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