…the end of man is to know

10. Sarah Palin has named her kids Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig.

9. She has taken on corrupt Alaskan bureaucrats. She has angered Senator Ted Stevens and strongly supported her Lieutenant Governor’s bid to unseat 18-term congressman Don Young in the Republican Primary.

8. In light of McCain’s health problems: Sarah Palin runs marathons.

7. She is a moose hunter. Not a Bull-Moose hunter, but actual Moose. (Mooses? Meese? Moosen?)

6. Palin’s husband works as a commerical fisherman and is in a labor union…can’t much more blue-collar than that.

5. Palin’s husband is a champion snowmobile racer, winning the Tesoro Iron Dog, billed as the world’s longest snowmobile race, four times.

4. Her eldest son, Track, will be going to Iraq with the US Army next month, not unlike the other VP candidate

3. In 1984, Palin was named Miss Wasilla and runner-up as Miss Alaska.

2. Her youngest son, Trig, was born in April with Down’s Syndrome. Palin has made a point to talk about her son and her decision to not have an abortion despite knowing about Trig’s condition during pregnancy.

And….the best thing about Sarah Palin is:

Her parents were called this morning by their son-in-law to listen to the radio for a special announcement. They almost missed hearing about their daughter’s VP nomination because they were *drumroll* CARIBOU HUNTING.

Lest there be no doubt: the GOP has returned to the party of small government, increased transparency, and support the working-class!

McCAIN-PALIN 2008!

YES HE CAN! YES SHE CAN! YES THEY CAN!

In what is the most “No ‘Effing Way” of every “No ‘Effing Way” I have written, McCain has pulled a rabbit out of his hat. Everyone had Romney, Pawlenty, or Lieberman as the top 3 with Condi, Cantor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the second tier. Instead, he completely hoodwinks the entire country and launches Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I always thought she was a great pick, but her lack of media coverage and speculation made me think it wasn’t going to happen. Serious props to The Midnight Ride, who called Palin as a VP pick in late June. Also, Madison Classical Liberal talked about her in early July. Finally, Extremism in Defense of Liberty also called it in late June. I privately talked to Extremism, Midnight Ride, and The Silent Majority about it, but I didn’t have the onions. I was weak and didn’t want to the risk in formally endorsing her. I was wrong.

Palin is a TREMENDOUS pick for a ton of reasons, increasing in legitimacy:

1. She is a woman. There is no bigger middle finger to Obama’s “post-racial” campaign than putting a woman on the ticket. It’s hard to argue you have a monopoly on change when Palin is the first woman with a serious shot to be in the White House (no, Geraldine Ferraro does not count).

1A. Moreover, this could get the Hillary supporters. Clintonites have long argued that Obama and the media were sexist and unfairly cruel to Hillary. Now that Clinton is out of the race, female voters who want to fight sexism will be drawn to Palin. She has a son with Down’s Syndrome and is a former beauty queen. Palin is feminine and has definite appeal to disgruntled female voters looking for a role model.

1B. Palin is tough to beat in a debate. As someone who spent 5 years in speech and debate, I would dread going toe-to-toe with a female, especially an accomplished and intelligent one. It is hard to be a male and go offensive against a female. The fact of the matter is that anytime a guy gets aggressive, he runs the risk of being perceived as a know-it-all sexist pig. While Palin has to face the prospect of being seen as an icy bitch if she gets aggressive, this puts a huge burden on Biden in the VP debate.

1 C. Palin is EXTREMELY attractive. This is a stupid reason. Okay, it’s a really stupid reason. At the end of the day, thousands upon thousands of males will vote for “The Hot Chick”. I think it is exceedingly shallow to vote based on aesthetics, but if it means helping out the conservative movement, I won’t resist. Behold, the new White House Hottie:

2. Palin has real conservative credentials. Any Evangelicals who didn’t trust McCain, must vote GOP. Any small-government libertarians don’t have to waste a vote on Bob Barr. Palin took on the most corrupt state in the country, Alaska, at a time that what was really hard. Ted Stevens is terribly corrupt. The Murkowski family is a dynasty of corrupt, incompetent leaders. Palin has gotten rid of superfluous government expenditures and slashed the budget. She has sound energy policy and is the ultimate on how to reduce oil prices.

3. She balances out this ticket in a way that no other candidate could. Male-female. Old-young. Experienced-fresh. Senator-Governor. There is nothing “missing” from this ticket. There is no weak link that applies to both candidates. They have strengths which back up the other’s weaknesses. Even if Obama wants to hammer Palin on experience, it’s tough-sledding. Obama has 3.5 years of experience in the Senate and Palin as 1.5 years experience as Governor. That difference is relatively small. Also, Palin has been in the City Council from ‘92-’96 and served on Alaska’s Oil & Gas Commission, before resigning in protest of the lack of ethics. She is on the young side, but has achieved great things.

Perhaps Palin’s (and McCain’s) greatest achievement? Taking ALL of the wind out of Obama’s sails, bumping him from the top of the headlines and making this race even more competitive.

I recently lamented the fact that Rachel Maddow got her own show. I was pretty upset that the channel which once bisected CNN and Fox News moved to the left of CNN in the past year through Olbermann’s transformation into leftist wacko and bringing on his sidekick, Maddow. Worse, supposedly non-partisanThe channel has gotten great ratings from Olbermann and Olympics coverage, so it’s not a bad business move. I won’t suggest that the media has a “higher calling” because I have sufficient faith in the viewers and the free market to promote effective, popular media.

MSNBC’s lone conservative, Joe Scarborough, was talking earlier about John McCain’s recent accomplishments in polling. Objectively speaking, Scarborough makes two valid points: a few months ago, the McCain campaign was dead in the water facing a double-digit deficit nationally AND the Obama campaign thought it was impossible to lose this race. Keith Olbermann has an open mic and blasts Scarborough:

The next morning, Scarborough was clearly angry. He had David Shuster, who is liberal, on his show. When Shuster hits Scarborough for not being critical enough of McCain, Scarborough loses it:

I don’t think the tirade was necessary or appropriate, but I can understand it. Scarborough has criticized Republicans and is wildly mocked among “conservative” circles. Also, Scarborough must be upset that Tim Russert passed away (Russert was known as a peacemaker and stabilizing force among network anchors), Andrea Mitchell has become an Obama surrogate without telling anyone, Olbermann has turned himself into a hitman, and Rachel Maddow now gets David Abrams’ timeslot in primetime. For Shuster to claim to be Indpendent was the final straw. Scarborough never wanted to be the token right-winger on the network. He wants to be a small-government former congressman who calls them as he sees them. The network he signed onto no longer exists.

I don’t think this is the end of MSNBC. I don’t think this will hurt ratings. Actually, it should improve ratings as people wait to see what train wreck will happen next. As sad as it is to see Joe completely lose it, hopefully this dispute will get people talking about MSNBC’s shift to the left. More likely, MSNBC’s leftists will further the unfair characterization of Scarborough as a bitter Republican who is watching mainstream America shift to the left.

After watching Biden’s speech, I was pretty impressed. Not as a fan of Biden, but as a political observer. He hit all the notes that he had to and did everything he could. It was going to be interesting to see Biden’s style and I give him a ton of credit for last night.

As a self-professed moderate who happens to be the 3rd most liberal in the entire Senate, Biden couldn’t pander to the far left. As someone who said he would run on John McCain’s ticket, he had to temper the negativity. As someone who said Barack lacked the experience to lead, he needed to limit his own Oba-Mania.

Check. Check. Check.

Biden played it as a moderate Democrat. He harped on Iraq spending, the low minimum wage, outsourcing, oil profits, not privatizing Social Security, education spending, and bringing focus back on Afghanistan and Pakistan. He’s wrong on most, if not all, of these issues. However, he played some winning issues in a non-extremist way. Most importantly, he didn’t lose any credibility as an experienced moderate.

He handled McCain the best. He did throw out some red meat to his supporters. He did attack McCain on some of the comments he has made. However, this is the line that Democrats need to hit, “These times require more than a good soldier; they require a wise leader, a leader who can deliver change–the change everybody knows we need.” There it is. I think calling Obama “wise” is somewhere short of hilarious, but the mood is right. Biden, and now Obama, CAN’T HIT McCAIN ON PERSONAL ISSUES. The man has been through too much personally and politically to be attacked for partisanship or corruption or experience. Shifting the debate from personality and leadership to politics is exactly what Obama-Biden must do. Biden handled his friendship with McCain and campaign against McCain extremely well.

His support of Obama was also at the appropriate level. Biden will not be able to escape his criticism of Obama in the debates. His arguments were not policy, but overly questioned Obama’s ability to lead. Through his own overinflated sense of self, Biden now can argue that he brings the wisdom and experience to Obama’s vision and message. If the GOP can divide the ticket into: 1. Biden is a Washington insider who is very liberal and supported McCain before he supported Obama and 2. Obama has no idea what he is doing and no plan for the future, they win. If the Democrats can hold the ticket as a solitary unit, we’re in trouble.

As important as unity between Hillary supporters and Democrats is, I think ticket unity is more important. Biden recognizes that united they win, divided they lose. And in a speech that was short on vision, message, and style, Biden made a great stride in achieving unity.

Good luck tonight as you watch Obama. I heard that being so close to The Chosen One and hearing his clarion calls can cause people to speak in tongues, hyperventilate, or have heart attacks. .

Just so this post cannot be interpreted as support of Biden or Obama:

1. Biden wants to critique McCain on foreign policy?

Biden opposed the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Biden supported the Iraq War that apparently only Obama had the fortitude to oppose (mind you, Obama wasn’t a Senator in 2002, so he never actually voted against the war)

Biden opposes McCain’s support of spending money in Iraq, but voted for the spending (Biden even criticized Obama for not supporting the spending because Obama wanted to withhold money necessary to safely and properly equip our soldiers)

Biden opposed the troop surge, which has been fantastically successful

Biden opposes free trade agreements, like NAFTA. Since NAFTA was passed in 1994, the American economy has grown by 50%!!!! Those kinds of gains are only possible when countries can freely swap goods and maximize profits.

Biden wants to tax oil companies for offering a fair service at market value. The real “audacity” is not of hope, but of the idea that the government can arbitrarily declare when companies make too much money, seize that money, and give it to constituents.

Biden is too afraid to let Social Security money enter the economy and spur economic growth instead of being a lender for pet projects. He also fails to recognize the impending collapse of the system unless we start making fundamental changes soon.

Alaska, one of the reddest of red states, is now going to turn blue in 2 key races this November. Why? Because Alaskan Republicans are so close-minded and loyalist that they nominated two sitting ducks.

In the Senate race, Republican Ted Stevens is facing jail time over corruption charges. This after he has been widely ridiculed for being too old and too out of touch. Suggesting that the internet is a “series of tubes” certainly didn’t help. Naturally, Stevens won his primary last night with over 63% of the vote. Most Alaskan Republicans think that a potential criminal is the best representative of their party.

Stevens is trailing Democratic opponent, MarkBegich, by 13 points. Race over. Give the seat to the Dems right now, electoral projectors.

In the house race (note: Alaska only has one House seat due to its low population), reformer Sean Parnell trails old party hack, Don Young by a 1,000 votes with only 9 precincts remaining. This may need a recount, but this race should not have been close. Parnell is the Lieutenant Governor under the EXTREMELY popular Sarah Palin. He has fought to clean up Alaskan government and has served on multiple committees in the Alaska Legislature. Don Young is an 18-term congressman (yes, 18 terms. He has been in congress almost as long as William Ayers has been a terrorist!). He has engaged in a few shady, but not illegal, dealings. He is a typical do-nothing bureaucrat. While Parnell received endorsments from the National Review, Club for Growth, and Governor Palin, Don Young’s sole endorsement was from Mike Huckabee’s PAC. When two legitimate, conservative organizations and a highly popular governor support taking an incumbent out in a primary, that should have been a signal to Alaskan Republicans. Instead, they were sheep-like in their biannual support of Young.

If Alaskan Republicans are a microcosm, the GOP is in serious trouble. The party has lost the spirit and enthusiasm of 1994. Party loyalists and hacks are being prepared for the slaughter at the hands of power-hungry Democrats, moderates, and disaffected conservatives.

