, we have become common in our wielding of power at home and abroad.

At the end of the day, this election is not for the pleasure or amusement of the rest of the world. In my opinion, there is not a nation on this planet with a majority White population that would elect a Black person as their leader. So while I appreciate that they look at this election with great interest, their condemnation or approval of the outcome is not a primary concern. The primary concern is what would an Obama victory mean here at home. The symbolism of an African-American President is unmistakable. Our nation, (which held itself up for so long as the bastion of freedom and equality, while denying basic rights to portions of its citizens), will have proven to the world (but mainly to itself) that it can take a giant step toward living up the true meaning of our creed that all men are created equal. The division and mistrust between races will of course remain, but nothing that fundamental is ever changed overnight. For our children it will have a much greater meaning. Our children will never know a world in which someone other than a White male has never been the leader of the country. Our children, of every color, will never know a world in which they cannot dream of one day holding the highest land in the office. Our children will look at Barack Obama, not as the Black president, but as THE President.

This really shouldn't be a black or white issue. Our country has strived earnestly for the past 50 years to try and overcome some of the sins of our past. It is an ongoing battle. It is very easy for us to point to some new group of immigrants who doesn't speak our language and demonize them and without vigilance we will give in to our fears. Electing Barack Obama will not solve our problems overnight, but I honestly believe that his administration would provide us with the best chance at a workable solution for our future. I do not support him as a symbolic gesture, I support him because I believe that he is the best person for the job, regardless of race. The symbolism will remain however. It would mean that the highest position in the land is open to all and that we as a nation have taken a small step forward in our development. It would mean that we have taken a giant leap along the road toward building a more perfect union. I will end with these words from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address:

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

Crystal Ball

Just a couple of quick notes for today. First of all, you will be able to tell the outcome of the election very early on the 4th. The polls in Virginia close at 7pm and quick call for Obama will prove that the polling numbers are indeed correct (if you are an Obama fan, you can open the champagne at that point). If the race is seen as too close to call and remains that way for a number of hours, then the networks and the entire country will be in for a long night. Just a side note to pat myself on the back. On August 21st I wrote this, "Like the 2000 election when it was all about Florida, Florida, Florida, the 2008 election may be all about Virginia, Virginia, Virginia." The second note is that if the Republicans lose the election, you can mark my words that their next candidate for President will have a very familiar name. John Ellis Bush, better know as Jeb, will be the next Republican candidate for President. I'm sure that Sarah Palin, with her strong support among the Evangelical base of the party will try and make some push (that is if she doesn't get impeached in Alaska first), but smarter heads will prevail in the end. Jeb is destined to have the next shot at the Presidency, either in 2012 (if Obama wins) or 2016 (if McCain wins).

What, Me Worry?

Why is this man smiling? He's smiling because he just pulled a fast one on the voters of New York City. He's smiling because he just proved that money trumps Democracy. He's smiling because no matter what the law says, he knows that his money puts him above it. He's smiling because now he can stay in elected office until 2012 so that he can make a run at the White House. He's smiling because life couldn't be easier when you've got a 30 Billion in the bank. He's smiling because his life is better than yours. He's smiling because he knows that he's going to be fine no matter what kind of financial storm the country experiences. He's smiling because at the end of the day he's not you!

Joe, We Hardly Knew Ye

General Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President today and the reaction from the far right has been swift and vicious. They have called him everything from a war criminal to disgruntled ex-employee. The most consistent attack has been that his support of Obama can be traced to the simple fact that he's black. General Powell (who I happen to believe carries a large portion of the blame for the Iraq War because of his UN speech) gave an eloquent and extensive speech on his reasons for his decision. This however did not seem to be enough for his former admirers on the far right.

Pat Buchanan asked today on Harball if Colin Powell would be endorsing Barack Obama if he were a white liberal Democrat. He also said that people are going to raise questions about Powell's motives and that the reasons are valid. So since Pat Buchanan has seen fit to impugn the motivations of General Powell, I feel it only fitting that I return the favor. Joe Lieberman is a racist. I don't mean the "I wish all black people would die" kind of racist. He is after all a member of a religious minority, but based on his actions in endorsing the White Republican candidate for President, I can only conclude that he made the decision based on race.

Here's a statement the Senator from Connecticut made back in 2006 about Barack Obama:

"He is a blessing to the US Senate, to America and to our shared hope for a better safer tomorrow for all our families. The gifts that God has given to Barack Obama are as enormous as his future is unlimited. I look forward to helping him reach to the stars and realize not just the dreams he has for himself, but the dreams we all have for him and our blessed country."

And at the Republican convention:

"I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party. I'm here tonight because John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead our country forward. I'm here because John McCain's whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American."

"Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record -- not in these tough times. In the Senate he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party."

So how is it possible that in two years, Senator Joe Lieberman (a lifetime Democrat and one time VP nominee) went from being a strong supporter of Barack Obama to being dedicated to bringing about his defeat. There are some who have suggested that the fact that Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primary and had to run as an Independent has caused him to exhibit some bitterness toward the Democratic party. That seems to make sense, however there was one Senator who made the trip to Connecticut to back Lieberman in his senate race and that was Barack Obama. Here is what Obama said during that Senate race:

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it. I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf."

So while Lieberman may have reasons to be at odds with some in the Democratic party, Obama clearly should not fall into that category. He and Senator Obama do differ on the Bush administration policy in Iraq, but disagreements over policy are certainly to be expected among members of the same party and I am sure that their social policies line up much better than do Lieberman's and McCain's. McCain is dedicated to overturning Roe V. Wade, which Lieberman is absolutely in favor of. Lieberman, was at the "I have a dream" speech by Martin Luther King, and says that it inspired him to a life of public service. John McCain voted against a national holiday for MLK every chance he got. I would bet that from a host of issues from education to Women's rights, Lieberman is much more closely aligned to the position of Obama than McCain.

Can there be any other reason, except for race, that Lieberman would endorse and actively campaign for John McCain? You could say that he thinks that McCain is the best person for the job. Or that he thinks that McCain would handle foreign policy better. Or that he thinks McCain has the right experience for the job. Or that he agrees with McCain's policy decisions. Or that he thinks McCain would be better at reaching across the isle to Democrats. Or that McCain would be better at getting things done. Or that McCain is a different kind of Republican. Or that he's just more comfortable with his long time friend in the White House. NAAAAAAAAHHH. The only reason he's supporting McCain is because he's white. There can't possibly be another reason. He's just a racist.

A House Divided

Michelle Bachmann, a spokesperson (who happens to be US Congresswoman) for the McCain campaign said today that Barack Obama should be investigated because of the ties that he has to radical (and here's the key word) anti-American people. She mentioned Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres and Tony Rezko (who I thought was just a crooked business man, but what do I know). She also said that all members of Congress should be looked at to find out whether they are "pro-America or anti-America. This kind of rhetoric is straight out of the fifties, HUAC (House un-American activities committee) and Joe McCarthy.

It is not only scary that the McCain campaign is now stooping to these levels, but it is outright dangerous. What exactly are they trying to say about Barack Obama at this point? It seems that they are sending out their subordinates to spread the word that Obama is anti-American by association. Wouldn't that mean that someone would be a patriot by making sure that he never becomes the President? One day McCain is talking down a member of crowd who claimed that Obama was an Arab and the next day his campaign is propagating the idea that Obama is basically a Communist. I have no idea where this is leading, but it certainly isn't leading anywhere good. The McCain campaign now has no problem in trying to whip up his supporters to not only disagree with the proposed policies of Barack Obama, but to question whether his motivations are "patriotic".

This country is faced with its greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, but the McCain campaign would like nothing more than to spend the last 18 days of this campaign questioning the "Americanism" of Barack Obama. Since he has been unable to rattle Obama in the debates and show that he is somehow incapable of handling the job, he now has to resort to the Obama's not "American" enough argument and he's too mysterious. I think that the McCain campaign might start holding up a piece of paper at their next rally, which they will claim has the names of known Communists that Obama has been "pallin' " around with.

This country will need to work as one in order to get through the coming economic storm. John McCain seems intent on driving a wedge right in the middle of this country. Sarah Palin actually talked about "Pro-American" areas of the country, conversely according to the would be Vice-President, there must be anti-American areas of the country. Perhaps she was speaking of the headquarters of the political party that her husband belonged to for a better part of a decade and that she recorded a welcome message for this year, that openly supports that Alaska leave the union. Or perhaps she meant my home, New York. Maybe she meant Illinois, which sent Obama to the Senate. I have no idea what she meant, but clearly this is not what the country needs at this point. What ever happened to the slogan of the McCain-Palin campaign? What exactly does "Country First" mean to them? Does it mean trying to do what's best for the country, or trying to win at all costs? Their action would lead me to believe that it's much more likely the latter.

