"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade.” - Sen. Barack Obama, on “When does a baby get human rights?”

In 1948, they had Harry Truman and “The buck stops here!” In 2008, they’ve got Barack Obama and it’s “above my pay grade.” This is definitely not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. Certainly not mine . . . .

Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing. Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up. And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion (“is the fetus a human being?”) is that it’s “above my pay grade?”

There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. “That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!” is one of them. “I did not have sex with that woman” is another. But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation’s laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is “That’s above my pay grade.” . . .

Leaders don’t pass tough questions to the next “pay grade.” They don’t need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia’s invasion of a democratic neighbor.

Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they’ve already cast, like Obama’s extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of “present” in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.

That’s not leadership, that’s politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician. He is certainly no Harry Truman. . . . [‘Pay grade’ unartful dodge]

Aug 20, 2008 - I don't mean to shock anybody, but there is one other related issue that's been bothering me for a while: the commonly-held belief that Ralph Nader siphoned votes in 2000 and cost Vice-President Al Gore the election. The only reason I have trouble with that view is the fact that there were over 2,000,000 people that voted for him. Ralph Nader had, and has, the right to run for President. And anyone who votes had the right to vote for him. Let us not allow politicians, the media, our neighbors, and ourselves to create any more animosity, or perpetuate the brainwashing and conditioning that perpetuates the acceptance a two-party system as the sole form of Democracy. That's not what our country is based on, and that is not the idea for which people have fought and died.

A new concept was stuck into my head today, again by my more intelligent friend. If we "siphon" enough votes to cause a panic among the two dominating parties, it may be a wake-up call to them. In the past, I've held beliefs which match many other people's feelings about voting "the lesser of two evils." Basically, voting for a third-party may make a statement, but a third party candidate won't get elected so it's a wasted vote. Countering that thought, the new point of view I'm now considering regards the panic I mentioned. Essentially, if a Democrat or Republican loses an election because of a third-party candidate, there's a possibility and the potential for the introduction of new legislation: instant run-off voting during a general election, and the winner must have the plurality of votes. I'll attempt to simplify this idea for those who are newbies to politics and representative government.

If done correctly and with The People's desires in mind, instant run-off voting makes third-party candidates viable. Using instant run-off voting, the ballot gives two options for President, a first choice and a second choice. If candidate "A" receives 2% of the popular vote, candidate "D" receives 49%, and candidate "R" receives 49% of the vote, none have the plurality of votes. Therefore, if everyone who made candidate "A" his or her first choice also made candidate "D" the second choice, that 2% would go to candidate "D" giving them 51%, the plurality of votes. In the real world, not all of the 2% would have chosen candidate "D" as their second choice; however, If roughly half voted for "D" and half voted for "R," then, in the end, one of them would still receive over 50% of the popular vote. (And of course the Electoral College would have to be done away with for this process to be implemented.)

Using that method, people would feel free to vote for a third-party candidate without fear of "siphoning" votes from their second choice, or "the lesser of two evils." Typically people in power don't like to give up their power, so it's less likely that change would come from within, ie., there won't be any legislation proposed by either of the two major political parties. The incentive, however, should have come in 2000. If the Democrats felt the election was lost due to the run of Ralph Nader, there should have been discussion about instituting instant run-off voting where a plurality of votes is needed to win. Why was there no discussion? Possibly because Republicans held both houses of Congress until 2006. But maybe there was a discussion and I simply hadn't heard it. Even if it was proposed by Democrats, it would never have passed because they held the minority in the House and Senate. Regardless of the possibility of it passing, the issue could have been raised, and still could be placed on a Democratic agenda.

One major fault in the system currently: I read a rumor, possibly true, that some of Ralph Nader's funding came from Republicans.

I would like to forget about politics, politicians, and corrupt governments, but while I live on planet Earth, and while human nature dictates that power will corrupt, I'll either have to bury my head in the sand or just deal with it.

Stephanie Tubbs Jones distinguished herself as a judge, a prosecutor, member of the House of Representatives, and always cared enough to put other people first. She will be greatly missed.

My thoughts and prayers are with her family.

McCain is playing with fire here. He's fond of resurrecting the Vietnam War to supposedly demonstrate that he is qualified to lead on national security and foreign policy, but the specter of a draft could conjure up an entirely different remembrance of Vietnam that would not be favorable to McCain. The young men (and possibly women) who would be drafted right now are the children of the men and women who watched as their friends were drafted and sent away to war, many of them never to return. Vietnam could come back to bite McCain if he supports a draft, as those same men and women remember the fighting spirit that took them to the streets in opposition to the Vietnam War.

This is not to mention the impact on the youth vote. Young adults already favor Obama by an overwhelming margin, but the possibility of being drafted to serve in one or more of the "other wars" that McCain promises "there's gonna be" will motivate them to actually get out and vote. Not only could McCain decisively mobilize the generation of men and women who were young adults during Vietnam for Obama, he might mobilize a whole new generation of young adults for Obama. The anti-draft coalition would unquestionably mean decisive defeat for McCain.

Barack Obama needs to send every last surrogate he has out to condemn McCain and demand that he clarify whether or not he favors reinstatement of the draft. Then, tomorrow, Obama needs to come out and publicly blast McCain for the statement and demand the same thing. Even if McCain back pedals and says he didn't mean what he seems to have said, the damage will have been done and John McCain will be the standard bearer for the specter of a new draft, a new generation of young Americans thrust involuntarily into war, and a new generation of parents who have to wait for the body bags to roll in. It's time to firmly anchor McCain to the sinking ship he boarded today.

Still fails.  Even though it finally has MSNP15 support, it doesn't have support for a Current Song plugin for the personal message.  Bummer.  I was looking forward to logging back on to Google Talk and AIM.

Iceweasel 3.0.1

Iceweasel is the Debian package for Firefox.  It was created because of some licensing issues or something, I believe.  I find it to be much faster than Mozilla.org Firefox when you disable the site checking. (Edit -> Preferences -> Security -> Uncheck the Forgery and Attack Site checkboxes)  No more lag when scrolling, hooray!

Flash 10

CNN Video fails with Flash 10.  Tells you to upgrade your Flash.  Ha.

IB

I sincerely believe that IB is a US military experiment to determine how much stress a teenager can handle before their head explodes.  Since IB is "cruel and unusual punishment", isn't it a form of torture, like waterboarding?

If I remember correctly, did us Grade 11 IB students have a class called History of the Americas?  I'm not sure, since I did not see it on my schedule.

Screenshots

Click for full-size.

Desktop

Music

VP

If Barack Obama waits any longer, people will start filling up hospital emergency rooms as they suffer from nervous breakdowns, waiting for his VP text message.

Will it be like "Barack <3 Sebellius" or "Barack chooses Caroline Kennedy for Vice-President" or "Obama/Kennedy -- Change We Can Believe In"?

Comment.  Comment now.  NOW!

Hillary Clinton to release her delegates next Wednesday

By

Lynn Sweet

on August 20, 2008 12:41 PM

Here's the latest: The plan now calls for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to release her delegates next Wednesday afternoon at 1 p.m. That's the day after her keynote address before the Democratic National Convention. That means delegates can do what they want during the Thursday roll call. Clinton herself will cast her superdelegate vote for Obama.

Clinton's whip organization--still in place--phone conferenced Monday and Clinton hosted a delegate call Tuesday night.

Hillary Clinton to release her delegates next Wednesday - Lynn Sweet.

We do not yet know the fate of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, as of 5:00 pm ET, August 20, 2008. We do know that she had an aneurysm last night and according to major news outlets was pronounced dead, then the news was corrected to report that she is on life support.

UPDATE: Rep. Tubbs Jones passed away this evening, Wednesday, at 6:12 pm ET, according to CNN: after her condition declined "throughout the course of the day and into this evening," according to a joint statement from her family, Huron Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic.

The picture above was snapped at Baruch College in NYC on the eve of June 3, 2008, after the final primary totals were in, and Hillary had big wins in South Dakota and Puerto Rico. Terry McAuliffe introduced her as the Next President of the United States, and Hillary was defiant. It was less than one week after the Democrats slammed her at the DNC RBC meeting by awarding Obama Michigan votes that were not his. Through it all, Stephanie Tubbs Jones stayed strong, loyal, and true to the Clintons and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I feel like playing this Supremes song in honor of the song Congresswoman Jones has been singing through her passionate and dedicated service to Ohio and this country. I hope she'll hear the symphony, the violins, and the music she's made wherever she is. According to The Plain Dealer:

Joe Hewitt, a friend of Tubbs Jones' family, said the congresswoman's collapse followed a "full day of activity" including planning for a Sept. 4 forum on electoral reform at Cleveland State University.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

I Hear A Symphony

Whenever you're near, I hear a symphony, a tender melody . .

I feel this joy within, don't let this feeling end, let it go on and on and on and on.

Baby, baby, those tears that fill my eyes, I cry not for myself,

but for those who've never felt the joy we've felt. . . .

--- A thousand violins fill the air ---

Keep standing so close to me, so close to me, I hear a symphony.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Here's a portion of her bio from http://tubbsjones.house.gov:

Biography --- Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)

Currently in her fifth term in office, the Congresswoman, a strong advocate for many issues, has championed wealth building and economic development, access and delivery of health care, and quality education for all. The Congresswoman chairs the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (Ethics). Additionally, she serves on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and is an active member of numerous Congressional Caucuses, including the Congressional Black Caucus.

Most recently, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones introduced the "Count Every Vote" Act of 2005 which seeks to provide an all-encompassing solution to a broad range of voting irregularities that occurred during the 2004 presidential election. She is an original co-sponsor of multiple significant pieces of legislation, including healthcare for low and middle-income families and community reentry for ex-felons.

Ayers' past is now being exploited by the far right in a shameless attempt to connect him to Barack Obama. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence that Obama and Ayers have had anything but an academic and philanthropic relationship. This is nothing more than an attempt to associate Barack Obama with a so-called "terrorist," who was never convicted, in the far right's broader attempt to cast Obama as different, foreign, "the other."

Erickson's e-mail and more commentary beneath the fold.

First, Erickson's e-mail:

The University of Illinois Chicago refuses to release documents held at the public institution's library relating to the Annenberg Challenge on Excellence in Education.

The Annenberg Challenge was run by none other than Barack Obama and was started by terrorist Bill Ayers, in whose home Barack Obama got his political start.

The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library at the university had agreed to make the documents available for review by reporters, but the university then refused.

The records now will not be released.

What is the University of Illinois hiding? Is it destroying damning information about Obama before deciding to release the information?

Contact the Richard J. Daley Library at (312) 996-2724 and tell them to release the Annenberg Challenge files for public inspection.

Call Barack Obama at (202) 224-2854 and ask him to support the public release of the Annenberg Challenge files.

What are they hiding? I suspect the documents will show that Barack Obama had a direct, substantial relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers -- a relationship Obama denies having.

But we will not know without your help.

Call now.

Sincerely yours,

Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

This is, of course, ludicrous, but that's what we've all come to expect from the far right.

It is true that Barack Obama has been associated with Bill Ayers. He did indeed get his political start in Ayers' home, but he was there at the invitation of State Sen. Alice Palmer who had chosen Obama to succeed her in the Illinois State Senate. After that, the Ayers-Obama association was primarily philanthropic and academic in nature. Obama sat on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, an anti-poverty foundation that Ayers chaired for a couple years. The two appeared together during two academic panels in 1997 and 2002. And then there is Obama's role in the Annenberg Challenge on Excellence in Education. That's all there is to it.