We need to look at candidates and then make decisions. Candidates define parties, not the other way around! If this means voting for a small-government, libertarian Democrat, so be it. This is not about getting 537 (435 in house, 100 in senate, and 2 in White House) people with an “R” affixed to their name on C-SPAN broadcasts. This is about getting 537 people who support freedom, liberty, and the American way. Democrats have never understood that concept. I’m starting to fear we don’t anymore.

Edit: This post has been edited for better accuracy. However, I will not mention the name of the insignificant Democratic House candidate. He is of no consequence since a competent Republican could easy trounce any Democrat and any competent Democrat will trounce Don Young.

My sincere apologies for not being able to live blog last night. I really wanted to, but my computer crashed late Monday night and the computer I borrowed last night could not access the wireless in my house. So as bad as you felt for not being having my live blog, trust me I felt worse. When work is the only place you have internet access, you know you’ve fallen on hard times.

Anyway, yesterday was supposed to be the day to bash McCain. There was a list of Democratic governors and no-names trying to make a name for themselves. The hit squad was sent out in full-force. The only two non-primetime speakers worth mentioning are NY Governor David Paterson and Dennis Kucinich. Paterson came up with, “If the answer is John McCain, the question is ridiculous”. Paterson, a blind African-American, is uniquely positioned to talk about the rights of the disabled. He cites the unemployment of the deaf to be near 90% and the blind to be 70%. Now if the answer is John McCain, and the question is Which candidate believes in not coddling the disadvantaged and encouraged people to go to work, it no longer sounds ridiculous. It might be worth mentioning that Paterson fell into his post because his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer failed to see the irony, hypocrisy, or humor in an anti-corruption specialist sneaking off to be with a high-class prostitute and resigned.

Kucinich was typical Kucinich. He looks exactly like Gollum, from Lord of the Rings, and makes about as much sense. He is off-the-reservation liberal, but amuses Republicans and Democrats, alike.

But the night belonged to Hillary and Mark Warner.

Mark Warner was tremendously boring. He only talked about himself. We’re not sure why he didn’t run for president, but he seems to be readying for a 2012 campaign. As a moderate, he couldn’t pretend to bash the Republicans who he votes with so frequently. He stuck to the tenor of bipartisanship and general support for American prosperity. His support of Barack Obama in particular was lukewarm at best. All in all, it was a huge missed opportunity. Warner made himself look like a greedy, spotlight-stealing windbag. Only slightly different from the young star who gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC…except Warner isn’t a good speaker and failed to inject himself into the national spotlight the way Obama did.

And so we come to Hillary. Though I am no Clinton backer, I will give the hil-dog her due. She was great. She was strong, powerful, engaging, and still maintained the slight femininity about her. It may have been the best I have ever seen. She went for her tried-and-true tactic of telling a sappy tale about poverty and hit on women’s issues well. Her bashing of McCain was noticable, but not excessive. In short, Hillary gave the same speech she would have had she won the Democratic nomination. She hardly mentioned Obama. When she did say that she supported Obama, she did in the context of Democratic policies. She never said anything about why Obama in particular deserves your vote. She simply hammered home the Democratic agenda in delicious vagaries and asserted her role in that process as a Senator and as a presidential candidate. I don’t know what Clinton fans are thinking and I am not sure that Hillary did drive them to Obama. Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell. But she certainly held back and never addressed her main argument against Obama: inexperience. She had a chance to recant that attack, and she didn’t. Presumably, her main point of opposition against Obama stays. And that could be politically damaging, if exploited properly.

Yet, as I went to bed, I had a sense of relief. Given the 10% edge that generic Demcrats have over generic Republicans, I know that Hillary would have won this race. She does enough things right and has mild enough flaws as a campaigner, that she couldn’t lose. Obama is enough of a gamble, that he could lose this race, which was thought to be impossible by most pollsters a few months ago.

And as Democratic strategists went back to their hotel rooms in Denver last night, there is no doubt they were thinking, “Oh my god. We’re nominating the wrong candidate.”

If John McCain sends out a telegram (we know he doesn’t do text messaging), I really want it to say, “McCain-Lieberman. Tell that Obama boy to take his partisanship and shove it…” Alas, it won’t.