I have no delusions that Obama is actually ahead by 6,7,8 or 9 points. I know that the undecided vote will break McCain's way. I know that their are people who will go into the voting booth with every intention of voting for Obama and come out having voted the other way. I know that the Presidential Republican victories have been based on identity politics and dividing this nation into "us" against "them". I know that this latest and most vigorous attempt to brand Obama as "different" is just part of the usual plan. There was a part of me that always knew this was coming, but I was hoping that this election might be different. I didn't expect it to be less negative, but given John McCain's pledge to run an honorable campaign, I hoped for better. Barack Obama has misstated or lied about McCain's positions and policies, but he has never reduced himself to the politics of personal attacks. He has never brought up the fact that McCain cheated on his disabled wife, he has never brought the fact that McCain got favorable treatment in the Navy, he has never brought up the fact that McCain has repeatedly gone back against his word, he has never brought up the fact that McCain picked someone who is wholly unprepared for the complexity of national office.

I can see what's coming and it's going to be ugly. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, " A house divided against itself, cannot stand". The last eight years have shown us what we get from a divided nation, however based on everything that the McCain campaign has done, that is not only their wish but their ultimate goal.

Hindsight is 20/20

Here is where we stand today:
-Obama is up by 7-9 points

-The debates are over

-The economic crisis continues to dominate the news

-Obama is making gains in traditional Republican states (North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana)

-John McCain has pulled his resources out of Michigan and the RNC is leaving even more

-No candidate has ever come back from a deficit this large at this stage of the race

So how do I feel at this point? The same as I always have. This race is John McCain's to lose. The euphoria from the Democratic side of the aisle is to be expected. The Democrats haven't won the White House in eight years and there are a lot of people voting this year who have never had the pleasure of voting for a winning presidential candidate. I would caution against too much celebrating however. After the second debate, the CNN panel was practically unanimous in their assessment that if the economic numbers held for Obama, the race was over. There was one voice who was not caught up in the numbers and that was David Gergen who reminded everyone that nothing in this race is predictable because of the simple fact that Obama is black.

Obama's race is alternately ignored and then over-analyzed. One minute the pundits act as if the issue doesn't exist and then the next moment, it is all that exists. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Race will be a factor in the election, the question remains as to how much of a factor it will be. That is the question that at this point has no answer. There is no precedent for this. The Bradley factor (named after the former mayor of Los Angeles who led by a substantial margin in the polls for Governor only to lose on election day) or the Wilder effect (named after the Governor of Virginia who went into the election with a 9 point lead and ending up winning by less than 1/2 a percent) can basically be thrown out of the window. This is not an election for the head of a town, city or state. This is an election for the biggest job in the world. No matter how far we have come in race relations in this country, race will still trump a lot of the personal interests of voters.

The unanswerable question at this point is how many of those undecided voters are truly undecided or just unwilling to state a preference because they don't want to be accused of bias. There are some who are unwilling to name Obama because they would be going against family and friends and there are some who are unwilling to name McCain because of the same reason. At this point we can assume that the majority of undecideds are White because of Obama's overwhelming support among Blacks. So how would a White woman in rural Kentucky tell her friends and family that she is bucking decades of family tradition and ideals and voting for a Barack Obama for President? I would guess very carefully. I can imagine the same being true of a closet McCain voter in a similar position. The easiest thing to be in this election is a registered Republican or Democrat, that way you can avoid being branded by simply stating that you are voting for your parties candidate. The "persuadable"/ Independent/ Undecided voter is in the toughest position because they cannot simply hide under a party banner.

The race will undoubtedly tighten before election day. Obama is counting on an unprecedented turn out from both minorities and younger voters to propel him to victory on November 4th. Previous candidates have gone down this road only to be disappointed come election day. Obama's national lead, while outside the margin of error, is still not safe from the undecideds breaking McCain's way and some of his promised support either switching sides or not showing up at all. Obama cautioned today against over confidence and complacency and he had good reason to do so. I wrote a piece back on September 29th in which I stated that the race was not over. Well, it wasn't over then and it ain't over now. There are more turns to come in this race, the least of which may just be the American people changing their minds one more time.

Class Dismissed

A question was recently asked of one of the Democratic nominees concerning whether the proposed tax increase of people making over $250K might be a signal of class warfare. I don't remember the answer that was given (I'm sure it was fairly dismissive of the notion), but I couldn't help but think about the fact that class warfare has been underway for a long time and it's not really hard to figure out who is coming out on the short end. We have transformed from a government "by the people, for the people" to a ruling class that takes action for their benefit and then tells the people that they are doing for the good of everyone. We basically no longer have a voice in the direction that we take. We have become as meek as a flock of sheep that follow the direction of the all knowing shepherd.