Now, if we want to crucify a public figure who throughout his career has been a centrist -- attacked now by the left with some justification for being too centrist, too far to the right -- because he had an academic and philanthropic association with a man who ended his participation in the militant Weather Underground a full 18 years before Obama knew him, when Ayers was at the ripe old age of 33 (he was only 27 by the time the militant activities of the Weather Underground ended), then go right ahead. If we want to ignore the fact that there is nothing in Obama's record that cries terrorist sympathizer or supporter, if we want to ignore the fact that Obama has publicly condemned Ayers' past, we're free to do it. But it says something very sinister about our public discourse if we do that.

But don't just take my word for it. Ask The Chicago Tribune. Or Chicago Mayor Richard Daley:

There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama's opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers.

I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationally-renowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community.

I don't condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles. (Source: The Swamp)

But I think longtime Ayers critic Michael Kinsley said it best in Time when he wrote that "Ayers and [his wife Bernardine] Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd." He went on to write:

If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues. Northwestern created a "family justice" center for Dohrn to run. Ayers is a distinguished professor at the University of Illinois. They write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as "activists" who have never abandoned their noble ideals.

This is a non-issue created by the far right to try to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Barack Obama, including racist, religiously intolerant, and ideological attacks. And why? Because they're afraid he'll win and their long domination of the American government that has led to a record deficit, a staggering economic recession, and two wars that threaten to cost trillions of dollars and who knows how many American lives will come to an end. They should be afraid, because he will win, and they will be languishing in the minority for at least eight years.

But let's talk terrorism for a bit, shall we?

Remember when members of the late President Ronald Reagan's administration, including Lt. Col. Oliver North (now employed by Fox News), sold arms to Ayatollah Khomeini's terrorist regime in Iran in exchange for hostages? And remember when those same members of the Reagan administration used the proceeds from those sales to defy Congress and fund Nicaraguan Contra terrorists committed to toppling the Sandinista government, committing countless human rights abuses in the process? And remember when John McCain's good friend and endorser, George H.W. Bush, pardoned those convicted of criminal activity in their dealings with Iranian and Nicaraguan terrorists? Right, I thought you might be familiar with that.

Now, remember when John McCain defended the Reagan administration for that?

He criticized the administration's handling of the Iran-Contra affair (in which officials had illegally diverted to the Contras money from the sale of arms to Iran), though he blamed both Congress and the White House for failing to work more closely on a coordinated foreign policy, and he empathized with his fellow Vietnam veteran Oliver North, a central figure in the scandal. "Some of these people like Ollie North," he explained to Michael Killian for the Chicago Tribune (July 29, 1987), "who saw their comrades and friends spill blood and die on the battlefields in a war that they believe the politicians wouldn't let them win--I think that leads to a mind-set which could rationalize deviating from the established rules and regulations."

Of course, those "established rules and regulations" were laws passed by Congress. But even in the '80s McCain was arguing that war justifies every illegal activity by the executive branch, just as he does today, and even in the '80s he was shamelessly manipulating the tragedy that was the Vietnam War to justify illegal and/or immoral activities by members of his own party, just as he does today.

Remember when John McCain said we should be dealing with the Palestinian government under the terrorist organization Hamas before he said we shouldn't? And remember when he said that we should talk to "state sponsor of terror" (his own words) Syria before he said we shouldn't? Of course, he only decided we shouldn't be doing those things when he realized that evangelicals and neoconservative war hawks in his base, the pro-Israel lobby, and perhaps a good number of the American public wouldn't like it. But before that, he was all for talking to terrorist Hamas and terrorist sponsor Syria. Remember?

(Thanks to Perrspectives for the above information on Iran-Contra, Hamas, and Syria).

Remember when John McCain said that he was opposed to torture, but then turned around and voted against legislation that would have banned it? (See here, here, here, and here for a refresher). And remember when John McCain threw his enthusiastic support behind the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purports to require compliance with the Geneva Conventions for all detainees but in fact leaves the interpretation of such compliance up to a president who doesn't even believe the Geneva Conventions apply to such detainees?

And remember how John McCain has consistently defended our unjust, illegal war of aggression in Vietnam as a war we could have won if it had not been for our politicians, despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary? And remember how he voted to authorize another unjust, illegal war of aggression in Iraq and has consistently said the same thing about that war, again despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary?

We can talk about Barack Obama's academic and philanthropic association with Bill Ayers. Sure. Why not? But I think it's more important to talk about the judgement of John McCain: defender of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and state sponsorship of terrorism under the administrations of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. What do you think?

This comes as he released his a new 30-second TV ad comparing Obama's plan to cut taxes for middle class families, to that of Senator McCain's plan to give billions in tax cuts to big corporations.

Three Times, is a clear distinction between how Barack Obama will cut taxes for the middle class- which is up to three times as much as John McCain.

John McCain, however wants to give big corporations and oil companies hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, with nothing of this going to 100 million Americans.

Obama will provide a $1000 tax break for 95 per cent of workers and their families, and not raise taxes on families making less the $250,000 a year.

Why has Senator McCain said little about his economic plan for the American people? Oh, I forgot there isn't one.

            Other than that, I haven’t been deeply involved, or motivated enough to deal in depth with the political process.  My most important issue?  Election reform.  I love the IRV, which I will rant about later, I’m sure.

            Now that you know a little about me, let’s get right into it.  Obama has preached change again and again.  He has given entire speeches on trying to break down party divides.  He wants our country to be united in a way that most people don’t believe is even possible.  I support that message, and evidently, so does a good chunk of America.  But if Obama wants so badly to break down those lines drawn between parties, why did I receive the following email from his campaign before yesterday’s primary?:

“Dear Bryan --

 This is an important moment in Washington state, and you have a chance to make your voice heard.

Tuesday, August 19th, is the Democratic primary for governor and all other statewide offices, and we need to stand together behind Governor Chris Gregoire and Democrats up and down the ballot.