Before I crash the bi-partisan party, humor me as I look at all the positives:

1. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats, but could be powerful in slamming them. He was kicked out by the Democrats after losing his primary to Ned LaMont. After no Democrat asked for his support in 2008 and McCain did, Lieberman officially supported Johnny Mac because he wants to cut through partisan hackery. As a punishment, the Democrats stripped Lieberman of his superdelegate status, making him the same as an *bad pun coming in 3,2,1* average Joe.

Lieberman could be effective in talking about how the Democrats have failed him, and America. His public disputes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could be very effective. If Obama wants to pretend that he has great bi-partisan support, he will have a hard time selling the American people if Lieberman is on the other side. Also, McCain’s negative ads may not seem so harsh since they are coming from both sides of the aisle.

2. He is a moderate liberal on domestic issues. libertarianism (small “l” is intentional) is growing as a political movement. The public is seeing the value in enhancing personal liberty. Whether that means low taxes through the elimination of superfluous issues or protecting a “woman’s right to choose”, libertarianism is an appealing philosophy. With McCain running policy, he can hold the conservative base together while Lieberman dances on the sidelines and convinces confused liberals to jump ship. Unless voters are willing to bet on McCain’s death AND a Supreme Court vacancy, Lieberman will be helpless to promote a progressive social agenda on the courts. In any event, some voters are on the fence and a pro-choice VP on the GOP ticket could be just enticing enough.

3. If McCain doubles-down on experience, they could absolutely tear apart Obama-Biden. Obama took Biden because he knew he was lacking in experience. Four years in the Senate simply doesn’t cut it to be a successful President. Biden brings 35 years in the Senate and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. These solid credentials will be thrown out if McCain takes Lieberman.

Think of it this way: if McCain takes a foreign policy lightweight, like Romney or Pawlenty, then McCain can crush Obama, but Biden will hit Romney/Pawlenty in debates. Though the Presidential debates are more visible and more important, not taking Lieberman mitigates McCain’s great policy advantage.

With Lieberman, McCain gets to maintain a strong edge on foreign policy AND accuse Obama of being a hypocrite by taking a Washington Insider as a running mate. It’s win-win.

4. Lieberman is old and will not seek a second term. In this race, the only way McCain can win is to be far as possible from party identification. In a generic election, voters prefer Republicans to Democrats by double-digits. Therefore, it is crucial to make this election as non-generic as possible. McCain can win on the platform of being a maverick outsider. Bringing in Lieberman fits that mold. Given their ages, it is a sure bet that neither will run in 2012. The White House will have two men who have proudly served their country and are immune to the rigors of campaigning for re-election or kowtowing to party bosses. If America wants to give it a try, it can get four years of good, honest politicians working for the people, not themselves. That is a powerful message, but is incumbent upon McCain and Lieberman promising not to seek re-election.

5. Lieberman is Jewish. I know that being Jewish and in politics is not rare enough to be “special”, it would dispel a few myths and problems for the GOP. First, if Obama wants to be the first bi-racial person in the White House, then McCain can ask Americans to put the first non-Christian in the White House. The DNC spent all night last night focusing in on minorities (Pelosi: female Italian-American, Jesse Jackson Jr: black, Ted Kennedy: catholic, Obama’s half-sister: Asian, Michelle Obama: black). It is hard to call the GOP the WASP party when it’s VP nominee is Jewish.

Also, being Jewish offers electoral advantages. Prior to Obama’s run, Jews were the most partisan demographic, including African-Americans and Hispanics. Lieberman will certainly appeal to Jewish voters and can go hog wild on Obama’s anti-Israel stance (call me anti-anti-Semitic, but I’m pretty sure Lieberman could have a field day talking to Jewish retirees in Boca Raton about Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan). While most Jews are in solid blue states, Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Nevada are battlegrounds and could use any boost possible.

The negatives:

1. McCain is already too far to the left. The conservative base is pretty unhappy with McCain. Campaign finance reform, a path to citizenship for illegals, opposing torture, and waffling on the Bush tax cuts are all very damaging. McCain got beat by Bush in 2000, because the Rove machine turned out the Evangelicals. McCain certainly will have trouble doing that if he has a pro-choice running mate who is mildly sympathetic to gay rights. If McCain can’t hold together the conservative base, there is no amount of moderates that can save him.

2. Lieberman is hawkish, hurting chances of building a bi-partisan coalition. If the Democrats want to win this election on the drumbeat of failure in Iraq, then Lieberman doesn’t help McCain. Democrats can turn the tables and say that it didn’t leave Lieberman, Lieberman left the party. Joe’s hawkish stances on Iraq, Iran, and Israel are all directly at-odds with the Democratic Party’s platforms. The Democrats will only need to make a slight alteration from “The Republicans caused this war and the war needs to stop” to “the War Hawks caused this war and the war needs to stop”. It’s a pretty simple sidestep and mitigates the appearance of bi-partisanship.

3. Lieberman is too old. If you thought the charges of senility on McCain were bad, wait until he gets Lieberman. The campaign will be branded Grumpy Old Men. I think of Walter Matthau as more McCain and Jack Lemmon more Lieberman, but the Obama people can sort it out. As Obama is trying to show, it is very easy to cast old people as “out of touch”. And that is exactly how the Dems will play it.

The easiest way to win an election is to get 50.1% of the population as close as possible to the edge of not voting for you. The GOP needs a big coalition to take down Obama. To cater to multiple groups, it must be willing to risk losing them. But it cannot afford to. The question is whether or not McCain-Lieberman pushes to the Evangelicals into staying home. If not, this pick will all but seal a Republican victory. It is this question that is tearing up the McCain War Room.

Despite being John F Kennedy 2.0 (or so we’re told), Barack Obama makes a few too many mistakes. And by “mistakes” I don’t mean calling Pennsylvanians desperate voters who cling to guns and religion. I mean actual mistakes. Things that he doesn’t believe in, but inadvertently says or suggests.

For whatever reason, Barack seriously struggles with the locations of his speeches. Last night he did it again, unclear which city in Missouri he was in (hint: there are only two! it’s 50/50, Barack!) Here a few of his recent missteps:

1. Joe Biden will be elected president (interesting)

2. Obama visits 57 states (Heinz varieties or US states…they’re so damn similar!)

2A. Eau Claire, Wisconsin is actually a state…(does this count to the 57 or is it the missing 58th?)

3. Obama’s uncle liberates Auschwitz (actually, Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets and Obama’s mother never had a brother. So an imaginary uncle joined the Red Army. Somehow, I’m not surprised)

4. Obama on Iraq (Not even Two-Face could make heads or tails of this one)

5. Last night, Obama couldn’t decide if he’s in St. Louis or Kansas City (note: he needs his daughter to ask him what city he is in so he can get his facts right). I’m not sure which I’m more concerned about: Barack taking advice from Michelle or Barack NEEDING advice from a 7 year old.

6. Obama suggests that having a baby is a punishment (Some parents ground their kids. Others use spanking. Barack forces pregnancy)

7. Obama makes myriad “mistakes” and suggests he is not ready to run for president in 2008

I think I finally figured it all out: it’s because his name isn’t really Barack OBAMA. It’s actually:

I’m currently sitting between two of my liberal buddies and figured I should document my thoughts.

(note: one of them comes up with, “I consider myself progressive, thank you very much”. The other comes up with, “I’m a socialist, if anything”.)

Nancy Pelosi: I only caught the tail end of it, but I heard a lot about Barack Obama being right and John McCain being wrong. It was kinda funny, actually. The crowd was very quiet…I’ll cut the Dems some slack and say that they are too busy eating their organic, tri-color food in organic packaging. (Reminder: I’m not kidding. The DNC has strict rules on food being 70% local and/or organic and at least 3 colors must be represented…but Obama is BI-racial, not TRI-racial. Perhaps he isn’t as progressive as we were told)

highlight: Pelosi says that Obama has brought bi-partisanship back to Washington. WHEN? The ethics bill and …um….well….

Oh, yea. I forgot. History doesn’t matter in Obamaland!

Tribute to Jimmy Carter. Democrats haven’t realized they should pretend he never existed? Democrat is elected in a very weak economy, facing a global scourge by an enemy of the US, and facing an energy shortage and then absolutely makes it worse? THIS is the image? Go for it, guys!

