This election is over, and not a moment too soon

I've come to the conclusion that this election is over, and it couldn't come a moment too soon. This election belongs to Obama. Unless he does something really stupid, in less than two weeks, we'll be calling him "Mr. President."

To tell you the truth, I think we could do worse than Obama as president. I don't think he's a socialist, as has been charged. And I don't think he'll do a lot of damage to our country. That's because, he's going to have Congress acting as a check on his ambitions, even if the Democrats win solid majorities in both houses, as expected. And given the state of our economy, I don't think he'll have a lot of money to start a lot of new programs. I think if he accomplishes anything, it will be to calm our country down, and maybe restore a measure of optimism.

To tell you the truth, I don't really care who wins this election anymore. Like everyone else, I'm tired of the whole process. I think two years is too long for any campaign. I think campaigns should be limited to a year, maybe six months. Maybe then, people would actually care and get out and vote.

Is McCain's Campaign DOA?

With three weeks to go before the most important election in this nation's history, I'm beginning to wonder if McCain's campaign is DOA. It's not just that he's behind in the polls. It's not just that he has failed to take advantage of two presidential debates so far and hit a homerun. It's that the stock market continues to tank. So far during this crisis, the stock market has lost almost 40 percent of its value, compared to its high-water mark of more than 14,000, set just a year ago. It's that President Bush has no credibility left with the American people. When he spoke Friday to try to reassure Americans, the stock market immediately tanked.

People almost always vote their wallets, and as long as the economy is in the toilet and people are panicing, I think we can write the political epitaph for McCain's campaign. I agree with Pat Buchanan on this one. If Obama wins, it will be more a verdict against Republicans, not necessarily a mandate for Obama.

Holding his own

I sat down and watched Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night, Sept. 4. Truth be told, I wasn't expecting much from the Republican candidate. After all, public speaking has never been his strong suit. That's why I was pleasantly surprised.

McCain did exactly what he needed to do Thursday night. He kept his shots at Obama above the belt. Instead of taking useless personal shots at Obama, he contrasted himself with the Democratic candidate. Instead of mocking him, he told people what to expect from a Democratic administration vs. a Republican administration. He showed a lot of class, and earned a measure of respect from me.

What I liked about McCain's speech is that he separated himself from the Bush administration. He showed a good measure of the independence that made him such an attractive candidate in the first place. The question is, now that he's the man, will he continue to show that independence, or will he pander to the hard-right Republican base?

A star is born?

On Wednesday night, I took time to listen to Sarah Palin address the Republican National Convention. I went in with an open mind, knowing next to nothing about the candidate for vice president. I have to admit, I was impressed.



Palin delivered a heck of a speech. She was warm and engaging, and she began to fill in some of the blanks about who she was and what she believed. She did an excellent job painting herself as a small-town girl who rose from humble beginnings to become mayor of her hometown, governor of her home state, and now a nominee for vice president. She showed herself to be a woman of accomplishment, a polished speaker and no one to be trifled with.



If I had one complaint about her speech, it's that she spent a little too much time bashing Obama. On one hand, I suppose you could make the argument that this is her job. But I contend her job is to boost her candidate. Can this not be done without taking pot shots at Obama? I think her job Wednesday night was to boost McCain while introducing herself to America and allaying people's fears that she wasn't qualified. She did a good job of introducing herself. I just wish she had stuck to that.

A curious choice

On Friday, Sen. John McCain finally announced his running mate, just a few days out from the Republican National Convention. Instead of nominating someone that people expected him to, like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, he went with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that McCain would go left when everyone else thought he should go right, but Sarah Palin? What exactly does she bring to the table?

Think about this. She's the governor of a state that has less people in it than the city of Memphis. She's a former journalist who ran her husband's fishing business. And she's a former beauty queen. How exactly does that qualify her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

Best I can figure, McCain is trying to make up for the perceived mistake of Barack Obama in not nominating Hillary Clinton as his VP. I think this is just a transparent attempt by McCain to win the women's vote. Hopefully, women voters will recognize this for what it is and won't let him get away with it.

A big mistake for Obama

On Saturday, Barack Obama finally announced his running mate for 2008. To everyone's surprise, he chose Deleware Sen. Joseph Biden. The question is, why?

It seems to me that Obama has made a big mistake with his choice. A better choice would have been New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Why? Becaused she came within an eyelash of winning the nomination outright. She has a large bloc of supporters that he could have brought under the Democratic tent, including the all-important women's vote. With her vast experience, she would have made a tremendous choice.