Governor Gregoire has been an incredible leader for our state. Despite eight years of Bush-Cheney policies that have been devastating for families across the country, we have a Governor who's already making the kinds of changes we need.

That's why it's so important to vote on Tuesday to show our support for candidates who are working for change.

Find your Pierce County voting location and head to the polls on Tuesday, August 19th.

In just four years, Governor Gregoire has helped bring over 200,000 new jobs to Washington. She's expanded health care coverage for over 80,000 kids. And she's helped lead the nation in the fight against global warming.

She's the type of leader we need, and I know she'll continue to move Washington forward.

Up and down the ballot we have Democratic candidates who believe that we need to change the direction of our country.

Together we can show Washington that we are ready for change by making sure that our friends, family members, and neighbors vote in the primary as well.

Stand together with Governor Gregoire and Democrats up and down the ballot by finding your local Pierce County polling place and voting on Tuesday:

http://wa.barackobama.com/WApiercecounty

We can't do this without you.

Thanks,

Chelsea

Chelsea Waliser

Field Director

Washington Campaign for Change

P.S. -- Washington state election officials have put together a resource center for voters who have questions about the primary tomorrow, Tuesday, August 19th. If you have any questions about the voting process, find more information now:

http://wa.barackobama.com/WAquestions”

            For a man who believes in change, why is his campaign trying to get me to vote a straight party ticket?  Why is Obama fighting to keep Christine Gregoire in office?  I’m not personally going to vote for her, but why is Obama endorsing her in this email and in radio messages across this state?  In short, was I taken in by him?  Is he really just another politician trapped in his party affiliation?  If that’s the case, and if he’s just another candidate who refuses to look at the true majority of independent voters in this country, I’m not sure I want to have anything to do with him.

            I’m on the edge, Obama, and something tells me that next week’s party convention isn’t going to help me believe that you’re going to really promote CHANGE in this country.

Newstalk 1430, WXNT-AM, Indiana's Election Headquarters, has learned senior officials from Barack Obama's presidential campaign team may be on their way to Indianapolis for a "major event" this Saturday.  That same day, Obama is expected to make his first public appearance with his yet to be announced vice-presidential running mate.

Ken Whitehouse, a 20-year Democratic operative and former campaign official for Al Gore, writes in his NashvillePost.com blog today, "Sources in Denver, the site of next week's Democratic National Convention, say that individuals responsible for Obama's major public appearances have been pulled out of the city and are heading east towards Indiana."

If these sources are correct, it could be an indication that Senator Evan Bayh will be Obama's choice for running mate.  Bayh, who served as Indiana's Governor from 1989-1987 and has served in the US Senate since 1999, has been widely reported on Obama's "short list" along with Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and Governor Tim Kaine (D-VA).  Biden yesterday remarked to reporters that he was "not the man" to be named Obama's vice-presidential pick.  Coincidentally, Obama is staying the night in Richmond as Kaine's guest this evening.  Rumors have Obama's announcement coming as early as tomorrow morning via text message to his supporters.

As far as the rumors of a possible Obama stop in Indianapolis, tied in with the possible announcement of Bayh as his running mate, WXNT-AM's Abdul Hakim-Shabazz has received denials from sources in the state's Democratic Party and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.  Jonathan Swain, spokesperson for Obama's campaign in Indiana, says of the rumored visit, "that's news to me."

More on this developing story throughout the day and tomorrow with Abdul in the Morning on Newstalk 1430, WXNT-AM, Indiana's Election Headquarters.

With regard to the Democrats, Barack Obama is going to have to swallow his pride (his wife Michelle will have to do the same) and do what John F. Kennedy did in 1960 when he tapped bitter rival Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas as his running mate---he did this in order to alleviate the suspicion of so many southern Democrats that he did not have their interests in mind and that he could not relate to them.

Lyndon Johnson was the perfect remedy for what ailed Kennedy...even if he really could not stand Johnson.

Fast forward to 2008...

Barack Obama fought a very bitter primary against Hillary Clinton and ended up the victor by a fairly narrow margin; in fact, I would dare say that if John Edwards had been exposed earlier and not been a serious contender in Iowa, etc., Hillary Clinton would be the next nominee of the Democratic Party, not Barack Obama.

Obviously, there is no love loss between the Clintons (yes they are a packaged-deal, Bill and Hillary) and the Obamas (yes, they too, Barack and Michelle, are a packaged-deal), and in many ways Barack Obama would love to erase the Clintons from the Democratic Party so that he can begin anew with his own vision of the party, but he can't...and he knows it. He knows there are a lot of HRC supporters that still refuse to budge and acknowledge that Hillary has lost and that so many of these women have threatened to bolt this Presidential election to John McCain, because they trust him so much more on the major issues of our day (not to mention that McCain and Clinton are pretty good friends).

In order to shore up his base and possibly gain some steam with both white, Middle America and hispanic voters, Obama has no choice but to select Hillary Rodham Clinton if he has any hope of winning the election this fall. Clinton will also help him a little in the South, in Florida and in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Bill Richardson is my "wild card" entry for VP should Obama not choose Hillary Clinton because he would completely secure the hispanic vote for the Democrats and that segment of the population may ultimately decide this election; however, Richardson seems to be less appealing to the entire electorate than does Hillary Clinton; she is definitely the best VP choice for Obama in order to defeat the Republicans in November.

On the Republican side...John McCain has been floating the names of pro-choice candidates Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge an awful lot, lately, which demonstrates just how uncomfortable he really is with the options that he has to choose from on the pro-life side of the Republican Party. But the reality for John McCain is that now is not really the time to tick off your base...meaning the pro-life, pro-family, pro-churchgoing element of the Republican Party. Everyone loves a maverick, or at least I do in many ways, but sometimes you can push the envelope just a little too hard and I think that by choosing Ridge or Lieberman, McCain may be crossing the line. It's all well and good to assume that the most conservative elements of your Party would dare not vote for Obama, (and they probably won't) but whose to say that they wouldn't just hold out altogether or really pursue a different avenue or Party just because their core principles are being violated?

I don't think John McCain, as contrarian as he may be, would go pro-choice for his VP; Ridge and Lieberman would definitely have a place in a McCain Presidential cabinet, where their views on abortion, etc. may not play as much of a role in their duties, but they won't be on the presidential ticket.

John McCain will not pick Pawlenty, whose personality is even less charismatic than McCain's, and he will not pick Bobby Jindal because he is way too young and lacking in experience despite his strong intelligence, charisma and great support for the conservative elements of the Republican Party.

That leaves McCain with the same choice as Barack Obama...pick the bitter rival from the Primary season, who in this case just happens to be Mitt Romney. The conservative base would be pleased with a pro-life man who has been very successful in the business world and in his family life; Mitt Romney has a resume that is second-to-none on these specific issues when considering McCain's potential running mates. McCain and Romney are not friends, no matter how much they say otherwise, but neither were Reagan and George H.W. Bush or Kennedy and Johnson back in 1960.

My wild card for the Republican side would be Mike Huckabee, only because he is pro-life and his style of conservatism (read evangelical) would be more appealing to many republicans in the South who still cannot get over the fact that there may be others in the world who are Christian in their faith despite the fact that they believe in another testament of Jesus Christ in addition to the Old and New Testaments (read trepidity regarding Romney being a Mormon).

But still, Romney has so much more to offer than a great off-the-cuff "turn of the phrase" here and there; he is successful, looks presidential and acts presidential; and frankly, what Huckabee does have in droves is quick wit and charisma...which would make McCain look very old and completely boring, things of which he is already trying to fix with regard to public perception of himself.

McCain needs support and someone who will sound the rallying cry on his behalf...not someone who consistently looks to steal the show in order to gain his own supporters; Huckabee simply cannot refrain from doing those very things...

Mitt Romney is the best VP choice for John McCain to win the upcoming election.

Next video. Obama says...ohhhhhhhhhhh please just watch for yourself. Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

It seems that obama's words REALLY do matter. His judgment is way off.

Campaign spokesman Jim Bonner said that Obama half-brother number 17 is called George Hussein Onyango Obama and presently resides in a small dung hut on the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya.

"Senator Obama wants to help his family, because he has a tremendous set of family values," Bonner said. "And he knows George is qualified to be a U.S. vice president."

When a reporter pointed out that George Obama, who is 26 years old, is neither old enough or a U.S. natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution, Bonner objected.

"I don't think it's appropriate to bring race into this matter," he said. "Besides, it's a global economy and we can't let terrorists hold us hostage to the Constitution."

George Obama will depart for the United States as soon as he can sell his dung hut in Kenya, but due to a housing slump there he may not arrive in the U.S. for several more weeks.

(Photo by Kulmalukko, Wikipedia)

"I stand before you today at a defining moment in our history. We are in the midst of two wars. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Russia has invaded the sovereign nation of Georgia. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The next Commander-in-Chief is going to have to exercise the best possible judgment in getting us through these difficult times.

"That is John McCain's prerogative. He can run that kind of campaign, and - frankly - that's how political campaigns have been run in recent years. But I believe the American people are better than that. I believe that this defining momenttan, demands something more of us.

"If we think that we can secure our country by just talking tough without acting tough and smart, then we will misunderstand this moment and miss its opportunities. If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose. The times are too serious for this kind of politics. The calamity left behind by the last eight years is too great. So let me begin by offering my judgment about what we've done, where we are, and where we need to go.

"Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that - as despicable as Saddam Hussein was - posed no imminent threat to the American people. Two of the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were al Qaeda's leadership, which no longer faced the pressure of America's focused attention; and Iran, which has advanced its nuclear program, continued its support for terror, and increased its influence in Iraq and the region.

"In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I warned that war would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East, create new centers of terrorism, and tie us down in a costly and open-ended occupation. Senator McCain predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that the Iraqis would bear the cost of rebuilding through their bountiful oil revenues. For the good of our country, I wish he had been right, and I had been wrong. But that's not what history shows.

"Senator McCain now argues that despite these costly strategic errors, his judgment has been vindicated due to the results of the surge. Let me once again praise General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker - they are outstanding Americans. In Iraq, gains have been made in lowering the level of violence thanks to the outstanding efforts of our military, the increasing capability of Iraq's Security Forces, the ceasefire of Shiite militias, and the decision taken by Sunni tribes to take the fight to al Qaeda. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

"But understand what the essential argument was about. Before the surge, I argued that the long-term solution in Iraq is political - the Iraqi government must reconcile its differences and take responsibility for its future. That holds true today. We have lost over a thousand American lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars since the surge began, but Iraq's leaders still haven't made hard compromises or substantial investments in rebuilding their country. Our military is badly overstretched - a fact that has surely been noted in capitals around the world. And while we pay a heavy price in Iraq - and Americans pay record prices at the pump - Iraq's government is sitting on a $79 billion dollar budget surplus from windfall oil profits.

"Let's be clear: our troops have completed every mission they've been given. They have created the space for political reconciliation. Now it must be filled by an Iraqi government that reconciles its differences and spends its oil profits to meet the needs of its people. Iraqi inaction threatens the progress we've made and creates an opening for Iran and the "special groups" it supports. It's time to press the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. The best way to do that is a responsible redeployment of our combat brigades, carried out in close consultation with commanders on the ground. We can safely redeploy at a pace that removes our combat brigades in 16 months. That would be well into 2010 - seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to target remnants of al Qaeda; to protect our service members and diplomats; and to train Iraq's Security Forces if the Iraqis make political progress.

