Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye

So by now, everyone who uses a keyboard, cpu, monitor and mouse to learn things knows John Edwards has admitted an affair. But seriously, why is everyone getting so worked up about this? Its not the end of the world. A majority of men, overall men, admit to having affairs while married. Its not like John Edwards invaded a country for no reason or traded arms for hostages.

Anyone surprised he had an affair? I'm not. Not only have most men had affairs, but these are politicians, who by their nature are at least disingenuous. And its John Edwards. Honestly, who ever really bought what he made himself out to be? Maybe he does really care about poverty. But look at him, he barely won 1 senate election, for which he didn't even run for re-election, he got swamped in 2 presidential primaries, and when he was the Veep nominee, he did little to help Kerry. People didn't really buy his schtick anyway.

But overall, I think we need to stop caring about politicians affairs. In Europe and elsewhere in the Western world, no body does, so as long as the affair is not with anyone underage or rape. This should by no means nix him from an Obama administration. He would be still a great Solicitor General. By the time he'd be appointed, this whole thing would be so passé that people will either have forgotten or ceased to give a shit. lets stop making something out of nothing, and feeding into what the media thinks we should think.

There's more...

No, not everything is about race

No, calling Obama's stance on Iraq a "fairy tale" wasn't about race.

No, crying at the NH primary isn't about race.

No, calling him elitist because of his comments about guns and religion wasn't about race.

No, having an ad like the 3am ad is not about race.

No, calling Obama arrogant for making a faux Presidential seal isn't about race.

No, calling Obama presumptuous because he paraded around the world like he was already President isn't calling him uppity or about race.

No, having the victory column in the commercial isn't a fallic symbol after Britney and Paris and isn't about race.

There's more...

No really, Sebelius CANNOT be VP (this is not snark.)

So right now, the veepstakes are going on, the names are floating, and Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas is a commonly floated one around. She's got all the makings of a non-VP. Lets explore them:

1. She has no constituency or any type of one outside Kansas. All politics is local. The fact that she got elected as a Democrat in perpetually red Kansas is no accomplishment and testament to that. She played the politics game, being against abortion and gay rights to get where she is. The region she is from, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma are not areas from where we are likely to receive electoral votes. The fact her dad was governor of Ohio is not gonna help there, as he wasn't terribly popular there, getting defeated for a second term in both his house and governor bids, and being there a long time ago without even the Sebelius namesake.

2. She has very little experience being involved with big time politics, being governor since 2003, being gov only 2 years longer than Obama has been a senator, and shorter than Hillary has been a senator, or Evan Bayh has been a senator. Experience is Obama's weak point, and Sebelius would emphasize this perceived shortcoming.

3. She is boring and uncharismatic, and inspires no energy in the party. Her SOTU response exemplified this. It wasn't some long convention speech that happened 4 years prior to the election year, this only happened 8 months ago. Her speaking style is bland in the mold of John Kerry, and she even looks like John Kerry, and this hurt a lot on the stump. She stops all of Obama's energy.

4. She does not bring any demographic group with her, as she has not shown any popularity with working class whites, or older voters that would be in swing states Dems can carry. Sure, she won in Kansas, but did so by being essentially a Republican with a D next to her name. But if she were on the Obama ticket, she'd have to become a real D who supports gay rights and abortion. As a real Democrat, she has no base with older voters or working class white ones, whereas Kaine, Clinton, Bayh have been elected in states that can vote Democrat, and ran as Democrats.

5. Being that she is not a known name or entity, the headline would be "a black and a woman." That does not sound good, considering how hard a time Obama may have because of his color, and how hard a time he has ahead. Of course, if he had a name brand woman everyone knows, it would be OK as it would be "Obama and (a woman everyone knows)." Sebelius is pretty unknown right now, and would be in the former camp.

6. Putting her on the ticket would be perceived to be only putting her on the ticket to put a woman on the ticket, and seen possibly as an attempt to get Hillary Clinton and Hillary type voters, which yells out "you Hillary voters only voted for her because she was a woman, which is why you'll LOVE Sebelius." This would be amplified by the fact that she brings nothing real to the ticket for the reasons I listed above. She is much less qualified in experience being that Hillary has been involved with politics since being on the Watergate hearing in the '70s, being an active first lady for 12 years while being a high powered lawyer and headed Arkansas's education revitalization effort with great political risk and eventual success, and as First Lady of the US, Hillary attempted to fix one of the US' biggest problems in spite of politics risks and powerful lobbyists and Republicans, lobbyed hard for SCHIP, and was exposed to the day-to-day workings of the White House, living with a President as an active first lady for 8 years, and has been Senator since 2001, being on the Armed Services Committee, all of this in contast to Sebelius has been Governor of Kansas since 2003. 30 years vs. 5 years. That is why putting Sebelius would be seen as  a politically expedient snub, that would open the door to Republicans putting Fiorina or someone like that on the ticket.