WE THE PEOPLE are unarmed for the combat that is being waged against us. We head into this battle armed with a water gun while we are staring down the barrel of a tank. At this point the people have very little say in what is done "in their name". The administration decides that they would like to break international law and torture prisoners so they just transform their definition of torture and come up with a palatable term like "enhanced interrogation techniques". The response from the people is negligible. Thanks to a helping hand from "24" on Fox and the methods of Jack Bauer, the American people have now been convinced that torture is not only acceptable but necessary.

The brilliant individuals on Wall St., who when left to their own devices, decided to invest heavily in a spin of a roulette table. Basically what they did was put a large portion of their money on one number and while the ball was spinning, everyone was having a good ol' time. CEO's were taking home pay packages in the tens of millions, and everyone was getting rich on a bet that had a very small chance of paying off. Of course the people making those bets weren't risking their own money; they were risking the pensions and retirement funds of the American people. The government knew this was going on, but chose to ignore it because, hey, it's only the American people who are going to get screwed if this doesn't pay off. So when it all comes crashing down, guess who gets stuck with the bill? You guessed it, the grazing sheep in the meadow. Where was the alarm when the investment banks were mortgaging the future of the financial system on a sucker bet? Where was the government when banks were giving out loans like they were free samples at the supermarket? They were being wined and dined by the very people whose greed has led to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. What about the people you ask? The people who they are supposed to serve, the people who rely on their elected officials to protect their interests? Those people get stuck with the bill.

Here in New York, our two term mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has decided that only he has a steady enough hand to lead NY through this economic crisis and therefore he will ignore the law and run for a third term. New Yorkers have voted for term limits twice and even the then sainted Rudy Guliani was not allowed to continue on as mayor in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. In fact when Rudy floated the idea of being allowed to stay on for an extra six months, Mr. Bloomberg was one of the loudest voices that rose in opposition to the idea. In fact, I think his exact words were, "everyone is replaceable". Apparently he was talking about everyone but himself. Now of course you would think that regardless of his wishes, he can't just break the law and run for Mayor, can he? You would be right, if not for the fact that he is planning on getting the City Council to approve making an exception to the law (just this one time). Of course the proposed law would also allow everyone on the City Council who is also facing term limits to stay on for an extra term as well. So in order to subvert the will of the voters of New York, he is asking the City Council to vote on whether they want to keep their own jobs. What is the response from the people? Silence. Perhaps there are voices of dissent in the press? Not quite. The New York Post and Daily News both seem to think that this is a splendid idea. We have become such meek followers that even when our wishes are blatantly ignored, we apparently no longer have the will to protest.

As we face this upcoming election, one candidate has once again shown the disdain that the ruling class has for the people. John McCain, by naming someone as woefully inadequate and intellectually mediocre as Sarah Palin, is basically thumbing his nose at the American people. Instead of picking someone who might help solve the very serious problems that face this nation, he picked someone for shock value alone. What would happen if she would have to replace him as the President? He doesn't care. He'd be dead or incapacitated anyway. What about the good of the people you ask, once again? Since when did that enter into the equation?

If you doubt what I've said here, I will leave you with this little tidbit, that our illustrious Vice President decided to share with us, from an interview earlier this year about the Iraq War:

Raddatz: "Two-thirds of Americans say it’s not worth fighting, and they’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives."

Cheney: "So?"

All Things To All People

The debate last night was less than memorable. There were no "You're no John Kennedy" moments. It was basically what debates are these days, a reassurance to the supporters of both sides. Sarah Palin came in having passed through some very rough press coverage. Her interviews showed her to be less than knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects. There were some who questioned whether she would even show up. Well, she did show up and provided at least a measure of relief to her supporters. She didn't have any deer in the headlights moments and managed to get through the entire 90 minutes without making a major gaffe. Biden entered the debate with a clear mission to make sure he got the message out that a McCain administration would essentially be a continuation of the Bush administration. And considering he mentioned John McCain and George Bush in at least half his answers, he accomplished what he set out to do.

Sarah Palin may have impressed her core supporters, but her outright refusal to answer some of the questions should have been called out more often by Gwen Ifill. It seemed clear to me that Ms. Ifill had been shaken by the criticism of her by the McCain campaign and the right leaning press about the fact that she was writing a book that contained a chapter about Barack Obama. Instead of challenging the candidates when they refused to answer a question, she almost meekly moved on to the next topic. It was quite disappointing to see such a respected and competent journalist and interviewer cowed into a less than representative performance.

Joe Biden's performance was solid. He demonstrated the depth and breadth of his knowledge and he was on his best behavior when it came to dealing with Sarah Palin. He always referred to her as Governor and for the most part refused to engage her when she gave him on opening. He defended Barack Obama and attacked John McCain, but almost acted as if Sarah Palin was a mere stand in for John McCain. He did not attack her record, or the inconsistencies in her speeches, he attacked John McCain and tied him George Bush as often as possible. I thought his worst moment came when he said that he did not support Gay marriages. I know that both he and Barack Obama do not agree with that point, and his delivery of the line was not very convincing. It was also his most "politician-y" moment of the night. Barack Obama has promised a new kind of politics, but this was just an example of more politics as usual.