Another good choice would have been New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Not only does he have a sparkling resume (He was a former energy secretary and a former ambassador to the United Nations, as well as a former Congressman), he is Hispanic. Adding him to the ticket would have helped win the Hispanic vote, which continues to grow in importance nationally.

So what does Biden bring to the ticket? That's a good question. He doesn't exactly come from a swing state. If anything, what he brings to the ticket is international experience. He is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He also brings plenty of legislative experience. Other than that, he seems like a weak choice and a mis-step by a sudden floundering campaign.

Hillary and the Convention

On Thursday, it was announced by Fox News that Hillary Clinton's name would be put in nomination at the Democratic National Convention in a couple of weeks. And it is going to be done with the blessing of presumptive nominee Barack Obama.

Apparently, this is going to be a symbolic gesture, a nod to Hillary's historic campaign and a sop to her supporters who were upset when she suspended her campaign. My question is, was this really necessary?

It seems to me this gesture is an empty one. Hillary is not going to get the nomination, so why do it? Add this to the fact that it has the potential to backfire on the Democrats, and it makes you wonder what the heck they're thinking.

What's going to happen if Hillary's supporters refuse to let this be simply a symbolic gesture? What if instead of backing Obama, we end up with a major floor fight? It seems to me that the Democrats need to unite behind Obama and present a solid front to the nation, not make an empty symbolic gesture that really doesn't mean anything

Bush's Legacy?

Recently, President Bush went to China to put in an appearance at the Olympic Games in Beijing. While there, he had the audacity to preach to the Chinese government about the importance of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. When I read his comments, I had two thougts. First, is this guy for real? This is a COMMUNIST country. Of course they're not going to have these things that so many Americans take for granted. Second, what will his legacy be when he leaves office in five months (Thank God)!

Now, admittedly, I'm no Bush fan. Personally, I can't wait until the election in November. But looking at it honestly, I think he will go down in history as one of the most incompetent presidents we've ever had.

In eight years, what has Bush accomplished? He's managed to introduce the concept of "pre-emptive war" to the world and start a two-front war in Afghanistan and Iraq that we are losing badly. He's managed to wreck the economy. Gas prices have tripled under his watch. There's the mortgage crisis. And let's not forget the damage he's done to us on the international stage.

Where once we were respected and listened to, now people look at Bush as a clown, a shoot first and ask questions later cowboy. Our reputation has suffered tremendously, and it may take years before we regain the respect we once had.

That's why I'm no fan of John McCain. To me, he represents the worst parts of the Bush administration and a continuation of eight years of failed policies. He's someone who's pledged to "keep us in Iraq for 100 years if that's what it takes." He has shown his disdain for economic policy. And frankly, he's built his whole campaign on something that happened 40 years ago. I'm sorry, but being a prisoner of war doesn't qualify you to be commander-in-chief.

As for Obama, I'm not sure about him either. He's awfully inexperienced. And he seems to be trying to find his sea legs when it comes to his position on any number of issues. Still, given a choice, he seems to be the best hope of significant change. After all, we could hardly do worse than Bush.

A story that's not a story

On Friday, it was revealed that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards had an affair. The question is, who really cares? I know that Edwards is a two-time presidential candidate and a former vice presidential candidate, but he's a private citizen now. Shouldn't he have the right to a private life? I think so. In my mind, the only person who has a right to be concerned about this is Edwards' wife Elizabeth.

Unfortunately this is just a symptom of our tabloid culture. We spend a lot of time looking into other people's private lives. It makes you wonder if we don't have enough to worry about, what with $4 gas, a shaky economy and a war that is now in it's fifth year. It also makes me wonder which came first. Do networks put stories like this on because people watch them? Or do people watch them because they're on?

Hillary for VP?

The Democratic National Convention is coming up, followed by the Republican convention. That means time is running short to pick running mates for John McCain and Barack Obama. So who should the candidates pick?

For my money, I'd like to see Obama go with Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I know, Hillary has her detractors. She's someone that you either love or hate. But she also has a solid block of supporters. She came within a breath of winning the nomination outright. Combine her followers with Obama's, and I think you'd have an unbeatable ticket. And don't forget the intelligence and political savvy she brings to the table.

As for McCain, he needs someone who is young and attractive, someone who is intelligent and could step in if McCain were to become incapacitated. For my money, I'd go with Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. He's conservative in ways that even McCain isn't. He's young, and by all accounts, he's intelligent. He's been a success at everything he's ever tried. He's also from a Southern state, and history has proven that winning the South is essential to winning the presidency.

Given the closeness of this race, I think it's safe to say that choice of running mate may very well make the difference.

A divided nation

This week in Knoxville, a deluded individual opened fire in a Unitarian-Universalist church, killing two people and wounding eight. His alleged motive? A hatred of the church and its "liberal" stances on social issues (including its support of women's and gay rights) and a general hatred of "the liberal movement.

Stories like this are always shocking in their brutality. One always wonders what kind of person can callously walk into a church and shoot innocent people. Something I else I wondered when I read this story was, is this what we've come to as a nation?

We've been a divided nation for almost decade. We have "red states" and "blue states." We have "flyover country" and "the beltway" of Washington, D.C. What we rarely have anymore is a united America.

When did it become a crime to be a liberal in this country? When did it become a crime to be a conservative? Whatever happened to our ability to discuss issues intelligently and agree to disagree? Are we really so far gone that we have to resort to violence to settle our differences? For the sake of our children and our nation, I certainly hope not.

Is experience a must?

Is experience a must for someone who wants to be president? For my money, experience is highly overrated.

Look at some of our most celebrated presidents. Abraham Lincoln, widely considered to be one of our best presidents, was a state legislator and someone who served one or two terms in Congress before being elected to the White House. Yet all he did was help guide us through the Civil War and help reunify our nation. Franklin Roosevelt was governor of New York, but he had no federal experience when he was elected to the White House. Yet, he helped guide us through the Great Depression and World War II. He is widely considered to be the greatest president of the past century.

The problem with "experience" is that it helps limit your view. You get used to the way things work in Washington, and are less able to see or accept new approaches or ideas.

Of course, there is a steep learning curve for anyone who wins the presidency. But if you're reasonably intelligent and willing to listen to more experienced people, you can learn the things you need to know to be successful. And truthfully, right now, I think our nation needs a change of direction in the worst way. I don't want someone in the White House who is going to maintain the status quo. I want someone who is willing to take our country in the new direction that it so desperately needs.

An Obama bias?

There's been a lot of talk recently about whether the media has a bias in favor of Sen. Barack Obama. Is the media really some liberal bastion that is giving Obama favorable coverage, while ignoring or downplaying his opponent, Sen. John McCain? Personally, I don't think so.

To be fair, I can see where that assumption comes from. Every time you turn on the news these days, you see Obama's face. Or you see him giving a speech. He's everywhere. But I think the perceived bias is really a function of our cable news culture.

Cable news channels like CNN and Fox News need stories. They have a lot of air time to fill each day. And let's be honest. Obama is the better story. He's charismatic and a captivating speaker. When he went to Germany last week, he managed to draw 200,000 people to a speech about nuclear disarmament. He's a rock star. And face it, McCain just catch match him when it comes to charisma.

Obama is a great story because, like Ronald Reagan before him three decades ago, and Bill Clinton 15 years ago, he excites people. He's preaching a positive message of hope. It's what people want to hear after eight years of terror alerts and five years of war. With McCain, all we're getting is more of the same. People want a change, and Obama is the agent of that change.

An introduction

First, I guess I should start with an introduction. I'm 35 years old and live in Tennessee. As far as my politics go, I consider myself a moderate (although my mother always disagreed with me. She used to call me her son, the flaming liberal!)

Socially, I'm a liberal. I'm pro-gay marriage. (I agee with Dolly Parton on this one. If they want they pain and misery that marriage brings, they should have that right!) I'm anti-death penalty and mostly anti-abortion. Specifically, I don't believe abortion should ever be used as a form of birth control, but I'm undecided on the "big three" exceptions -- rape, incest and health of the mother. Certainly, I believe the decision should be made by both the man and the woman, but I don't believe a man should ultimately tell the woman what to do with her own body.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe people should be able to do what they want to do with their lives (as long as it's legal and doesn't hurt anyone else). At the same time, people have to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions. They shouldn't be able to sue because of their own stupidity, and they shouldn't expect the government to bail them out. At the same time, I don't believe "government" is a bad word. I believe the government should help people who really need it, who can't help themselves.

There, in a nutshell, is my political philosophy and my philosophy of life. I hope y'all enjoy reading my thoughts and will respond. Happy reading!