John McCain today selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.

Smart move by the McCain camp and I think this is one of the smartest decisions he has ever made. This bold move might also prove to appease a high percentage of the potentially millions of irritated Hillary Clinton supporters who yearn to vote for a woman candidate in the November election.

At a youthful 44 years of age, she brings to the table several characteristics that will encourage the Republican base: She is an avid fisher and hunter, a member of the politically powerful National Rifle Association. She is opposed to abortion rights, and favors expanded drilling in Alaska. Her husband is a native Eskimo and they have five children, one of whom suffers from Down’s syndrome and the eldest of which recently enlisted in the US Army will be deployed to Iraq on September 11, 2008.  She also breaks that perception that not all Republicans are grumpy old white men; and she is HOT!

The only issue with Palin — that I am sure the Obama camp will try and exploit — is her lack of political experience; yet she is really the only one on both sides that has true executive experience, even if it’s in the small state of Alaska. She has been in office less than 2 years, and will be challenged when she goes head to head in debate with Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden, a veteran Washington insider with several years of foreign policy experience.

Let the games begin folks; this should be fun.

Tags: sarah palin, vice president nominee, running mate, john mccain

These were words from Hillary Clinton when she presented at the Democratic National Convention this evening in Denver Colorado.  I know, I know … these are just words coming out of the mouth of woman who has finally accepted defeat and it shouldn’t bug me.

But I am a little emotional right now.

It is comments like this that clearly exemplify that most (I said most, not all) democrats put their beloved party before everything else; and the truth is that most of the readers on this blog who claim to be democrats do the same damn thing. It’s like the pathetic Oakland Raiders fans who claim every year that their team will be going to the Superbowl. They are loyal but unrealistic.

That’s one reason why I left the Republican Party; because I refuse to rely on a political party or a “savior politician�? to solve all of my problems. The sad truth is that democrats of today are not the democrats of yesterday and for her to say the following is absurd:

Whether you voted for me or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose … No way, no how, no McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate and he must be our president.

I ask, what the hell is the purpose of the Democratic Party? What are your goals and objectives other than “change�??  What’s your vision? How is selecting Joe Biden as a running mate support the vision of “change�? when he is a lifelong politician? I ask the same questions to Republicans too. Don’t get me wrong, I am supporting John McCain during this election; but I am not going commit suicide or move to Canada if he loses, which I think he might depending on who he chooses as a running mate.

And here is the irony in this situation, in which McCain capitalized on.

McCain released a new ad (see below) that replicates Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.�? theme from the primaries, in which she challenged voters to think about who they wanted handling a late-night global crisis from the White House. In McCain’s remix of the video, Clinton is quoted from the primaries praising McCain’s “lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House�? and belittling Obama by comparison saying “and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002�?.

These politicians are a joke and have no core at all! They stand for NOTHING!

Meanwhile, I heard from the grapevine that anti-war lunatic Cindy Sheehan told about 200 demonstrators in Denver yesterday that not much has changed since her month long war protest outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 2005. At least she stands up for what she believes in and isn’t glued to the Democratic Party like most liberals.

Tags: Clinton speech at Democratic National Convention, Denver, Latest McCain Ad

Breaking news just came in from Breitbart, via Drudge.  Democratic Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama just selected Senator Joe Biden of Delaware just a few hours ago to be his vice presidential running mate in an apparent move to balance his ticket with someone with actual political experience. Who knew that “real change” included a 30+ year Washington insider for VP.

So much for the text message.

In selecting Joe, Obama passed over several other potential running mates, none more prominent than Hillary Clinton, who he apparently never even talked to about the VP position. Folks on Twitter are a little pissed about Obama flaking on the text message:

“Wondering why abc, cnn, fox, msnbc knows about Biden, yet I never got a text. Yet another promise broken by Obama”

“Obama, where is my txt msg? Vote for Bob Barr! http://www.bobbarr2008.com”

Tags: Obama selects Joe Biden as running mate, vice president, joe biden, senator

And this comes from a man who is clearly not experienced enough to be the President of the United States.

Just last weekend, both Obama and McCain attended a Q&A symposium at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., facilitated by Pastor Rick Warren who is known for his bestselling book “The Purpose-Driven Life�?. During the event, Obama said he would not have nominated Thomas to the bench because “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation; setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.�?

The funny thing is that he started to say that Justice Thomas didn’t have enough ‘experience’ for the Supreme Court. In mid sentence, he fumbled his words slightly probably realizing that he himself doesn’t have enough experience to be President; and then so eloquently shifted his answer, like he usually does.

Forget about his ultra-left-leaning liberal views. If you really examine his background, you will find that he really has no political and/or business experience at all. A President is more than just the Commander in Chief. He is also the CEO of the Federal Bureaucracy that employes thousands of employees and spends billions of dollars each year.  That means he needs to understand the basics of economics and business. I doubt he gained this experience as a community organizer and professor?

Since most of you don’t do your own research, I’ll sum it up for you briefly. Obama was a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School; and also served as president of the Harvard Law Review.  He worked as a community activist and was a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004 and has been a Senator since then.  And, while Senator he hasn’t even voted on about 50 percent of the bills that crossed his desk.  Presidential material, no; but he would make a damn good ACLU attorney.

Now, let’s review Clarence Thomas’s work and education history. He attended Holy Cross where he helped found the Black Student Union and graduated in 1971 with a Bachelor’s Degree in English.  He then attended Yale Law School from which graduated with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974.

From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under State Attorney General John Danforth.  He then became a private attorney with a firm in St. Louis. He then became a Legislative Assistant from 1979 to 1981.  He served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education under Ronald Reagan.  From 1982 to 1990 he was Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In 1990, President Bush appointed him to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 1991, he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States since 1991.

Well, it seems to me like Justice Thomas is probably more qualified to be President than Obama.

tags: obama’s comments about justice thomas, clarence thomas, supreme court, chief justice thomas, law, lawyer, inexperienced

This was post was contributed by ML Smith.

Obama’s attempt to win this thing on platitudes alone will get him only so far. His speech writers need to step up their game, become more creative and less dependant on inspirational boilerplate. Obama’s speeches can effectively circumvent the issues with creative dialogue that exploits human nature at its most basic level. That requires an understanding of the fact that before people even begin to think about solutions to problems, which involves worry and effort, their initial thought is that the problem will somehow go away. This fundamental aspect of human nature enables us to ignore environmental issues, avoid visits to the doctor and leave credit card bills unopened.

If I wrote Barrack’s next speech, it would be something like this:

Friends, supporters and voters, it is good to see you here. As you know, I have been criticized by Senator Clinton and others who say that I am too heavy on platitudes and too light on substance. They say I do not have a real plan or platform. Well, let me tell you, they could not be more correct. The truth is, I have no plan to solve the problems of this country. I firmly believe our problems will go away, just like those twenty-four hour viruses we have all suffered at one time or another. A good night’s sleep is all that is needed.

America needs nothing more than time. You know, they say time heals all wounds, and that is so true. People need to stop tinkering with symptoms of a greater problem, a problem I must say I do not understand. I look at our wonderful country and I think of it as an automobile that is bucking and stalling. Probably, something has gotten stuck in the fuel line, and it will work its way out. There is no need to start taking things apart. The same holds true for America. The problems will work themselves out.

I want the people of this nation to step back from the weight of all of these problems, and let the light shine in. I want all of you to take a walk in the woods with me, and I am confident that when we emerge, our problems will seem much smaller.

When he was compiling the dictionary of the English language, Webster himself was faced with a great dilemma. There were more words than he could possibly think of. He did exactly what I would do in such circumstances. Nothing. He walked away from the big book, with the knowledge that new words would simply evolve on their own. Today, we have words like ‘aks,’ ’supposebly’ and even ‘nucular,’ words that Webster could never have imagined.

America is like a big dictionary – incomplete, unfinished and still evolving. So I say to you, do not worry about problems, because solutions will come just like new words do.

Mrs. Clinton wants you to work with her to fix the problems of our country. That, my friends, sounds like an awful lot of work. All I want, on the other hand, is for you to take a walk with me in the woods. Do not fear the darkness – we will find our way out because at the edge of every forest there is a condominium that will light the way. So take this walk with me. Together, we will share the spectacular glory of nature, run our hands across the rough bark of trees that have grown according to God’s plan, not the plan of Senator Clinton, a woman too obsessed with issues to appreciate the bark of a tree, or to marvel as a badger makes a home for his family.

We are all like that badger, seeking a haven from the trials of everyday life. And we will find that haven together, while my adversary, Mrs. Clinton, scurries like a rat looking for that elusive piece of cheese that represents a cure to all of the world’s ills. You can trust me when I say there is no piece of cheese big enough to satisfy her ravenous appetite for solutions to problems that do not exist. I believe that America is locked in an obsession with problems and an addictive need for solutions. Let me be your leader and I will deliver you from that bondage. Things will get better if I become president because I will bring change. Not nickels and dimes, but new ideas that will shed light where there has been only darkness. Yes, America, take this walk me.

Together, we will rediscover the greatness of this wondrous nation of ours.

That is the kind of speech that fits Obama perfectly. Instead of beating around the bush of his own ignorance, he can say with pride what we all know, that he does not have a clue what he will do in the White House. Hopefully, someone else will get there before he returns from his naturewalk.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have issued lofty statements regarding their efforts to reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the hill and throughout the American political system. But, while the candidates often speak candidly of reducing the impact that special interests have in Washington, there are still a number of unaddressed loopholes. Despite the incessant rhetoric spewing from both sides of the aisle, little has been done to regulate the donations that have been pouring in for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Both candidates want to be perceived as reformers. Unfortunately for both McCain and Obama, true change is all encompassing. Touting one’s status as a reformer does next to nothing if all regulatory measures have not been considered. This is the subject of Fredreka Schouten’s piece in the USA Today entitled, “Donors Pick Up the Convention Tab.” According to Schouten,

Political action committees (PACs) of unions can give only $5,000 directly to a candidate for a primary or general election. Individuals are limited to $2,300. There is no cap on how much any union, company or individual can give to a political convention.

While individuals and PACs are reasonably restricted on the candidate level, large labor unions, companies and wealthy individuals have an unregulated playing field through which they can disseminate limitless funding to the Republican and Democratic conventions. Forget the loop; this hole is gaping.

Schouten points out recent — and might we add astronomical — donations from The American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Both institutions donated nearly $500,000 to the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, Quest Communications “…has committed $6 million in cash and in-kind support to both conventions.” Even though companies are restricted from donating directly to the candidates, they, too, may provide funds for the conventions.

Beyond the fact that these donations still illicit influence over the parties and their respective candidates, there are other ramifications to consider. In addition to companies’ and unions’ potential fiscal influence, some organizations and corporations are also planning a physical presence at the conventions.

Last week, Bill Alliston, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, penned a piece that focused on special interests and the flagrant lack of regulatory measures that surround various convention activities. According to Alliston,

“Lobbyists wine and dine party insiders and elected officials, big donors feast with the party insiders who depend on their deep pockets, and corporations with business before the federal government pick up most of the tab.”

After scouring event lists released by a top Washington lobbying firm, Sunlight discovered a number of corporate-sponsored events. In sum, there are some 370 planned parties that are to be sponsored by large companies and organizations. According to Alliston, this revelation comes even after new ethics rules brought about via the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 have restricted lobbyists from throwing parties in honor of specific lawmakers.

While Schouten points out that Obama doesn’t take monies from PACS or from federal lobbyists and that McCain does not allow lobbyists on his paid campaign staff, one wonders why neither candidate has attempted to restrict the influence of unions, companies, and wealthy individuals and institutions that are currently infusing both parties with unregulated monies.

True reformers? Not entirely.

____________________________________________________________

Find out more about Billy Hallowell at www.williamhallowell.com. 

Aside from being utterly hilarious, John McCain’s portrayal of Barack Obama as a left-wing celebrity who has traits and a following that are comparable to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears fetched an extraordinary amount of media coverage.  The campaign ad also nabbed the attention of one of its main characters: Paris Hilton.  She quickly released a “counter” ad, offering a fun-filled response to McCain’s banter; the video went viral, reaching well over five million viewers.

With so much attention being diverted from Obama, his campaign is desperately seeking publicity.  While he’s vacationing in Hawaii with his family, the campaign is working feverishly to chip away at John McCain’s credentials.  Instead of coming up with their own innovative counter-attack, his staff members are simply regurgitating McCain’s “celeb” routine.  Perplexed at the amount of media coverage McCain was able to garner and clearly annoyed with the “celebrity” taunts, the Obama campaign is shooting back:

In his new ad, Obama tries to turn the celebrity theme to his advantage, grafting it to his claim that a McCain presidency would amount to a third term for Bush. That claim has generated a defensive response from McCain. The new Obama ad shows McCain hugging Bush while the voiceover says, “as Washington embraced him, John McCain hugged right back.”

Aside from the fact that the “third-term” rant is getting old, the Obama campaign continues to mislead voters into believing that McCain agrees wholeheartedly with Bush’s polities.  The fact of the matter is that McCain differs greatly when considering a number of domestic and international policy issues.  Furthermore, wouldn’t it make sense that McCain would agree with Bush on some issues?  McCain and Bush are both Republicans, no?  Obama agrees with the boilerplate ultra-liberal selling points: universal healthcare, no offshore drilling, higher taxes for pretty much everyone — so why shouldn’t McCain share in some of the more conservative characteristics Republicans typically embrace?

Coincidently, it took the Obama campaign nearly two weeks to come up with a response to the McCain’s celebrity ad.  And now, the campaign is hoping to dupe its supporters into helping it reach its maniacal fundraising goals.  According to CNN’s Political Ticker,

Barack Obama’s campaign manager said Monday John McCain’s now-famous Paris Hilton/Britney Spears television ad wasn’t just insulting to the Illinois senator, but to his campaign’s legion of supporters as well … and in an e-mail to those supporters Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe is hoping a backlash from that television spot will push Obama over the two million individual donor mark by the party’s convention at the end of August — only six months after the campaign topped one million donors.

Aside from the fact that many supporters of Obama’s campaign (unfortunately members of my generation) are a bit Lemnistic in their inclinations that Obama is going to literally and figuratively save the planet, it is important to note the inherent weaknesses in the above statements.  First off, Obama’s campaign supporters may, indeed, respond by donating more money to push the campaign over its goal of two million individuals donors, but wouldn’t an infusion of campaign donations make Obama supporters look like Lemnings?  The campaign has apparently admitted that it is hoping that the “backlash from that television spot” will push it towards its fiscal goal.  Exploitation?  I think so.  And the campaign is actually admitting that it hopes to see supporters respond.

Secondly, I would think that a campaign that has reneged on its promise to accept the federal grant for general election spending would do everything in its power to not call attention to yet another flapjack.

Obama continues to act as though he is an anomaly — untouched by the corruption that is so vigorously wedded to the American political system.  Simply saying that one is a champion for “change” is ineffective.  Obama has yet to champion change; he simply uses the word to ignite a mistaken ideology that he differs from other Washington heavy-hitters.  Look at his record.  In 2004 he claimed that he did not have the experience to be the nation’s leader and today he is touring the country with an entirely different diatribe:

“You know, I am a believer in knowing what you are doing when you apply for a job, and I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now there are some people that might be comfortable doing that, but I am not one of those people. ” - Barack Obama, November 2004

Don’t believe me about his politics as usual demeanor?  Read about his initial state Senate run in Illinois.  Obama’s campaign disqualified an incumbent and another potential candidate for office by invalidating signatories one by one.  Dirty, though legal, Chicago politics as usual.

Obama sees himself as some soft of pseudo-messiahic character who has come to change American politics forever.  But, simply reading his past political actions and his current contradictory statements shows that he is no different from the politicians he is consistently criticizing.  Maybe McCain’s right:

“Sen. Obama says that I’m running for a Bush’s third terms.  It seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.”

Touché.

Visit Billy Hallowell’s official web site at www.williamhallowell.com.

It seems I have some competition for the cutest girl in politics- Paris Hilton, in association with Funny or Die, has released an ad in response to McCain’s “Celebrity” ad.

It’s funny. You’re allowed to laugh.

But more importantly, I think this ad raises a few interesting points about this election cycle. Doesn’t her proposed energy policy sound suspiciously like McCain’s? Why is it so much more palatable for Americans coming from the mouth of a hot blonde girl? You know, I’m a hot blonde girl. I should start making YouTube videos… Maybe we can get Paris to read all of McCain’s proposals from cue cards in a bikini! Then we’d win for sure.

Second, this isn’t necessarily pro-Obama. She doesn’t mention him and doesn’t say anything to favor him. It’s meant to be a slight against McCain, but it’s Paris Hilton! Come on! No one takes this girl seriously and she knows it. But it’s gotta make you wonder- if the youth vote is supposed to be so important to this election and essentially Obama’s ticket to the White House, I don’t think it bodes well for him that it’s only August and they’re already laughing at the election. How seriously can my peers be taking this if our biggest source of news is The Daily Show and Paris Hilton is speaking for us?

Readers, discuss.

See Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad and more funny videos on FunnyOrDie.com.

Tags: paris hilton video, paris hilton mccain ad, paris hilton obama and mccain, celebrity