Jesse Jackson Jr.: His attempts to channel his father and Barack Obama fall a bit short. He tried hard. And if we know anything about liberal ideology, if you try, that’s good enough. We can always add a government subsidy to hook him up. Somehow his father’s goal of physically emasculating Obama goes unmentioned.

Highlight: Jesse Jackson Jr. talks about great moments in American history; Lexington & Concord, Appomattox (apparently not the courthouse), Selma, and Denver. Really? Revolutionary War. Civil War. Civil Rights movement. Obama’s nomination.

it’s official, they’ve gone off the deep end.

Caroline Kennedy comes out to introduce Ted Kennedy. She is a train wreck of a speaker. She seems awkward and uncomfortable. She also makes the obligatory comparison of Obama to JFK.
Random list of “Democratic” accomplishments that she is attributing to Ted Kennedy.
“If your taxes are about $5,000 too much because of unnecessary government, Teddy is your senator, too!”

Highlight: There are about 16 camera cut-aways to Maria Shriver, a member of the Kennedy Clan. No Schwarzenegger, thankfully. Is this a reminder that there are other living Kennedys? Or is it to suggest that Arnie doesn’t support Obama.

The tribute to Ted Kennedy is odd. It’s more documentary than tribute. There is an odd infatuation with the ocean…I guess too much of a hardened conservative to get this. Ted fought for better equipment for troops. DIDN’T OBAMA OPPOSE FUTURE SPENDING IN IRAQ? Wow. The Democrats are now officially supporting stances on key issues that their own Presidential nominee proudly opposes?
Let the cannibalism continue!

Ted is alright. The speech is pretty good and is a thinly veiled attempt to recreate Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme. It’s rosy. It’s optimistic.

lull in the action as commentators talk about Ted Kennedy’s legacy and the attempts to humanize Barack Obama. Does it bother anyone else that Obama needs to be humanized? Shouldn’t all presidential candidates be human, anyway? Unless, of course, he is *drumroll* MANCHURIAN!

Highlight: “The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years towards regulating values”. Wait, wait, wait. The Democratic Party is the one that DOESN’T regulate values? Was that before or after Democrats waged a war on trans fats, SUVs, and the minimum wage while supporting hate crime legislation and Affirmative-Action. ARE YOU EFFING KIDDING ME?

enter: some random former Republican congressman from Iowa. This guy is a vanilla speaker and clearly there to prop up the notion of Barack’s bipartisanship. Is this the best they have? They think this guy, who was never famous and will never be famous, is the answer? Damn, even the Republicans didn’t pretend to be bipartisan in 2004 and they had this guy:

Claire McCaskill: Senator from Missouri
She starts off way too cheery. It’s a little creepy. Is this how Obama wants Clinton? A Stepford Senator?
She tells her story and her husband’s story and calls Barack’s and Michelle’s American stories. She skips out on when Michelle became a racist in college and Barack was supported by William Ayers and married by Jeremiah Wright.
On second thought, her creepy smile isn’t so bad. She is doing a nice job providing a “pragmatic” and “friendly” view of Obama. I could see middle-aged mothers seeing themselves in McCaskill and playfully agreeing. This might be the best speech of the night. The only hitch for Democrats is that McCaskill will only make the contrast between her and Michelle that much more obvious.

Here we go: Michelle Obama!

Here is her bio pic. It’s about her love for South Side. This attempt to humanize her is really laying it on thick. Michelle loves her kids (I’d hope). She has reached out to others (unless they are proud Americans. Then they’re ignorant). She makes people feel better (unless they are greedy capitalists. Then they should become teachers)

She is introduced by her brother, who happens to be the basketball coach of Oregon State (Go beavers?). There is a series of odd basketball analogies. I’m a sports fan, and even I think this is bs. He tries to deliver this line on Michelle and Barack helping the American people and it comes across flat. He doesn’t even believe his own crap!

Here’s Michelle! She is wearing a kelly green dress-like thing. There is some sort of broach (brooch? breach? I’m not sure what its called) at the neckline.

How many times she has said “change: 1

9:39 CST - she plays the humanizing card with jokes and sentimentality about her family

9:43 CST - give dignity to strangers (the same bitter American strangers or the friendly, self-righteous Princeton undergrads who hate black people?)

9:44 CST - America should be a place where you can make it if you try (unless you support an expansion of unemployment programs and government entitlement programs, then you don’t have to try)

9:45 CST - “We settle for the world as it is, not as it should be” (life lessons from Ray Nagin!)

9:46 CST - Obama channels woman’s suffrage and MLK…in case we couldn’t tell she was a black woman (my “progressive” friend smirks as he reminds me that Switzerland did not have woman’s suffrage until 1979).

9:47 CST - Michelle Obama supports Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. The Clinton reference gets a huge ovation (the contrast between Michelle and Hillary is too clear to be overcome, sorry speech writers)

9:49 CST - “I love this country” - THIS BRINGS A STANDING OVATION FROM THE CROWD. In case you haven’t figured it out yet: the Democrats are definitely in trouble when there is surprise and excitement to hear that a potential first lady loves her country.

9:51 CST - “Give each child a world-class education”…by throwing money at the problem? by supporting the federal government’s incursion into education? The same federal incursion that Democrats condemn in their staunch opposition to NCLB? Hypocrisy: it’s in the air.

9:54 CST - She’s almost crying talking about how Barack wanted to give his daughter a father’s love. (soooo we ARE allowed to talk about how Barack had an absentee Kenyan father who had scores of children through multiple women. Including one child who currently starves to death Kenya, only meeting his famous half-brother twice in 30 years?)

9:55 CST - “A girl from teh South Side can..” do whatever she wants. (Was that the WHITE values of success and high-paying jobs in law firms? I can’t keep her racist tendencies straight)

9:57 CST - Barack shows up via live feed from Kansas City. He shows some comedic chops with the reference to his courting of Michelle and his “persistence’.

My thoughts: I think Michelle gave a good speech and played up the Trophy Wife that Americans expect from a First Lady. She gave a nice look at Barack Obama as a person, but Barack still has serious (and legitimate) obstacles to be seen as anything other than elitist socialist. David Brooks had great analysis saying that Michelle missed the opportunity to make Barack a person, not just a savior.

I hope to be live blogging each night of the DNC and provide a post each morning on a DNC-related topic. So log on here each night this week for all sorts of shenanigans.

The rhetoric will get more ridiculous, but I’ll be sure to stay Pragmatically Political

I come bringing wondrous news: BARACK OBAMA BRINGS CHANGE! Change! If you don’t like high oil prices, Obama will change them! Lost your job? Change the economic situation! Think that the public campaign system should be altered? Change!

It’s Change, y’all! How can you not want change! Everyone wants change! Barack Obama and panhandlers agree: Change is good.

One small hitch: change doesn’t mean progress. It doesn’t mean improvement. It definitely doesn’t mean prosperity.

Joe Biden never got the message. In this “welcome video“, he seems ridiculous. The same man who said that Barack was not ready to lead as recently as this past winter, now joins The Movement. He speaks to Obamaniacs as an outsider. He knows that he was not part of The Movement. He has been in the Senate since Barry was in Hawai’i. He is part of the big, bad political machine that Obama wants to tear down. He does all but apologize at the altar of Change and beg for forgiveness. He praises Obama’s parishioners and congratulates them. He then asks that they accept him as one of their own.

How does he do it? He calls on Change. Eight times in 2 minutes and 57 seconds he says “change”!

This clip is proof-positive that Obama is completely out of touch with mainstream America. He picks a moderate liberal with a ton of experience and this guy is the outsider. Joe Biden, Mr. American politics, has never been an outsider. He offers a solid balance of relative youth and experience, foreign policy and domestic policy. He is from Delaware, a state that doesn’t conjure up any negative images. THe fact that Obama’s campaign is so radically left and so unapologetically “grassroots” makes Biden the annoying step-father who you have to obey to get what you want but don’t actually respect.

Though I am no Biden supporter, I feel awful for him. A proud, distinguished senator is being emasculated by a young upstart with a fresh face and smooth speaking-style. Biden is put in the position of being forced to renounce his past so that he become a full-fledged member of Change.