"Iraq's democratically-elected Prime Minister has embraced this timeframe. Now it's time to succeed in Iraq by turning Iraq over to its sovereign government. We should not keep sending our troops to fight tour after tour of duty while our military is overstretched. We should not keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while Americans struggle in a sluggish economy. Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.

"This is the central front in the war on terrorism. This is where the Taliban is gaining strength and launching new attacks, including one that just took the life of ten French soldiers. This is where Osama bin Laden and the same terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on our own soil are hiding and plotting seven years after 9/11. This is a war that we have to win. And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban.

"For years, I have called for more resources and more troops to finish the fight in Afghanistan. With his overwhelming focus on Iraq, Senator McCain argued that we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, and only came around to supporting my call for more troops last month. Now, we need a policy of "more for more" - more from America and our NATO allies, and more from the Afghan government. That's why I've called for at least two additional U.S. combat brigades and an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance for Afghanistan, with a demand for more action from the Afghan government to take on corruption and counternarcotics, and to improve the lives of the Afghan people.

"We must also recognize that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure America as long as there is a terrorist safe-haven in northwest Pakistan. A year ago, I said that we must take action against bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights and Pakistan cannot or will not act. Senator McCain criticized me and claimed that I was for "bombing our ally." So for all of his talk about following Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, Senator McCain refused to join my call to take out bin Laden across the Afghan border. Instead, he spent years backing a dictator in Pakistan who failed to serve the interests of his own people.

"I argued for years that we need to move from a "Musharraf policy" to a "Pakistan policy." We must move beyond an alliance built on mere convenience or a relationship with one man. Now, with President Musharraf's resignation, we have the opportunity to do just that. That's why I've cosponsored a bill to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda in the tribal regions of Pakistan.

"Today, our attention is also on the Republic of Georgia, and Senator McCain and I both strongly support the people of Georgia and the Americans delivering humanitarian aid. There is no possible justification for Russia's actions. Russian troops have yet to begin the withdrawal required by the cease-fire signed by their president, and we are hearing reports of Russian atrocities: burning wheat fields, brutal killing, and the destruction of Georgia's infrastructure and military assets.

"This crisis underscores the need for engaged U.S. leadership in the world. We failed to head off this conflict and lost leverage in our ability to contain it because our leaders have been distracted, our resources overstretched, and our alliances frayed. American leadership means getting engaged earlier to shape events so that we're not merely responding to them. That's why I'm committed to renewing our leadership and rebuilding our alliances as President of the United States.

"For months, I have called for active international engagement to resolve the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I made it crystal clear before, at the beginning of, and during this conflict that Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected, and that Georgia should be integrated into transatlantic institutions. I have condemned Russian aggression, and today I reiterate my demand that Russia abide by the cease-fire. Russia must know that its actions will have consequences. They will imperil the Civil Nuclear Agreement, and Russia's standing in the international community - including the NATO-Russia Council, and Russia's desire to participate in organizations like the WTO and the OECD. Finally, we must help Georgia rebuild what has been destroyed. That is why I'm proud to join my friend, Senator Joe Biden, in calling for an additional $1 billion in reconstruction assistance for the people of Georgia.
These are the judgments I've made and the policies that we have to debate, because we do have differences in this election. But one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

"Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America - you served the United States of America.

"So let's have a serious debate, and let's debate our disagreements on the merits of policy - not personal attacks. And no matter how heated it gets or what kind of campaign he chooses to run, I will honor Senator McCain's service, just like I honor the service of every veteran in this room, and every American who has worn the uniform of the United States.

"One of those Americans was my grandfather, Stanley Dunham.

"My father left when I was 2, so my grandfather was the man who helped raise me. He grew up in El Dorado, Kansas - a town too small to warrant boldface on a road map. He worked on oil rigs and drifted from town to town during the Depression. Then he met my grandmother and enlisted after Pearl Harbor. He would go on to march across Europe in Patton's Army, while my great uncle fought with the 89th Infantry Division to liberate Buchenwald, my grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, and my mother was born at Fort Leavenworth. After my grandfather left the Army, he went to college on the GI Bill, bought his home with help from the Federal Housing Authority, and he and my grandmother moved west in a restless pursuit of their dreams.

"They were among the men and women of our Greatest Generation. They came from ordinary places, and went on to do extraordinary things. They survived a Depression and faced down fascism. And when the guns fell silent, America stood by them, because they had a government that didn't just ask them to win a war - it helped them to live their dreams in peace, and to become the backbone of the largest middle class that the world has ever known. In the five years after World War II, the GI Bill helped 15 million veterans get an education. Two million went to college. Millions more learned a trade in factories or on farms. Four million veterans received help in buying a home, leading to the biggest home construction boom in our history.

"And these veterans didn't just receive a hand from Washington - they did their part to lift up America, just as they'd done their duty in defending it. They became teachers and doctors, cops and firefighters who were the foundation of our communities. They became the innovators and small business owners who helped drive the American economy. They became the scientists and engineers who helped us win the space race against the Soviets. They won a Cold War, and left a legacy to their children and grandchildren who reached new horizons of opportunity.

"I am a part of that legacy. Without it, I would not be standing on this stage today. And as President, I will do everything that I can to keep the promise, to advance the American Dream for all our veterans, and to enlist them in the cause of building a stronger America.

"Our young men and women in uniform have proven that they are the equal of the Greatest Generation on the battlefield. Now, we must ensure that our brave troops serving abroad today become the backbone of our middle class at home tomorrow. Those who fight to defend America abroad must have the chance to live their dreams at home - through education and their ability to make a good living; through affordable health care; and through a retirement that is dignified and secure. That is the promise that we must keep with all who serve.

"It starts with those who choose to remain in uniform, as well as their families. My wife Michelle has net with military families in North Carolina, Kentucky and Virginia over the last several months. Every time, she passes on their stories - stories of lives filled with patriotism and purpose, but also stories of spouses struggling to pay the bills, kids dealing with an absent parent, and the unique burden of multiple deployments. The message that Michelle has heard is what you all know and have lived: when a loved one is deployed, the whole family goes to war.

"The VFW has done an extraordinary job of standing by our military families - helping out with everything from a phone card for a soldier who is overseas, to an extra hand around the house. As President, I will stand with you. We need a Military Families Advisory Board to identify new ways to ease the burden. We need more official support for the volunteer networks that help military spouses get by. And we need to make sure that military pay does not lag behind the private sector, so that those who serve can raise their families and live the life they've earned.

"For those who return to civilian life, I will support their American Dream in this 21st century just as we supported generations of veterans in the 20th. That starts with education. Everyone who serves this country should have the same opportunity that my grandfather had under the GI Bill. That's why, unlike my opponent, I was a strong and early supporter of Jim Webb's GI Bill for the 21st Century - a bill that Senator McCain called too generous. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, this bill provides every veteran with a real chance to afford a world-class college education. And that's what I'll continue to stand up for as President.

"We must also stand up for affordable health care for every single veteran. That's why I've pledged to build a 21st century VA. We need to cut through the red tape - every service-member should get electronic copies of medical and service records upon discharge. We need to close shortfalls - it's time to fully fund VA health care, and to add more Vet Centers. We need to get rid of means-testing - every veteran should be allowed into the VA system. My opponent takes a different view. He wants to ration care so the VA only serves combat injuries, while everyone else gets an insurance card. While the VA needs some real reform to better serve those who have worn the uniform, privatization is just not the answer. We cannot risk our veterans' health care by turning the VA into just another health insurer. We need to make sure the VA is strong enough to treat every veteran who depends on it. That's what I'll do as President.

"And we must expand and enhance our ability to identify and treat PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury at all levels: from enlistment, to deployment, to civilian life. No one should suffer in silence, or slip through the cracks in the system. That's why I've passed measures to increase screening for these unseen wounds, and helped lead a bipartisan effort to stop the unfair practice of kicking out troops who suffer from them. This is something I've fought for in the Senate, and it's something that I'll make a priority as President.

"Economic security for our veterans also depends on revamping an overburdened benefits system. I congratulate the VFW for what you've done to help veterans navigate a broken VBA bureaucracy. Now it's time for the government to do a better job. We need more workers, and a 21st century electronic system that is fully linked up to military records and the VA's health network. It's time to ensure that those who've served get the benefits that they've earned.

"Just as we give veterans the support they deserve, we must also engage them and all Americans in a new cause: renewing America. I am running for President because I believe that there is no challenge too great for the American people to meet if they are called upon to come together. In America, each of us is free to seek our dreams, but we must also serve a common purpose, a higher purpose. No one embodies that commitment like a veteran.

"Just think of the skills that our troops have developed through their service. They have not simply waged war in Afghanistan and Iraq - they have rebuilt infrastructure, supported new agriculture, trained police forces, and developed health care systems. For those leaving military service, it's time to apply those skills to our great national challenges here at home.

"That means expanding programs like Troops-to-Teachers that put veterans at the front of the classroom. That means tapping the talent of engineers who've served as we make a substantial investment to rebuild our infrastructure and create millions of new jobs. That means dramatically expanding national service programs to give Americans of all ages, skills and stations the chance to give back to their communities and their country. I'll also enlist veterans in forging a new American energy economy. That's why I've proposed a Green Veterans initiative to give our veterans the training they need to succeed in the Green Jobs of the future - so that they put themselves on a pathway to a successful career, while ensuring that our national security is never held hostage to hostile nations.

"This is how we can help our veterans live their dreams while helping our country meet the challenges of the 21st century. And this is what we have learned from so many generations of veterans, including those of you here today - that your contribution to the American story does not end when the uniform comes off. We need those who serve in our military to live their dreams - and to continue serving the cause of America - when the guns fall silent. That's what the VFW stands for, and if I have the honor of being your President, that's what my Administration will work for every single day. Because I believe that we have a sacred trust with those who serve in our military. That trust is simple: America will be there for you just as you have been there for America. It's a trust that begins at enlistment, and it never ends.

"I thought of that trust last week when I visited the Pearl Harbor Memorial. I saw where the bombs fell on the USS Arizona, and where a war began that would reshape the world order while reshaping the lives of all who served in it - from our great generals and admirals, to the enlisted men like my grandfather. Then I visited his grave at the Punchbowl, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.

"I still remember the day that we laid my grandfather to rest. In a cemetery lined with the graves of Americans who have sacrificed for our country, we heard the solemn notes of Taps and the crack of guns fired in salute; we watched as a folded flag was handed to my grandmother and my grandfather was laid to rest. It was a nation's final act of service and gratitude to Stanley Dunham - an America that stood by my grandfather when he took off the uniform, and never left his side.

"This is what we owe our troops and our veterans. Because in every note of Taps and in every folded flag, we hear and see an unwavering belief in the idea of America. The idea that no matter where you come from, or what you look like, or who your parents are, this is a place where anything is possible; where anyone can make it; where we look out for each other, and take care of each other; where we rise and fall as one nation - as one people. It's an idea that's worth fighting for - an idea for which so many Americans have given that last full measure of devotion. Now it falls to us to advance that idea just as so many generations have before."

Read my Obama’s jibe at McCain at VFW Convention post and analysis.

This follows an attack by John McCain on his Monday address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars' Annual Conference where John McCain aggressively challenged Barack Obama's readiness to be president and understanding of military affairs.

"The hard-won gains of our troops hang in the balance" as the country weighs its choice for president, McCain said.

"The lasting advantage of a peaceful and democratic ally in the heart of the Middle East could still be squandered by hasty withdrawal and arbitrary timelines."

"What's less apparent is the judgment to be commander in chief," McCain said. "And in matters of national security, good judgment will be at a premium in the term of the next president -- as we were all reminded 10 days ago by events in the nation of Georgia."