Sarah Palin regurgitated her standard talking points throughout the night. She never at any point demonstrated deep knowledge of any topic that was discussed. And her winking, giggling and at times, dismissive attitude felt very wrong for the serious situation this country now finds itself in. She almost seemed to revel in the fact that she was not going to answer the questions that were asked. If a topic came up that she was unfamiliar with, she would quickly pivot to either a story about her time as a mayor in Alaska or to energy policy. Her worst moment came when she actually talked about expanding the powers of the Vice President. I'm not sure what her point was there and it seemed to come out of left field. She probably did a lot to assuage the fears of her supporters who were afraid that the debate would be a repeat of the Couric/Gibson interviews. At no point did she freeze up, although she did utter some absolutely non-sensical sentences and phrases.

The pundits now watch the debates, less for substance, but to try and pick out what moment "connected" with the viewers. In the first McCain - Obama debate there was more talk about McCain's body language than about his actual substantive answers. We have gotten to the point where style can triumph over substance. Just another example of how George W. Bush has contributed to the glorification of mediocrity. The line that some pundits have used about Sarah Palin being "one of us" should be absolutely frightening to almost everyone. Since when did we decide that the most important job in the country should be put in the hands of the "average citizen". I wonder if most American's pick their doctors or lawyers this way. I wonder if when they ask for a referral to a specialist, they ask for the one who is the most average. I can imagine the conversation, "I need brain surgery?Could you tell if you know of any really average surgeons? I don't like those elitist, smart ones. They don't really seem to understand my problems." Or "I'm on trial for my life? Could you get me the lawyer who finished fifth from the bottom of their graduating class of 450. And no he doesn't need to know much about the law, just as long as he's someone that speaks my language and I wouldn't mind having a drink with."

The bottom line is that people watching probably got exactly what they wanted out of the debate. Leaners were probably more inclined to lean in their chosen direction and those who have already made their decisions were certainly not motivated to change their minds based on anything that was done last night. It seems clear that debates (at least as these are structured) don't offer much upside. However, each candidate must be careful to avoid the gaffe heard 'round the world. This leads to less spirited debate and more repetition of rehearsed and familiar lines and themes. They may be boring, but the candidates still have to be on their toes, lest they suffer the fate of Gerald Ford, who still to this day is best known for falling down (thanks to SNL) and for claiming, during his debate with Jimmy Carter, that there was no soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

Just a side note: Why the hell can't the Republicans find candidates who can pronounce the word nuclear. It's not cute or endearing or funny or folksy or whatever other "code" word it is that is used to describe the inability to pronounce words. Sarah Palin and George Bush are not cute toddlers with a lisp. One is, and one is vying to become the leader of this nation. It makes them both sound illiterate and stupid when they fail at the correct use of the English language. I bet even those so called "average" folks that they are supposed to appeal to can pronounce the word. What the hell is nu - cu - lar anyway?

I Am Not Amused

In anticipation of tonight's Vice Presidential debate, I just wanted to post some of Sarah Palin's greatest hits during her interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson. They really speak for themselves.

Palin on:
The Supreme Court
Couric: "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?"
Palin: "Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …"
Couric: "Can you think of any?"
Palin: "Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

On Foreign policy experience:
Palin: "And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor."
Gibson: "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?"
Palin: "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."

Couric: "You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?"
Sarah Palin: "That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters."
Couric: "Mocked?"
Palin: "Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah."
Couric: "Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials."
Palin: "Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…
Couric: "Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?"
Palin: "We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

On the Bailout:
Couric: "Could the $700 billion economic bailout be filtered more through middle-class American families, rather than down through Wall Street financiers".
Palin: "That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in ... where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the healthcare reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh -- it's got to be all about job creation too. Shoring up our economy, and putting it back on the right track. So healthcare reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, um, scary thing, but 1 in 5 jobs being created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that."

On Bush Foreign Policy:
Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

Palin: “In what respect, Charlie?”

Gibson: “The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?”

Palin: “His world view?”
Gibson: “The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?”

Palin: “I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.”

And there you have it. The confidence inspiring comments from the person who would be Vice President of the United states. Of course there is some precedent for this. I'll leave you with this brilliant observation from the person single handedly responsible for lowering the bar for all who would follow:

"One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared.'"

J. Danforth Quayle