fishwraphack's blog: "semi-coherent ramblings"

No, George, those boos from the inaugural crowd won’t boos for Clinton or Carter. Not even for your dad, of whom I actually have a higher opinion. No, those boos, those catcalls of “na na na na, na, na, na, na, hey, hey, goodbye” were very much meant for you. But in a strange sense, in retrospect, I’m glad you “won” (for lack of a better term) in 2000 and 2004. Because Obama’s election showed that Americans thoroughly repudiated your rule by fear. You tried to implement an empire against your better judgment, if there was such a thing. You invaded a country and are responsible for the deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of civilians because that country’s former leader was – in your eyes – worse than Hitler (how I’m not sure), connected to 9/11 (we know better) and tried to assassinate your dad. Excellent rationale, junior. You became the equivocator, the false commanderer/deciderer-in-chief with a similarly false sense of misplaced bravado. Your astounding delegation of power and contempt for detail (and proper grammar) actually prompted your fellow neo-cons to believe you were a messiah of some sort meant to lead the U.S. to permanent Republican rule without checks and balances. Your loyalists used various means (mainly though a lapdog corporate media) to imply that dissent and criticism was tantamount of treachery. Even the first few days into Obama’s new administration, the Faux News website practically allows wingnuts to post death threats (yes, death threats) and all sorts of idiotic yet uninspired, anti-liberal pabulum. Wow. Not shocking but still disturbing and sickening. You must be so proud of Rupert Murdoch. You bullied or belittled other countries. You essentially endorsed the use of morally corrupt practices (veil of secrecy, torture) to conduct this so-called war on terror. I mean, c’mon, George. A former National Security Agency analyst had to tell us today that domestic spying has been far worse than first thought, including having targeted journalists. Really, Dubya? I should feel disgusted and a bit flattered. Additionally, Shrub, you pledged to be a “uniter, not a divider,” yet you and your cohorts continued and even expanded emphasis on turning your regime into an oligarchy. An ideology-driven reign of anti-intelligence, anti-reason and anti-oversight. And right-wing hypocrites have dared to talk of responsibility. No wonder a conservative like Bruce Fein wrote in the Washington Times (not the Post, the freaking Times) urged the Obama administration to investigate you, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rove and even Ashcroft for “complicity in torture, illegal surveillance, illegal detention, perjury, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Prosecutions should follow if the evidence convinces a grand jury to indict.” Some of your loyalists dare to defend and desire the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay when much of us in the real world know that closing it would be the moral thing to do. Because I as a Christian believe in the power of repentance, and believe this nation does and should keep aspiring to a genuine, inclusive moral leadership that matches its national traditional values. Heck, the military and FBI reject torture on legal and ¬– to a certain extent – moral and practical reasons. Jack Bauer’s methods in the real world don’t work. They only work on TV. So, Dubya, I will miss you only because you did so much these past eight years to remind us what a true modern republican democracy really should be with an all-encompassing morality and a sense of a higher purpose. Enjoy your retirement with your blue-blooded friends. Adios and good riddance. We’ve got quite a mess to clean up. (Maybe we can do a “Lost” episode in which we could project how things would be if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor Gore!) I do salute Obama for having, among other things, signed an executive order that eliminates one of Dubya and Alberto Gonzalez's first collaborations: an executive order that put a veil of secrecy of Bush’s reign. That’s just a start. I sincerely hope Obama will be a progressive president, one who combines idealism with dashes of pragmatism. His ultimate cabinet and other high-level administrative appointments get mixed reviews from me (“could” be a bit more diverse; hey Clintonites, Hillary is higher up on the line of succession now; Ray LaHood for transportation secretary – really?) And yes, for anyone wondering how I see it – Blagojevich needs to save what’s left of his credibility and reputation and resign immediately. Dude KNOWS he did wrong and doesn’t believe in culpability. That’s a pathological liar in the making. And for you other dumbass Democrats lately (Spitzer, Edwards, the Portland and Baltimore mayors): BE-HAVE! Do you really aspire to be corrupt or act outragesouly and expect to get away with it? Are there a few neuro pathways loose up there? Way to bring the party down with you. Estupido. As Napoleon Dynamite would yelp, "gossshh!" In the end, let’s temper our expectations a bit and be patient with the new administration. We got at least four years to figure things out and set a better example.

Tribune Trouble Ah, how the mighty fall. Even in this cynical age, it’s unusual and unsettling to see industry giants to fall victim to the new recession. In Monday’s case it was the Tribune Company, which filed for bankruptcy. It’s $12 billion in debt. It was intriguing when last year Sam Zell, a former successful radio and real estate investor, bought the long-standing company with reckless Mark Cubanesque zeal and took it private. But many observers immediately noted flaws in Zell’s business plan for the newspaper-heavy firm, which in recent years had diversified itself in an attempt to remain competitive in the new yet more pitfall-filled economy (namely acquisition of the Chicago Cubs). Zell says the bankruptcy won’t affect operations at the Cubs or the newspapers or the relatively new employee ownership stock plan. Uh-huh. Ultimately, indeed it’s true. Newspaper-heavy companies must seek ways to diversify its portfolio and remain relevant in the eyes of their readers and advertisers. If that means finding unique ways to compete with burgeoning news websites, so be it. The web, for the most part, is the future that partially is already here. A venue for people to access a variety of constantly updated information at a moment’s notice. It’s more than valuable and, for most people, easily accessible. But one can never really replace the unique feeling – especially for those who can’t afford mobile technology – of having a newspaper, feeling a tangible piece of information, entertainment and history, right in the palm of your hands. Don't let newspapers -- especially the one I work for!

Now to the Bull Crap Series, errr, umm, Bowl Championship Series. Although its advocates will again argue otherwise, the BCS has yet again proven ineffective in yielding a true No. 1 vs. No. 2 match for the NCAA Division I football title. Florida and Oklahoma ? Really? Seriously? These two teams are among the best and proved their worth in their recent conference championship games. But is this really the best pairing the system could come up with? In a year that saw Texas beat OU on a neutral site and, despite losing to Texas Tech ever so slightly in at a game’s end, Texas be at the mercy of a computer’s ever-so-narrow ranking margin? And Florida fell to Mississippi. I’m not sure who the real top two teams are. You don’t, either. I’m very sure neither does a computer. As the quote goes, that’s why they play the game. On the playing surface. Like virtually every other sporting organization on earth. Even the Kazahkistani kick-goathead league has a playoff. Well, we won’t waste further time going into the minds of those myopically opposed to a NCAA Division I tournament of some kind. Even the “bowl games are a tradition” and “schools will lose money” and “you can’t make the student-athletes play that long or late into January” philosophies. None of those arguments work. Never did, never will. So, what if a playoff system did exist for college football? You start with automatic champions from 11 conferences (regular-season champs and/or championship game victors). In this year’s case, those bids go to: Boston College (ACC), Oklahoma (Big 12), Cincinnati (Big East), Penn State (Big 10), East Carolina (Conference USA), Buffalo (Mid-American), Utah (Mountain West), USC (Pac-10), Florida (SEC), Troy (Sun Belt) and Boise State (WAC). You could averaging (the rankings of the AP Top 25 and USA Today polls, emphasizing which schools get the most place votes. Those are arguably the strongest, long-standing, most popular and credible of Division I polls. You add the top independent team ranked high enough (overall in polls) for an FBS bid and/or four (or five) other highest-ranked schools (overall in polls). So this year these get an at-large bid: Texas, Alabama , Texas Tech, Ohio State and TCU. The ultimate FBS tournament seedings in a 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14, vs. 3, etc. format would be: 1. Florida 2. Oklahoma 3. Texas 4. Alabama 5. USC 6. Penn State 7. Utah 8. Texas Tech 9. Boise State 10. Ohio State 11. TCU 12. Cincinnati 13. Boston College 14. East Carolina 15. Troy 16. Buffalo Take into account the oldest, popular, most lucrative, traditional bowls and mix in some regional flair and considerate schedules. You can keep some of the best bowls. (I mean, really. The glut of bowls is ludacrous. More and more are added each year, some from inauspicious sponsors. Does anyone care to see the EagleBank Bowl? The what? Or the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl? Oooh, barnburner. Oh, we could so perpetuate the Poulan Weedeater FreeCreditReport.com Pomegranite Bowl joke.) Rotate the remaining bowls as quarterfinal, semifinal and final games, all of which could retain and maybe even increase the number of ticket-buyers and TV viewers. One reason? There’s even greater incentive to play in such a bowl. Not just one bowl. But a series of true head-to-head games where all the conference champions (not just the typical, known powerhouses) and other top-ranked squads have a genuine (and fair) shot at an undisputed national title. Imagine that! The younger, Decemberish bowls host quarterfinals on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday: December 18 Buffalo v. Florida - Independence Bowl, Shreveport Cincinnati v. USC - Insight Bowl, Tempe December 19 Troy v. Oklahoma – Chick-Fil-A (Peach) Bowl, Atlanta East Carolina v. Texas - Sun Bowl, El Paso Dec. 20 Boston College v. Alabama – Gator Bowl, Jacksonville Boise State v. Texas Tech - Alamo Bowl, San Antonio Dec. 22 TCU v. Penn State – Liberty Bowl, Memphis Ohio State v. Utah – Holiday Bowl, San Diego Potential winners? Florida , USC, Oklahoma , Texas , Alabama , Boise State (sorry, Tech), Penn State and Utah (yep, you read right). More bowls in Friday and Saturday semifinals (lowest v. highest-seeded winners): Dec. 26 Boise State v. Florida – Capital One Bowl, Orlando Penn State v. Texas – Cotton Bowl, Dallas Dec. 27 Utah v. Oklahoma – Rose Bowl, Pasadena USC v. Alabama – Outback Bowl, Tampa Potential winners? Florida , Texas , USC, Oklahoma Final Four of sorts/Friday, Jan. 2 USC v, Florida - Orange Bowl, Miami Texas v. Oklahoma - Sugar Bowl, New Orleans Potential winners? Florida, Texas (yes, I said Texas) Championship game, Friday, Jan. 9 Texas v. Florida, Fiesta Bowl, Tempe Yeah, it'd probably be Florida. But I guess we'll never really know.

So many things about which to blog, such little time in which your attention spans exist. First off, it's been a hectic month. No doubt some of you have heard that my fellow Prime Time Newspaper editorialists and I have been forced to move from our confines in northeast San Antonio to downtown. To the Express-News building. Yes. There. I had long tried my best not to work there. For the Express, anyways. It's not my choice. Rather, it was the choice of the E-N/Hearst, which refused to pony up $75,000 to install a new advertising/data entry/pagination system at our (now former) office. So off to downtown we went, where we now hassle with paid parking, longer commutes and the unsavory idea that downtown of a city where I've lived all my life suddenly no longer appeals to me. And my colleagues and I are forced to deal -- under holiday deadlines -- with said new computer system (whose supposed benefits over previous eras of digital writing/editing/page design so far escape me), a WAY smaller breakroom and the fear that -- at many moment -- the adjacent sports copy editors will suddenly unleash some horrible hazing ritual on the rest of us. In any event, there are a few upsides. There's a chance to delve into an array of happy-hour spots in the downtown area. We'll have a little Thanksgiving potluck deal Wednesday that hopefully won't draw attention from the sports copy editors. We do occasionally bump into cool friends already working for the Express-News. Then there are those E-Ners we'd rather never see or hear from again. Regardless, I strive to persevere. Onward to - THE TRANSITION. Team Obama and Biden are changing things for sure! When you consider Clinton retreads as change! Okay, so far there no sexy, daring, outside-the-box picks have been made thus far when it comes to the cabinet and other key positions. As for my pick'em forecast, it's a mixed bag at this point. The speculation about Hillary being secretary of state is throwing many for a loop, but it's definitely the Clintonistas pushing for her to get some top spot, and not some paean position. Eric Holder is one of my picks for attorney general. Yeah, he'll get some grief from Senate Repubs during the confirmation process. Well, heck, which nominee won't? Another two throwing me for a loop -- Janet Napolitano for homeland security and Tom Daschle for health and human services. No doubt, both individuals would serve good roles in Obama's administration. But I'm definitely not envisioning either person for the cabinet positions for which they seem to be nominees. Penny Pritzker is taking herself out of consideration for a job, particularly secretary of commerce (there goes my pick). Alas, this may prove beneficial to Obama as Pritzker has business links to the most dastardly of industries -- subprime mortgage lending. And there's stronger speculation that Robert Gates may remain at The Pentagon for a while. If Obama wants to prove himself an agent of change, a direction from appointing Washington insiders, including Clintonites and Bushites, would be wise. If only someone can tell him and his advisers this through his www.change.gov website. Speaking of which, I need to submit a resume through there. I wouldn't mind battling 200,000 other applicants for a gig in Obama's D.C. Onward to -- the attempted auto industry bailout. Perhaps the funniest thing I heard all week were executives from the big three U.S. automakers, rationalizing to Congress as to why they deserve a bailout: Their current financial crisis is NOT their fault. The execs say the crisis isn't due to their lacking a quality product or slow progress toward fuel-efficient vehicles or the current business model. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Oh the crisis is most definitely the fault of the automakers. It's not the fault of union workers and all their supposed benefits and salary gains over the decades. It's because they refused to acknowledge foreign automakers manufacturing (for the most part!) better quality (and smaller) vehicles. It's because they have been so reluctant to gradually move away from hydrocarbons at the end of fossil fuel era and towards fuel-efficient vehicles, which more and more people want in an uncertain economy where oil and gasoline prices could skyrocket once more at any moment. And it's because automakers -- led by executives touting bloated salary and perk packages and a serious disconnect from middle-class reality -- adamantly oppose public-sector solutions for employee health care and pension plans. So, should we bail out our car industry? To a certain extent. A short-term bail out may be required, much smaller than the one dedicated toward the corrupted finance industry. But in return (and right now), the automakers should design a long-term plan meant to accomplish a strong American auto manufacturing industry that features a strong unionized force, a public-private solution for worker health care and pensions, and a MAPPED OUT TIMEFRAME AND COMMITMENT toward a product line that emphasizes fuel-efficient vehicles of better quality. Not too much to ask, is it? Onward -- to other things: * 24 and Jack Bauer are back in a two-hour movie that sets up the new season. Yay! * Have you seen the full trailer for J.J. Abram's new "Star Trek" flick? Whoa! Good lord, everyone's nuts in there! * The thought of canceling Pushing Daisies is absurd but not unexpected. Even in an age where more people have more entertainment options than ever -- options other than watching TV -- networks remain finicky about what low ratings constitute cancelation. And meanwhile we get stuck with crap like "reality" TV and atrociously written, uninspired programs. * Farewell, Moral Orel. We hardly knew ye. When it came to an animated, subversive satire about modern Christian prostelitizing, Moral Orel nailed it. And using the Davey and Goliath look was genius. * I cannot wait for the return of Lost, Galactica, Boondocks, Doctor Who, Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Torchwood. I...just...cannot...wait. * Superjail is astonishingly surreal and insane. (Sorry, my Adult Swim geekdom runneth over.) * And Sarah Palin...umm, go the fuck away. OK, you may resume your regularly scheduled lives.

I love lists. I love picking them. I love reading them. It’s all about the fondness for prognostication. So I give you my expected and/or ideal picks for Obama’s cabinet and other key positions, starting from the current presidential line of succession (state department through homeland security). Embrace my political geekdom! Secretary of State – This is a bit tricky. While there’s talk of John Kerry being offered the position, I think Bill Richardson is much more suited for the task. He has great diplomatic credentials, has served previously under Bill Clinton and helps to bring a bit more diversity to the top of the administration (Latino). Sure, yes, he has a questionable management style and can rub some people the wrong way. But I believe the pros outweigh the cons here. A suitable deputy secretary of state: Greg Craig, who served in the Clinton administration as both presidential counsel and as a senior adviser to Madeleine Albright. Secretary of the Treasury – An even trickier position considering (a) the shambles of the current economy and (b) severely waning popularity for any Wall Street insiders to be involved in leading the treasury. There’s no real clear, odds-on favorite everyone could embrace. Really, it’s the lesser of several evils here. Having said that, perhaps the best bet – for the next year or two to lend an expert, immediate relief to the markets – is Paul Volcker, former chair of the Federal Reserve. He served under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and advised Obama on the economy. He is getting up there in age, however. Which leads me to believe a suitable deputy treasury secretary could be Michael Froman, president/CEO of CitiInsurance and a campaign adviser to Obama. Ultimately, the treasury needs new blood in leadership. Maybe a venture capitalist to spice things up. The department and nation needs to move away from finance capitalism to creativity capitalism. Let’s develop a cabinet of innovation. And frankly, if Obama wishes to prove he’s an agent of change, he shouldn’t merely stock the top of his cabinet with a bunch of former Clintonites or leftover Bushites. Secretary of Defense – Ah, a conversation that inevitably leads to the assumption that Republicans are tougher on defense than Democrats. Hogwash. Progressives can show just as well they have the skills and mindset to administer such a department efficiently, counsel the president judiciously on pressing military matters and equip the troops appropriately without calling for more military spending. It’s times like these in which one wishes Wes Clark or Anthony Zinni wouldn’t be – for now – subject to constitutional laws of eligibility regarding leading the defense department. Clark would be a no-brainer. Alas, I could temporarily settle for Richard Danzig, who served as Naval secretary under Clinton and advised Obama during the campaign. A suitable deputy defense secretary could be Larry Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who now works at the Center for American Progress. However, this all could be moot if current secretary Robert Gates is left in the position, which unfortunately is the speculative rage for the moment. Attorney General – While speculation is centering on Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, I think it would serve the country better if she were to remain a blue governor of a red state. My pick goes to Eric Holder, a former Justice Department official under Clinton. Republican Patrick Fitzgerald, who as special prosecutor was great going after the Bushites the last few years, could do well as deputy AG. Secretary of the Interior – Speculation is that Brian Schweitzer, the popular Montana Democratic governor who just got re-elected, is up for this job. But like with Napolitano, I think it’d be wise to leave a blue governor of a red state. Want another bi-partisan pick? How about Lincoln Chafee, the moderate Republican former Rhode Island senator, who endorsed Obama and is seen as moderate on ecological and land management issues. Secretary of Agriculture – Former Iowa Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack is getting the biggest mentions here and is probably a safe pick. I could be happy with rewarding Scott Kleeb with the deputy secretary position. He challenged for the Nebraska Senate seat this week. He’s a rancher with moderate views, a professor with a degree in international relations and can appeal to younger voters. Dude is like 33. Secretary of Commerce – Speculation here is on Penny Pritzker, who’s part of a wealthy family based in Chicago. She can give Obama a shot in the arm in terms of small business acumen, but in the confirmation process Rethugs could try to tie her indirectly to the sub-prime mortgage industry meltdown. Secretary of Labor – There’s some talk this one could go to Linda Chavez-Thompson, who’s a proven union leader. She was elected the executive vice-president of the AFL-CIO in 1995 and served until September 21, 2007. She’s also a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee. I could accept, though, Democratic Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt here. Secretary of Health and Human Services – Actually quite a few potentials here. If you wanna see Hillary somewhere, this is the most likely place (other than possibly a Supreme Court nominee. Oh my, just imagine THAT confirmation process.) If not her, possibly Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children's Defense Fund, or former Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, a doctor who expanded the Oregon Health Plan and currently directs the Center for Evidence Based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – A favorite here could be Valerie Jarrett, a longtime Obama adviser who is familiar in the Chicago political machine and is currently CEO of The Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company. Secretary of Transportation – This isn’t really a sexy pick. There’s only a couple of names being floated here. It’ll probably be Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Congressman who serves on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Secretary of Energy -- Steve Westly is a good bet here. California’s current state controller, he was an early proponent of alternative energy who worked Department of Energy's Office of Solar and Conservation under Jimmy Carter. Secretary of Education – Wanna see Colin Powell somewhere that may not be so controversial, this may be the post. He is a founder of America's Promise Alliance, a coalition of businesses, educators, and others working to improve the health and well-being of children. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Either Max Cleland or Tammy Duckworth would be tremendous. Maybe they should go in as secretary and deputy secretary. Veterans who know all too well the horrors of not only battle itself but the challenges that vets face upon the return home. Secretary of Homeland Security – This is intriguing. It could be, as some liberals and conservatives have surmised, that Obama abolishes this department. If he retains it, the department should be bolstered and even take in some duplicate outstanding federal related agencies to avoid the image of an even-bigger bureaucracy. It could even add onto its name of Public and Border Security. Who could best manage this department? No question it’s Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism expert who was among the first moderate pariahs of Dubya’s regime that could not tolerate experts who knew what they were talking about. There’s talk Obama could create a few more cabinet-level agencies and even upgrade some positions to cabinet-level, such as Ambassador to the United Nations and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator. So let’s have fun pretending: Secretary of Communications Technology -- Barbara Simons is one name. She worked for IBM and is now on the board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Public Interest Registry’s .ORG Advisory Council. If not here, it could be Paul Romer or Vint Cerf, both of whom are in Google’s leadership sphere. Secretary of First Americans Affairs -- Winona LaDuke, a former Green Party vice-presidential candidate, is one name. Another is a Democrat-turned-Republican/former Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Director of Urban Policy – A name touted here is Amanda Burden, the director of New York City's Department of City Planning. Again, the latter three departments are being proposed by Obama, but really could be rolled into their appropriate existing departments: commerce, interior and HUD, respectively. Other key roles: National Security Advisor -- Wes Clark. Maybe something will happen down the line after 2010 for him to take the SecDef position. Until then… And if not this, it could be Chuck Hagel’s for the taking. Director of National Intelligence -- Susan Rice, who served on the National Security Council and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Clinton. She works at the Brookings Institution and was an adviser to Obama. There’s much talk that there could be another “Rice” as a secretary of state, however. U.N. Permanent Representative – A good name here is Harold Hongju Koh, a lawyer, legal scholar, former State Department official, and current dean of the Yale Law School, His name has been mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor under Clinton. Yes, if you wanna throw a bone to John Kerry here, that’s fine with me, too. And there’s talk that Caroline Kennedy could get a nod. FEMA Director – There’s talk that after Katrina (among other dubious episodes), FEMA should be abolished. If it is retained (even rolled into a department such as homeland security), it’s a no-brainer – return a professional like James Lee Witt to the office. EPA Administrator – Another no-brainer. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The superlawyer has been a tireless advocate of eco-friendly law and action over the years. And this fills the Kennedy quota. Ambassador At-Large on Climate Change – There’s talk of creating this office, especially for Al Gore. Can’t argue with that. Health Care Czar in White House – A sort of redo of Hillary’s role in the early ‘90s. If she’s not to resurface for this position, it’s possible Tom Daschle, the former House minority leader, could arise here. And that’s fine. For the most part. Trade Representative -- Joseph Wilson is not just Mr. Valerie Plame. He is the CEO of his own firm JC Wilson International Ventures and has good diplomatic credentials. And this just rubs more salt into the Rethugs’ wounds. White House Chief of Staff – well, you’re seeing now that Rahm Emanuel is pretty much taking the job. He does have experience from the Clinton administration, an Illinois Congressional leader and known as a fighter. On some issues. And that’s the problem. He appeased the Rethugs on other issues over the years to the chagrin of many progressives. That and his DLC ties. But anyway… Deputy Chief of Staff -- Jim Messina was Obama’s campaign chief of staff. He could do well here. Senior Advisers – I could go with either David Plouffe or David Axelrod, the architects of Obama’s overall campaign. Budget Director – Hard to say. I could go for one of Obama’s economic advisers. Perhaps Laura Tyson, who worked for Clinton. If you need someone with a bit more of a fiery temperament and executive experience, Florida Congressman Robert Wexler is a possibility. A “fire-breathing liberal” to be sure. Council of Economic Advisers – If I can pick three, it’d be Warren Buffett, Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman. They’re pretty much already advising Obama on the economy. Goolsbee would do better to chair the council. White House Counsel -- Mark Alexander is a good name here, a senior adviser to Obama's campaign, having served as issues director for Bill Bradley's 2000 presidential drive. CIA Director – Need a new one? There’s talk that Richard Clarke could be good here, meaning the Homeland Security leadership can be left to Wes Clark or Anthony Zinni. I’m good with that scenario. Office of National Drug Control Policy Director -- Ron Paul. Really. Imagine a quasi-libertarian look at how he enforce illegal drug laws. Director, Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (Obama's renamed faith-based office) -- Josh DuBois is a good name here. He was the campaign's director of religious affairs. If not him, Jim Wallis would make an excellent candidate. Council on Environmental Quality – Washington Congressman Jay Inslee could be chair. He sits on the U.S. House Resources Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee. White House Communications Director: Robert Gibbs, who advised Obama on media affairs, would be cool here. Press Secretary: Hmm, can I dream of Rachel Maddow taking Faux News to task every day during press briefings? Love it. (OK, update. I guess Gibbs is taking this position.) Domestic Policy Adviser – A name mentioned here is Heather Higginbottom, who has worked for John Kerry, had a role in his presidential campaign, and worked on Clinton’s President’s Summit for America’s Future. Supreme Court nominees – If I could pick three, it’d be legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who had interesting things to say about Dubya’s war on terror; Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School and Thurgood Marshall Jr., a lawyer and son of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall. And yes, Hillary’s name most certainly will be in play sometime next decade. Again, these all are good guesses. Each appointment, however, is crucial and carries with it many factors that must be thoroughly considered. Which means while the campaign to elect Obama and other Democrats to the land may be over this cycle (for the most part), the campaign to ensure a solid, efficient administration of which we can be proud has only started.

I ghost-wrote letters to the editor for the McCain campaign By Margriet Oostveen, Salon magazine I spent a morning in John McCain's Virginia campaign headquarters ghost-writing letters to the editor for McCain supporters to sign. I even pretended to have a son in Iraq. "You can be whoever you want to be," says an inviting Phil Tuchman. "You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!" I volunteer in political campaigns now and then. After a series of outings for Obama and a first mission as a phone banker for John McCain, I returned to McCain's headquarters in Arlington, Va. The offer was too alluring to delay -- they wanted to put me into action as a ghostwriter. Next to commercials and phone banking, writing letters to the editor is the most important method of the McCain campaign to attract voters. At least that is what's written in the guidelines that McCain campaign worker Phil Tuchman presents to me. Today he is training six ghostwriters. What on earth is the appeal of McCain for the former Soviet bloc? Last time I was here, an exuberant Polish guy was phone banking next to me. Today, a Russian in yellow suspenders is shimmering at the same table, looking just like an actor who is famous in the Netherlands for star turns as a genius who suppresses his dark side with painstaking self-control. The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want -- as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. "Your letters," says Phil Tuchman, "will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we'll place them in local newspapers." Place them? I may be wrong, but I thought that in the USA only a newspaper's editors decided that. "We will show your letters to our supporters in those states," explains Phil. "If they say: 'Yeah, he/she is right!' then we ask them to sign your letter. And then we send that letter to the local newspaper. That's how we send dozens of letters at once." No newspaper can refuse a stream of articulate expressions of support, is the thought behind it. "This way, we will always get into some letters column." It is the day after Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention. Today, she is our main subject. The others are already enthusiastically hammering their keyboards. I am struggling with a tiny writer's block. "Dear Editor ..." Phil Tuchman has handed out model letters, and talking points and quotes from Sarah Palin's speech. But whom do I want to be? Let's loosen up my fingers a little first -- and my principles, too. Am I actually allowed to make up letters? At the moment, it seems to be the only way to demonstrate how this is done in a campaign. So yes. I start practicing attractive sentences about Sarah Palin: "Her biggest plus to me is that, besides being amazingly smart and qualified, she managed to remain a woman like us. She is the PTA hockey moms. She is the working mothers of special needs children. She is every caring mother of a challenging teenager." Her pregnant daughter Bristol (17) is not a talking point. A talking point is her son Track (19), who will be deployed to Iraq. "And most of all, she is just like any mother of a child who deploys to Iraq in the service of this country." Now we are getting somewhere. I look around. I type: "My son, too, is there." Oh god, you liar. Now build up suspense. New paragraph. "And my heart needs him back safe so much." Yes, yes. Well done. Another paragraph -- why not? Now let's pump some iron in that mother, for after all, we are not with the Democrats here. Look up the right, patriotic phraseology in the model letters. "But when I see him again, I also want to see his face glow with pride. Just like the day he told me he enlisted." Yes, like that. And now full speed in the direction of McCain's plans to continue the war. Sell that war. With a mother's heart. "That is why Senator John McCain could count on my vote from day one." But whatever happened to Sarah Palin in this story? I gaze out of the window. This takes 10 minutes. Then: "With Sarah Palin, I have even more reason to trust in victory. She represents my heart." Hmm. Does that sound like total doublespeak? Or does it sound like logical reasoning to a McCain supporter? I cannot come up with anything better. "Sincerely ..." I leave the dots for somebody else's signature. Does Phil Tuchman want to read it? Phil bends over my computer screen and reads. This takes a while. I am expecting roars of laughter or to be kicked out. Then he says drily: "I like that. It appeals to the hearts of people. Can you write more letters?" CNN poll: GOP takes brunt of blame for economy; Obama gains Obama leading McCain 51-46 percent, according to CNN poll out Monday Majority of respondents view Obama as better on economic issues By Paul Steinhauser CNN Deputy Political Director WASHINGTON (CNN) -- By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans blame Republicans over Democrats for the financial crisis that has swept across the country the past few weeks, a new national poll suggests. That may be contributing to better poll numbers for Sen. Barack Obama against Sen. John McCain in the race for the White House. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey out Monday afternoon, 47 percent of registered voters questioned said Republicans are more responsible for the problems currently facing financial institutions and the stock market; only 24 percent said Democrats are more responsible. Twenty percent blame both parties equally and 8 percent say neither party is to blame. The poll also indicates more Americans think Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, would do a better job handling an economic crisis than McCain, the Republican presidential nominee. Watch Obama blast McCain on the economy » Forty-nine percent of those questioned said Obama, D-Illinois, would display good judgment in an economic crisis, six points higher than McCain, R-Arizona. And Obama has a 10-point lead over McCain when it comes to who respondents think would better handle the economy overall. These numbers seem to be affecting the battle for the presidency. Fifty-one percent of registered voters now say they will back Obama, five points ahead of McCain, at 46 percent. McCain and Obama were tied at 48 percent apiece in the previous CNN/Opinion Research survey conducted September 5-7. Obama's advantage, while growing, is still within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Where did Obama make his gains? "In two core McCain constituencies: men, who now narrowly favor Obama, and seniors, who have also flipped from McCain to Obama," said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst. When including people most likely to vote, the results are pretty much the same. Among likely voters, Obama has a four-point lead, 51 percent to 47 percent. Watch McCain blast Obama for not having a plan » A CNN Poll of Polls calculated Monday also shows Obama leading McCain -- 49 percent to 44 percent. "The economy has always been considered John McCain's Achilles' heel, and the CNN Poll of Polls started to show an Obama edge in the middle of last week -- just as the financial crisis began to hit home for many Americans," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director. The poll also expands to include third-party candidates. When included in the results, independent Ralph Nader has the support of 4 percent of those polled, with Libertarian candidate Bob Barr and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney each at 1 percent. Also, Obama has the backing of 48 percent of likely voters, three points ahead of McCain's 45 percent. A couple of other factors in the survey appear to contribute to Obama's slight rise and McCain's slight drop in the polls. Fifty-three percent of those questioned say McCain, if elected, will mostly carry out the policies of President Bush, who remains extremely unpopular with most Americans. Bush's disapproval rating is up three points from the previous CNN/Opinion Research poll. Watch Obama's ad tying McCain to Bush » The survey also indicates Obama has recaptured the "change" factor. Just after the Republican convention, Obama's lead had shrunk to eight points when voters were asked which candidate would be more likely to bring change. His lead is up to 14 points in the new poll. The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Another factor could be McCain's running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Thirty-five percent of those questioned have an unfavorable opinion of her, up 8 points from a previous survey. And two-thirds believe she and her husband should testify in the Alaska investigation into the firing of a state official. "Change has always been Obama's strong suit, but McCain and Palin clearly made inroads into that issue during the GOP convention," Holland said. "Palin, in particular, was seen as an agent of change when she made her first appearance on the national stage. That may be changing now." The poll also sheds more light on how Americans feel about the financial crisis. Twenty-two percent said they are "frightened" by the crisis, while two-thirds said they are "concerned." Eleven percent said they are "not worried." iReport.com: Is the financial crisis hurting your business? Most Americans think the programs to deal with the financial crisis currently being worked on by Congress and the Bush administration will be unfair to U.S. taxpayers, but they think those programs will help the economy. Six in 10 think the federal government should step in and address the financial crisis, and 37 percent say the government should stay out. But when it comes to last week's bailouts, support slips to 55 percent. Given concerns about how future programs will affect taxpayers, it's conceivable that public support for the new government plans could be even lower. The survey comes out just four days before McCain and Obama face off in the first of three presidential debates. Will the debates make a difference? Probably, since the poll finds that 14 percent of Americans say they haven't made up their minds yet. The first debate, scheduled for Friday in Oxford, Mississippi, will focus on foreign policy, a topic that may play into what some registered voters see as a strength for McCain. The poll finds 54 percent of them believe McCain would display better judgment in an international crisis; 42 percent believe Obama would. The margin of error on that question is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Conducted Friday through Sunday, the CNN/Opinion Research poll questioned 1020 Americans including 909 registered voters and 697 likely voters. All one needs do is remind people of McCain’s own links to the corrupt sectors of the American financial industry: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/03335/7784/864/608313 Ah, Palin – not surprisingly – may have her own Rev. Wright problem: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palin-muthee--1.html Muhahahahaha… http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/letting_sarah_palin_answer_que.php Muhahahahaha… http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/25/35421/5227/451/609743 Also not a surprise… http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/25/03943/4148/550/609652

Entranced by Sarah Palin?! Well, here are a few articles to consider. Sarah Palin's Dazzle Camouflage By Rev. Ana Levy-Lyons, minister of Beverly Unitarian Church, Chicago, IL Dazzle camouflage was a camouflage paint scheme used on ships during World War I. It consisted of a complex pattern of geometric shapes in contrasting colors, overlapping and intersecting each other. Dazzle did not conceal the ship but made it difficult for the enemy to estimate its speed and direction. The idea was to disrupt the visual sensors used for naval artillery. Its goal was confusion more than concealment. The GOP Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, sports the political equivalent of dazzle camouflage. When you look at her, you don't quite know what you're looking at. She's brash and tough, yet feminine and pretty wearing a skirt and heels. She's a PDA-toting child of the information age, yet tries to ban books from her town's public library and opposes sex education for youth. She's a strong, empowered woman, yet opposes women's right to abortion even in the case of rape. She's a compassionate mother of five, yet kills large animals for fun. The pressure to be all things to all people is familiar to public leaders. As a parish minister, I see every day the conflicting desires people project upon their leaders, particularly female leaders. People long for female role models who are both nurturing and powerful, comforting and challenging, ordinary and extraordinary. In fact, successful leaders in both politics and the clergy are often chameleon-like, able to adapt to the needs of the moment and speak multiple social "languages." But Sarah Palin exhibits almost a caricature of this quality, cloaking herself in a dazzling, dissonant array of personas that tug on our heartstrings while keeping us guessing. The thing about dazzle camouflage is that it works. The zigzag and plaid contrasting neon colors of Palin's public face confuse the American people. Many of us see in her a progressive, Gen-X feminist, challenging "the man" at every turn - a typical mother who understands our concerns. Yet her actual political and social views bespeak extreme religious fundamentalism reflecting only the concerns of a right-wing minority. Make no mistake: Sarah Palin is not just conservative, but regressive. She wants creationism taught in public schools. She is rabidly anti-abortion. She opposes gay rights. She denies human causes of global warming even while miles of her own state's coastline melt into the ocean. She is anti-environmentalist, intent on reviving the long-debunked "owls vs. loggers" dichotomy. She is anti-intellectual, mocking those who have "fancy" educations. And she is not just regressive, but aggressive. Much as she extols the freedoms found "only" in the U.S., she herself governs like an autocrat. She is ruthless toward anyone or anything that crosses her, from polar bears whose protection might interfere with oil drilling to the Wasilla public librarian who resisted banning the books on her blacklist. Far from being the breath of fresh 21st century air that she seems to be, Sarah Palin is a throwback to the most parochial and repressive voices of the 1950's. As a religious leader and as a woman, I find it terrifying to think that Americans could be so fooled. I don't believe that Americans want to return to the McCarthy days of banned books and rape victims dying in back alley abortions. I don't believe that Americans want to deny global warming and continue the destruction of our most delicate ecosystems. I don't believe that Americans want to see our human rights eroded along with the Alaska coastline. We are moving beyond all that. But Sarah Palin jams our radar. This, and only this, is what makes her so dangerous. It's time to strip away the dazzle camouflage. If and when the American public sees her clearly for what she is, I feel certain that she'll vanish quicker than a Juneau snowball in a D.C. summer. We Don't Want Another Agnew By Colbert King/ Washington Post Folks in the McCain camp are engaged in one giant pity party over the way in which the media are trying to scrutinize their hero, GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Let’s hope her defenders don’t drown in their crocodile tears. A more counterfeit show of woe would be hard to find. With Election Day only eight weeks away, Sarah Palin is the least vetted member of a presidential ticket in recent history. The McCain team, of course, wants to keep it that way -- since the image they’re created of Palin as the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan and Betty Crocker seems to be a winner. The press can’t let that happen. We fell for that trick once before, and America hasn’t experienced a similar political nightmare since 1973. Lest we forget, another Republican presidential nominee pulled the same stunt that John McCain is trying to perform this year. McCain’s role model? Richard Nixon. To recall: A stunned America learned in 1968 that Nixon had asked a politically obscure Republican governor, Spiro T. Agnew, to join him on the ticket. As with the impact of McCain’s out-of-nowhere announcement of Palin, some of the 1968 Republican convention delegates were heard to ask “Spiro who?” At the time, Agnew -- like Palin -- had been governor (of Maryland) for only two years. Also like Palin, Agnew’s political career began at the local level, when he was elected Baltimore County executive in a campaign in which he was billed as a reformer. He went from county exec to vice president in six years. One more similarity to McCain's surprise choice: Nixon knew very little about the nature of Agnew’s service as county executive and governor. Nixon and the rest of the country didn’t learn about the vice president’s previous life until word leaked out that Agnew was under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Baltimore on charges of accepting bribes during his time as governor. The government nailed him. Vice President Agnew was allowed to plead no contest to charges of money laundering and tax evasion in exchange for his resignation in 1973, payment of a fine and three years' probation. Spiro Agnew left office in disgrace. That he even reached the nation’s second-highest office and ended up a heartbeat away from the presidency is because Richard Nixon didn’t do his job. But Nixon wasn’t alone. The press failed the American people, too. To look the other way this year because the McCain camp is cynically making us out to be the enemy is to shrink from our duty. Of course the lives of Sarah Palin’s children are none of our business. Palin's public service, however, as a council member, as mayor and as governor, is very much the American voter's business. Thus far, all we have about her from the McCain camp is fluff. That’s to be expected. But Americans who go to the polls in only a few weeks need to know more about the character and integrity of Palin’s service, her use -- or misuse -- of power and the public purse, and her ability and capacity to handle a job on the scale of the vice presidency. Agnew was a fool and an idler. "No assassin in his right mind would kill me," Nixon is said to have joked to his aide John Ehrlichman, according to Agnew's obituary in the New York Times. “They know if they did that they would wind up with Agnew.” I’d say that judgment came about four years too late.We can’t make that mistake again. Figuring out the McCain/Palin spin: * If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different." * Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story. * If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim. * Name your kids Willow, Trig, Bristol and Track, you're a maverick. * Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. * Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded. * If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience. * If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive. * If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. * If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian. * If you teach children about sexual predators, you are irresponsible and eroding the fiber of society. * If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible. * If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America 's. * If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude,” with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that hates America and advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

Actually, there are TWO running mates in my presidential campaign. And no, I’m not merely hurling out insults based on physical shortcomings. Yes, my fellow Americans, it is time to rise up to the challenge of working together and building a new nation of fresh ideals, progress, positive change, peace, prosperity, less reality TV on VH-1 and more bars with reverse happy hours. My two running mates for the vice presidency are brilliant. They don’t take non-sense from anyone. A dry wit and certain cuddleability allow them to relate to the common man and woman. They show fiscal responsibility and social progress in all sorts of way, primarily by allowing one another access to each other’s food, toys and hiding places. They are leaders, not followers. They dare to rock the establishment without one moment’s thought to the consequences. They are quick, always aware and are very willing to answer the hotline phone at 3 in the morning when a world crisis suddenly erupts. My fiancé/campaign manager and I know this all too well: They’ve been up all night each week plotting and planning. And aloud, I might add. They are experienced only in that they are descendants of a species that roamed areas such as Egypt as kings and queens – or so they feel like royalty - centuries ago. Most of are, they are so goshdarn cute. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to my running mates: Topaz and Oreo. (See my main photo album.) These two cats – and I’m not just using a hip jazz-like slang term – and I will fight to make America safer and stronger! Let it be noted today is Patriot’s Day, when seven years ago the world was horrified to see terror unleashed upon the innocent masses of mankind. Mankind. That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the Patriot’s Day, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom. Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution, but from annihilation. Annihilation by a small yet vocal group of bullies that feels it is owed dominion over the earth by a higher power. We are fighting for our right to simply live and to live simply. To exist. After our victory, we will all have declared in one voice: We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We're going to live on! We're going to survive! Crowd erupts in cheers, unfazed by the candidate’s crass usage of a line of dialogue from “Independence Day.” Go and be good! Onward to truth, justice and the Tabby-Longhaired Tuxedo way! OK, back to reality. Check out these nifty stories on the McSame/Failin campaign: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/09/eveningnews/main4433129.shtml http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/lit_101/sarah_palin_tried_to_ban_library_books_according_to_abc_report_94285.asp http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-chafee-palin,0,7590944.story http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5167/t/3594/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=447

The following is my convention acceptance speech in this brutal, unrelenting, crucial presidential campaign. Behold the awesomeness of my maverickiness and gravitas. Thank you, thank you all! It is so wonderful to see my fellow progressives, my fellow Americans, out in force in the spirit of unity and under the influence of questionable substances. Gracias, mi amigos! Your thunderous, rapturous, insane applause is not only deeply appreciated but will be looked upon as disturbingly over-the-top by future generations! I come before you a humble man, one of you - a populist touting little in the way of experience and qualifications for the highest office in the land. But I have much hope, fight and the courage to fight on your behalf for truth, justice and the Canadian – oh, umm – the American way. Modestly and boisterously, I proudly accept your misappropriated nomination for president of the United States of America. The greatest country ever in 300 years! (Applause. Lots of applause. TV cameras point to audience members crying and screaming in ecstasy. Those same people could also be ON ecstasy. Who knows. I don’t judge.) Thank you again. I am wholly qualified, experienced and prepared for this tremendous job in spite of accusations that I am an inarticulate, drunken slacker. How dare you call me slacker! I resemble that remark. However, I will not waste your time tonight in this vast setting on this special night. For I am aware you all are instead anxiously awaiting the start of your favorite post-local news telecast show. For some, it is Jay Leno. Others prefer David Letterman. Then there are the Jimmy Kimmel fans. And who doesn’t enjoy a late-night smackdown with Charlie Rose? And how can I nearly forget Jon Stewart, the only cable newsman who dares to question authority? All things considered, my campaign is – and my presidency would be – based upon very simple guiding principles: Restoration of dignity, proper strength, responsible leadership and fairness to our domestic and foreign agendas. I have long advocated a government for, of and by the people. A government that sees past blue, red, black, white, male, female, straight, gay, religious, secular, left, right, Libertarian, Green, intelligencia, the anti-eggheads, cat, dog, Yankees, Red Sox, Lakers, Celtics, the mooseburger-eating, bazooka-toting anti-environmentalists, the lab animal-liberating treehuggers, Brittney, Lindsay, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and all the petty things that create tragic, unnecessary division in our society. This is a government for what is left of our tattered republic. I call for a rise to rebellion against the special interests and corporate fatcats who rule our political campaigns and power-making processes. I call for a rise to rebellion against apathy, ignorance and the politics of fear-mongering. Our party’s platform promotes peace through constant diplomacy, brave partnerships to defeat terrorism and deter the forces of instability, advanced arms at the ready, and a well-equipped, morally supported army that is put to proper use only when and where necessary. We promote a return to an economic policy that is socially progressive and fiscally responsible. A tax code that is simpler, reduces burden for the middle and working classes, and ensures the wealthy pay their fair share. Corporate America: Say adios to your ridiculous loopholes and a welfare system that more costly than food stamps, Social Security or Medicare. But we also call for the long-established social welfare programs to get a new infusion of resource, innovation and encouragement from private commerce to improve themselves as a means of mere temporary resort, and not permanent a free ride, for the less fortunate. And comprehensive health care should not be a privilege. We call for certain measures to ensure that the American marketplace remains viable, free and strong internally and externally, but also that marketplace develops incentive to raise competitive wages, more comprehensive health care, stabilizes inflation, offers more variety, works with unions, and desire for employers to stay in America rather than outsourcing. Why? Because we are each other’s brother’s keeper. Oooh, right-wing evangelicals! I just made a Christian reference, one of many to come, yo! Environmentalism is unnecessary and expensive? Whatever! Again, I believe God – or the divine creator of your choice if you’re so inclined that way – meant for humans to be responsible, level-headed stewards over his/her good creation. As for green initiatives, well, let me ask you. Do you like pollution? Do you like dirty and potentially harmful air, soil and water? Audience in unison: “Duh…no?” Of course you don’t! So why don’t we not only clean up our only known home, but let’s preserve it for our children. Companies should be encouraged to create green technology that not only creates jobs but helps them (and us taxpayers) save money in the long run in penalties and controls. Wow. What a concept. Furthermore, let’s eliminate the inefficient, bloated, outdated, inadequate federal programs and particular expenditures of our overblown military-industrial complex – the one Republican President Eisenhower warned us about – and re-route them to hire more cops, firefighters, paramedics, teachers, social workers and all the individuals who are vital cogs to keeping our communities safe and healthy. Let’s work with business and civic groups to create new ways of ensuring our children not only stay in school, but prepare for a new global economy. Audience in unison: “Woot, woot, raise the roof.” This is a vision of a kind, just America. An America where compassion, perseverance, hard work, independence and fortitude are traits to be respected and interwoven. This America is different from, say, the teetering-on-the-brink-quasi-empire that Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin call for. The nerve of these elitist, facist wannabes! They call for change while posing as populists? Puh-leeze! McCain and Palin are no more reformist outsider mavericks than George W. Bush figured himself as just a good ol’ boy. They are pawns of big oil, the NRA and of the far right-wing that wishes dominate our nation through fear, false charges, persecution and hypocrisy disguised as moral platitudes! They won’t change anything. It’s Bush’s third term orchestrated by Karl Rove and his evil henchmen. And they’re outright liars. Palin calling herself an advocate for special-needs children when she herself has proposed a reduction in funds for special needs grants to schools in both her budgets in Alaska. How rich, hockey mom. McCain himself has voted against funding Head Start. While the incredibly myopic, flip-flopping GOP praises Palin’s teenage daughter’s decision to keep her unborn baby, the hockey mom has cut funds for a state program to support single teen moms. And while Palin says she opposed the infamous “bridge to nowhere” that her good indicted buddy Ted Stevens had supposed for Alaska, she actually backed it. Not only backed the bridge, but she was ready to add state funding for a mythical boondoggle that was already nearing a half-a-billion-dollar budget and becoming a national joke. When the bridge was killed, she still took the money. This isn’t exactly flattering: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/4/115448/2478/479/586348 Oh yeah, there’s that she’s already facing questions over her firing of the Alaska public safety commissioner, and the firing of a longtime local police chief. And Palin doesn’t care about the natural resources and special inhabitants that make Alaska unique. Such as polar bears, wolves and pristine, untouched wilderness of the final frontier. And that Palin’s past so-called executive experience – mayor of a SMALL town left in tatters and division after her reign, and governating for two years – don’t amount to jack shit. Foreign experience? Helloo, just because you’re close to Russia doesn’t mean you’re fit for a diplomatic license. I might was well be just as qualified because I live close to Mexico. Heck, I am of Spanish-American descent. Talk about foreign experience! Audience rolls with applause smattered with catcalls and a few “no he didn’t!” And can you really relate to a not-exactly-working-on-a-wage mom who’s really, honestly, not exactly what the male-centered American conservative evangelical political juggernaut had in mind? Someone who not too long ago was a TV sports anchorwoman and a beauty queen. Now she wants to be a heartbeat away from a Republican president in his early 70s? Especially when other conservatives are weary and even cynical of her nomination? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php Sarah Palin is an extremist who merely wants to stoke the fires of cultural wars. If she wants to, bring it, I say! Make it rain! Boo-yeah, girlfriend! It’s on like Donkey Kong. Alas, Americans quickly will see the truth. She’s not right for America, particularly if she has links to a group that wants Alaska to secede from the union. Hence, she’s not really country first, either! She continually says Senator Obama wants to raise taxes when more than 38 million television viewers saw and heard otherwise last week. And how dare you insult community organizers, alleging that by proxy through Senator Obama’s experience, they offer nothing. Power to the people, I say, MIZZ Palin, but not for you and your sorry ass. Check with me when you return to reality. Or, McSame, er, McLame, I mean, McBush. I’m not done with you yet. You got this thing about beauty queens. Married to one and having another as your running mate. Awkward! And you’re not exactly the image of dutiful husband who sticks by his lady’s side for better or for worse. Shall we ask your ex-wife? And shall we get straight your prisoner of war experience? And let’s ask some fellow veterans about that temper of yours or how you’ve definitely derailed your so-called straight talk express from 2000. And your fellow Rethugs. Like the Georgia congressman who today called Mr. Obama “uppity.” Yes. Uppity. What’s that about? Don’t hate the playa, GOP! Hate the game. Hate, hate, hate, so much hate in your hearts. When I all I wish to do is hug you all and say “I love you. And so does God. Really.” Heck, when McCain is being outpolled by Obama amongst overseas U.S. troops by such a huge margin, the GOP can’t even muster REAL soldiers for its patriotic video montage at its convention this week. Fake soldiers hired? See? GOP is against hiring real soldiers. That whole outsourcing thing is a kick in the ass, eh? But I digress. Ultimately, this campaign is about good vs. evil. And I shall lead you to the promised land as we sweep the limey Argentines from those godforsaken rocks in the South Atlantic...! Oh, ummm, sorry, my apologies! I don’t know how my acceptance speech got mixed up with Margaret Thatcher’s morale-boosting speech for the British in the Falklands war. Again, my sincere apologies. Well, go out and be good! Do America proud! And eat your vegetables! God bless you and God bless Greenland!

Need a rundown on the next Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin? From beauty queen to McSame, er, McCain's sad excuse for a VP running mate in a relatively short period of time. Governance experience: Considering only her stint as mayor of a mid-level Alaskan town and then the state's governor (a role she pretty much stumbled into), that's about it! Otherwise, here's this. And many conservatives (including apparently Mittens and Paw-Pawlenty) aren't very happy about it. http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/29/palintology/ As for my streamroller of a campaign, I believe my running mate will hail from Hawaii or some other distant American territory. Perhaps Guam! And I shall release my acceptance speech shortly, a dazzlingly bold vision of the future.