Referring to the current Georgia- Russia crisis, Senator McCain said "In the term of the next president, skillful handling of such a crisis could be the difference between temporary hardship and far-reaching disaster,"

In all honesty it has not been as good a week for the Obama campaign as they may have anticipated. I did watch the interview with Rick Warren at Saddleback Church, California. To be fair to Senator McCain he was decisive and very quick to give a response to the questions asked by Rick Warren. For example, when asked "How do you solve evil?" he replied in two words: "Defeat it." Obama's answers were perhaps more time consuming, but honest and well thought out. MSNBC reported allegations from the Obama campaign that John McCain had broken "the cone of silence" where he was to sit in a room unable to hear the questions which were directed towards Senator Obama. Why? He was to be asked exactly the same questions. Even on quiz shows and programmes such as "Mr and Mrs" a Saturday British show where was tested on how much he knew about his or her other half to win a grand prize of £30,000 for the charity of their choice, I always wondered whether the person with headphones was actually disengaged from hearing any conversation- related to the game.

MSNBC also reported that Senator Obama is not being tough enough, resulting in some Democrats feeling nervous with Obama's inability to open up a sizeable lead over his Republican rival. I agree with this to some extent. McCain has always criticised Obama over his judgement over the Iraq war, experience and his readiness to lead but I think that Obama should now go all out and ready lay into McCain- in something we have not seen before.

McCain celebrates his 72nd birthday on the 27th August- incidentally the day of the Republican National Convention. If McCain was to become president, he would become the oldest ever president since Republican film star Ronald Reagan. During this campaign others have mentioned how McCain's age could affect his presidential chances. Obama, however has yet to use the age card to try and attack McCain's ability to lead. This would be also risky as quite recently McCain released 1,173 pages of medical documents in a move to dispel speculation regarding his the state of his health.

Should Senator Obama be more tough on John McCain? Should he attack something like age?

1. In a "family values" forum in Mexico City, a Catholic priest justified rape thusly: "When we show our body without prudence, without modesty, we are prostituting ourselves." (Chicago Tribune)
2. Bill Donahue, professional whiner and president for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, fresh from trying to get a university student disciplined and a university professor fired for insulting his precious little disc of unleavened bread, has launched a campaign to have gay bloggers barred from the Democratic National Convention. (Edge Boston)
3. Following in the footsteps of Random House in the United States, the Serbian publisher of Sherry Jones' The Jewel of Medina has pulled the book from the shelves after members of the local Islamic community complained that the novel, depicting the life of Muhammad's child bride Aisha, "offended their feelings." (Reuters)
4. In one of the most rip-roaring, side-splitting pieces of unintentionally Swiftian comedy you are ever likely to see, Malaysian Islamic scholar Dr Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad propounds the thesis that:
   

   Religious freedom, for example, does not imply an unregulated liberty to choose or change religions as one pleases.

   Rather it means freedom to practice that particular religion in accordance with the established teachings of that religion.

   Religious freedom. He's doing it wrong. Later on in the article he tells us how---get this---"Islam was also the first religion, from its very inception, which tremendously elevated the status of women." From what? Microbes to livestock? (The Star)

5. In Tanzania, police are obliged to protect the nation's albinos from superstitious machete-wielding thugs who believe their flesh is magical. In Ghana, it is humpbacks who require police protection from the credulous. There is apparently a belief among some that humpbacks "have mother lodes of cash in their humps," or that the blood of hunchbacks is "spiritually potent," and these beliefs have led to the murder of two hunchbacks in the township of Bibiani. The victims' humps were removed, as was the hump of a deceased hunchback who had been exhumed for that purpose. (ABC News Online)
6. Oh, did you know Michael Shermer was in Perth recently for National Science Week? (Actually, he's speaking at UWA on the evolution-religion conflict as well as the use of statistics and theory in conspiracy theories.) He's sunk the boot into the local "reality" TV show The One, which purported to have discovered Australia's leading psychic (decided by audience vote, of course---what other criteria would one use?), prompting one commenter to assert:
   

   I have always thought that there was something very sad about Mr. Shermer, and now that I know about his foray into the paranormal, I can understand him better. He wanted so badly to have a paranormal experience, but he failed, probably due to his own negativity. Because it didn't work for him, he has to believe that anyone who claims to have these types of experiences must be a fraud. I feel very sorry for Mr. Shermer. I hope that he will someday find what he is looking for.

   I bet Shermer hates God, too. (PerthNow)

Lieberman has been an unabashed supporter of the Iraq invasion and occupation.  Apparently Joe detected early a connection between Connecticut and Saddam Hussein and quickly concluded that 9/11 was Saddam's handy work.  Joe often pointed out that Iraq possessed WMD and had an active nuclear program as if he had access to secret intelligence.  Even as the facts immerged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 (and Hussein was totally against al Qaeda), that there were no WMDs, and that there were no nuclear weapons or active programs, Joe switched his pitch with ease.  "Sadaam was an evil person and the world is better off with out him".   In case Joe missed that day in class, being an evil person gives no one the right to invade another country.

The worrisome aspect of a Lieberman candidacy is that McCain is slowly assembling a weird coalision of backers.  Lieberman will appeal to a more progressive, pro-Isreal group that could compliment McCain's current base.  If McCain-Lieberman does win in November there will be another unexpected result.  AIPAC can reduce its budget and the size of its offices since they will have direct access to McCain through Lieberman.

Another rumor floating around today is that Obama will pick Tim Kaine.  While there is nothing wrong with this choice, it rules out Hillary.  Hillary may not be the best choice with the baggage of Bill to consider, but the real issue is getting elected.  Obama needs to be clear on which groups will vote for him and which ones will not.  If it is Lieberman with McCain, then I think it should be Clinton with Obama.  AIPAC will at least have someone they know in Hillary and the rest of us will have a much more balanced thinker one heart beat away.