She is not a contender, and would be a disaster on the ticket. I think its time to put Sebelius as VP speculation to an end.

There's more...

Jesse Ventura will not seek Senate seat from Minnesota

On Larry King Live right now, Jesse Ventura has announced that he will not seek the Senate seat from Minnesota against incumbent Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken. Your thoughts?

There's more...

How Bill Clinton's Truths fueled the 90's Economy

So everyone knows that some have chosen to make diaries bashing Bill Clinton's economy, either crediting "lies" that never happened, or crediting only the dot-com bubble, which is absolutely specious. The economy under Bill Clinton did well because he took the steps needed to end the deficit which was to raise taxes on the rich big time: this in turn fixed up the bond markets which in turned fueled the economic boom we knew back then. Ever Republican in both houses voted against it. Unfortunately for them, the economy took off, and the budget deficit died. Bill Clinton did that by telling the truth to the American people how tax cuts for the rich were why the deficit was so high and the economy bad.

Bill Clinton also fixed the economy by signing the Family Medical Leave Act, which made it possible for women to take leave while they took care of their child, he also raised the earned income tax credit. This in turn lifted people out of poverty, which fell in every demographic group in terms of race and gender. The dot-com boom only helped the rich. It didn't change the lives of most of the working Americans who went out of poverty under President Clinton.

More countries chose to invest in us due to the deficit Clinton ended. 22 million new jobs because they knew we wouldn't go under like we would have under Bush Sr. had he got another term. Was he a free trader? YES he was, but eveyr living former President supported NAFTA too, and Bush I negotiated it. Welfare reform got those people on welfare into jobs, ending welfare as we knew it, making welfare what it was always meant to be: a second chance, not a way of life. It was indeed Bill Clinton's truths which fueled the economy of the '90's. I hope the radical Kos-like Clinton haters get that.

Bill Clinton Offers Support to Barack Obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_president_clinton Today, President Bill Clinton has released through a spokesman, Matt McKenna, that he "is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States." This means an endorsement is nigh. This is a great thing for unity, and will further bring the party together.

There's more...

New Republican 527 ad calls Barack Obama a Muslim

Check out the new smear ad from the National Campaign Fund, run by Floyd Brown, the creator of the Willie Horton ads

I wonder what McCain will say about this, if he's so honorable as he claims to be. Now we know why Obama opted out of public finance.

There's more...

Al Gore to endorse Obama

Former Vice President Al Gore will endorse Barack Obama in Michigan tonite. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080616/ap_o n_el_pr/obama_gore_1 Whatever you think, at least Gore, unlike Judas Richardson and a bunch of other colorful characters waited until the primary season was over. Perhaps this will unite the party, or further divide it. I hope for the former, not the latter. Personally, I wish HE had run.

There's more...

a reminder for Clinton supporters who would vote McCain

So I am a former Clinton supporter and I voted for her, proudly. I am sad and even angry that she lost, as I myself feel it was unfair at points.

There's more...

Bob Barr: NOT our friend

So the "convention wisdom" is that Barr hurts McCain more than Obama. I have always questioned this, the same way I have questioned and debunked the "conventional wisdom" myth that Perot hurt Bush more than Clinton, as the exit poll results show, as Perot was pro-choice pro-gay and anti-NAFTA.  If we look at the Libertarian party platform, sure, they are for lower taxes and tariffs , but they are also for legalized abortion, against the War in Iraq, against infringements on civil liberties, gay rights, and for legalized drugs. Now, some say he'll draw conservative votes. But if we look at them on those issues, Bob Barr is no conservative candidate. That is not to say they will get SOME conservative votes, but they are more likely to get votes that are NOT conservative. Bob Barr has now flip flopped and is AGAINST the war on drugs. being that the LP and Barr are emphasizing against the war in Iraq and for civil liberties, he may very well draw more votes from Obama. Those are their biggest issues, and are liberal ones. The rest of their platform is kind of liberal, socially. We cannot afford this. if this is a close election, this could be the difference. And if we win with a plurality, and Barr gets some, it will allow conservatives to diminish our mandate as they did to Clinton, and undermine his agenda. We cannot allow this. This is why I highly suggest NOT to help Bob Barr. He only helps McCain stay close. Conservatives who think McCain is a liberal are NOT going to flock to a candidate whose party platform is for legal abortion, gay rights, and for legalized drugs, and Barr is likely to go with the platform on most things. The LP platform will attract many young votes, some of whom may not call themselves liberal, but are more likely to vote for a guy like Obama than McCain.  

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads