Sticking to their Guns

Well, I took a much needed break after the RNC to take in all that I heard and quite frankly, just simmer down. Of course, I could repeat the many criticisms of the RNC already published in newspapers and discussed on political talk shows over the past few days but I'm not going to for now. Instead, I am going to try a slightly different approach. While there are numerous policy and philosophical differences I have with most of the politicans that spoke at the RNC, I was the most concerned with a general concept underlying the entire convention: the idea that unwavering beliefs and unchanging policy endorsements are the pinnacle of good leadership.

Although the idea of "flip-flopping" was turned into political death during the last President election, I wonder why the idea of holding steadfast to your position no matter what is seen as the opposite- aka political perfection? I am not speaking here of actual flip-flopping which regardless of party is a routine practice. Rather, I am speaking of the common references at the convention to the "idea" that John McCain and Sarah Palin are virtuous leaders as evidenced by their solid commitment to one thing or another. On the face of it, I see why this sounds good- and at times, may even be a positive trait in our leaders. However, this almost sounds like "blind faith" in which one takes something as a given, regardless of facts. I am by no means suggesting that I think a good leader should constantly be changing their positions. However, reevaluating one's positions isn't inherently bad, is it? For me, the question would be why did someone reevaluate or even change positions? Is it because they learned new facts or is it because some lobbyist "paid" them off to change positions? These are two entirely different scenarios that would necessitate two very different reactions in my book. So, why then are we told over and over by the Republicans that sticking to one's position, regardless of popular opinion, is the character trait de jour? Is it merely because the subtle reference to flip flopping may sink Obama like it did Kerry? Or is it because Bush's approval rating is so low that one needs to suggest that going against popular opinion is actually a good thing?

I realize that no one is going to please all U.S. citizens all of the time- not even close. But must we choose instead to elect a President that by definition suggests that we are voting for him because he will stand against public opinion but stay firmly committed to it? This is even more ironic given the McCain-Palin firm belief in the INability for Government to actually improve the lives of citizens. So, if they don't listen to public opinion and they don't trust the Government, who do they trust? Only themselves? I certainly don't have the answers but I have lots more questions.

And in honor of Bill Maher, I leave you with this:

NEW RULE: If you claim to be pro-life, you must support stem cell research and oppose the killing of innocent civilians worldwide!

The Curveball

Well, the Republicans are definitely the masters of the curveball. If you haven't already heard the news, McCain selected Governer Sarah Palin from Alaska as his running mate (see NY Times Article here). Palin is only a first time governor but if you're worried about her level of experience, fear not! She used to be a beauty queen AND the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population: approx. 8,500). And if that's not enough of an endorsement, John McCain can surely testify on her behalf as he has met her exactly once prior to this week.

To her credit, she apparently is known as a "whistleblower" who has focused much of her attention on ethical standards and standing up to corruption inside her own party. Certainly can't fault her there. On the other hand, her husband is an oil production operator on Alaska's North Slope and perhaps that's why she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'm waiiting to hear more on this one but so far the media seems to have stayed somewhat quiet about this one.

What's to make of all of this? Will the Republicans be able to lure away white women who were Hillary supporters and seemingly on the fence about Obama? Will the hint of youth, gender equality (or just soccer-mom), and ethical standards be enough to reenergize a party that only last night was considered near lifeless in this election? Despite the many attacks from both sides of the aisle on this V.P. pick, the Republicans are certainly doing something right- they have people talking about them and NOT Obama today. Just the mere shock of this pick has helped them gain momentum and media coverage. Admittedly, any V.P. pick would have garnered serious media attention on Day 1 but who knows how this will actually play with voters? Time to get back to the news. Tune in for more tomorrow.

For more on Sarah Palin, check out these links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/02/palin.johnmccain
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/the_palin_meltdown_in_slomo.php

Notice, she hadn't even left the country before last year . . .

A Sense of Common Purpose: A Future of Hope instead of Fear

He did it! Not only did Obama deliver an amazing speech- if CNN is correct, he wrote it himself. Is that even possible these days? Do politicians ever actually contribute their own thoughts, their own words, their own hopes, dreams and fears? Well, I don't know about most politicians but Obama certainly seems to. For all those wondering- I did NOT start out jumping on the "HOPE" train- maybe hopping on and off at times but definitely not jumping. Even I, who often overflows with unfiltered idealism, was a cynic. Who is this guy and why does he think he can reform Washington? Why hope only to be disappointed by yet another politician who fails to deliver on his promises?

Well, after tonight's speech, I'm not just jumping on the HOPE train, I'm leaping! Leaping for joy that is. Even Amy Holmes, a Republican strategist and CNN contributing reporter, said that Obama "turned the tables on McCain." Amazingly, he did this while still being genuinely respectful. I never understood before tonight how one could disagree with someone so passionately but act compassionately towards them.

But for me, the big selling point was the emphasis on both personal and shared responsibility. We can't do it alone nor can we rely on government to do everything for us. This reflects a genuine understanding of the complexity of the problems we face. Nobody can achieve success on their own, neither can a country. I'm more confident than ever that not only can Obama handle the challenges of being the next U.S. President but also that he can compel all Americans to take a hard look at what they can do to help bring about positive change.

Favorite quotes from Obama's acceptance speech:

• "On November 4, we must stand up and say: 'Eight is enough.'"
• "Now, I don't believe that Sen. McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. " (How could the man with 7 houses possibly know what's going on in the lives of most Americans? I think I'll take a chance on the man who only recently paid off his student loans, thank you very much!)
• "I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change."

To read the full transcript of Barack Obama's acceptance speech, click here.

P.S. Apparently the political pundits don't think Obama was as respectful to John McCain as I did. Well, it was high time for the Democrats to finally bring on the fight so I'm not exactly complaining!

To Obama's Speechwriters and Strategists

So, our Republican friends have been jumping at every opportunity to point out that Hillary Clinton did not fully endorse Obama in her Convention speech because she did not refer to his "readiness" to be President. Of course, had she claimed Obama WAS ready, they would just fault her for lying. Apparently, heated primaries lead to open warfare on the Democrats. Oh wait, everything the Democrats do or don't do leads to these types of attacks. For example, no one can actually argue that Joe Biden is a bad VP candidate. So, instead the Republicans have found another way to turn this into a negative. They suggest that by choosing Joe Biden, Obama is reaffirming that he is "not ready" because otherwise, one would never choose such a top-notch foreign policy candidate. Should we then suggest that if McCain chooses anyone with half a brain as a running mate that he too is not ready to lead on Day 1?!

If this seems like an attack on the Republicans, it is not. I am thoroughly impressed by their ability to turn just about everything into something negative against the Democrats. Get with it, Democrats! If we are going to win, and we ARE going to win, then we better start getting good at this ourselves! Perhaps there are trainings being provided on negative campaigning being given by the Republicans- sign up now while the going is good!

Bill did step up last night to remind us that primary rhetoric is just that and indeed Obama is ready to be our Commander-in-Chief and much much more- leading us into the future instead of speeding up our decline (economically, politically, democratically and otherwise). But this is too little, too late, and clearly just put on for show, they say. I say, no problem. Why, you ask?

I have never been more impressed by the Clintons as I've been in the last two days. Don't get me wrong, I have my doubts about their sincerity too but I'm not sure that it matters. What does matter is that anyone who can follow the Kennedys and the Clintons and still inspire the crowds is definitely here to stay. And while I haven't seen or heard Obama's acceptance speech, I'm confident that he will be able to energize, inspire, and captivate all of us tonight! So, here's hoping that "readiness" questions are a thing of the past after tonight and we can get to the true matter at hand: making Obama the next President of the United States!