The Case for Obama/Biden

I got into some back and forth on Facebook this evening over the merits of the presidential candidates. One of my Facebook buddies posted this link to a blog where the conservative authors laid out the case against Barack Obama. She encouraged people thinking about voting Democrat to read the blog and consider their position. I read it. The authors rehashed the same attacks the McCain campaign has been employing for months. Nothing new.

I responded with the following comment: "Read it. Still voting for Obama/Biden. Are there any McCain/Palin supporters willing to state a case for their candidates, or is the tank so dry that attacking the other guy is the only thing left?"

She came right back with: "Ben, it's all about balance within the government. There are other people I might like above McCain but above all I'm a fiscal conservative. As a small business owner I am a capitalist and don't believe in spreading the wealth nor raising taxes on people who suceed in this world. Without any checks and balances we may be bordering on socialism. Keep government out of my pockets and my home. Capatalism works. That's why I'm voting McCain. Why are you voting Obama? Just wondering. I know I live in a state where it doesn't matter anyway:)"

I want to respond, because after taking shots at McCain and Palin in previous blog posts, I haven't explained precisely why I believe Barack Obama is the superior candidate. So here it is:
I am also a fiscal conservative. I believe in institutional deregulation and placing an emphasis on individual education and accountability. I think that irresponsible borrowers should share the blame for the crisis in the credit market with the lenders. And I agree that McCain's fiscal policy reflects those beliefs more closely than Obama's.

But here's the problem. After eight years of mismanagement by the Bush administration, the presidency has been compromised. The American public no longer trusts the Executive to lead effectively on matters of domestic and foreign policy. So regardless of who is elected in November, much of their first term agenda will be dictated by the Congress and the media, as these institutions have replaced the Oval Office as the director of American government. With that in mind, I'm looking to the incumbent to serve as a "rebuilding" President. A man who can restore trust and confidence in the office, so that in another one or two election cycles, we can elect a candidate based more on policy, than personality.

I think Obama is the best equipped candidate to put the Executive back in the driver's seat. He has demonstrated patience, intelligence and diplomacy in his brief senate career. And he has carried himself with poise and dignity throughout a grueling campaign. But most importantly, he has shown a capacity for openness and a willingness to compromise that has been lacking from the current Republican administration and from the McCain ticket. According to Bush and McCain, if you are not with them, you are against them. If you oppose their foreign policy, you are not a patriot. If you believe that we must fund improvements in health care and education with tax dollars, you are a socialist. Not all the policies are bad, but the way the Republican party conducts themselves alienates Americans, instead of building consensus.

Every election cycle we put a President into office who makes a practice of divisive politics, we are another four years removed from electing a President who has a say in setting their own agenda. This is why, in 2008, Barack Obama is the candidate for the job.

Vote Obama/Biden... Please, I'm Begging You

Ok, here's the deal: I'm a registered Independent. I like having the freedom to vote the candidates and not get railroaded by party lines. As such, I am always hesitant to seriously endorse a candidate. Once you jump on the bandwagon, it's easy to lose objectivity. But I'm sitting here in my hotel room in San Francisco watching the VP debate and, screw it... We need to elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

We have suffered for almost 8 years under the governance of a fear-mongering, divisive, incompetent administration. When we have an opportunity to put two candidates into the Executive who have conducted themselves with poise, intelligence and a demonstrated capacity to focus on policy instead of partisanship, it is inexcusable to do otherwise.

When I'm watching a VP candidate speak, I'm not thinking about how that candidate is going to perform as president of the Senate. I'm thinking about about how they're going to perform as president of the United States. And right now, I'm watching Sarah Palin speak. Have the political standards of the Amerian people sunk so low that we will tolerate this joke of a candidate? Ok, silly question.

But the only reason I'm able to stomach this debate is because from time-to-time Sarah Palin's folksy, pre-packaged, totally irrelevant drivel is interrupted by a sound answer from Joe Biden.

This woman is almost as painful as George Bush. Did she just say "nuke-yuh-ler weapons?" She IS George Bush: Woefully underqualified for an executive role in the federal government, unfit to serve as an ambassador of the American public and lacking basic grammar and articulation.

This debate is encouraging. Largely because I hope a lot of Americans who were thinking about voting McCain/Palin are cringing at what the Governor of Alaska is saying this evening. And maybe for the first time, they're thinking of how embarassing it would be to have the Governor of Alaska carrying the American standard if anything were to happen to their 72 year old Presidential candidate.

In putting in writing how strongly I feel about electing Obama and Biden (or more appropriately, NOT electing McCain and Palin), I'm exposing myself to criticism should their administration fail to meet it's potential. This is a limb I wouldn't have crawled out on for Gore, or Kerry, or Hillary Clinton. But I'm starting to believe that Obama represents something different. I'm excited about the prospect of seeing a leader I respect in the Oval Office. As a nation, we have an opportunity to make a bold statement that heightens expectations for our leaders. So please, let's not screw this up again. Vote Obama/Biden.

Who's Up For a Recession?

I just watched the President's address regarding the "economic crisis." This is the first time since his 2001 inaugural address that I've been able to sit through an entire Bush speech. I read the transcripts of the state of the union each year, but I simply can't watch the man speak in public. It's painful.

But tonight was different. The economic mess we find ourselves in came to fruition under Bush's watch. And if he doesn't find a quick fix, the resulting recession will be his legacy. I'm also fairly certain that Bush realizes the fate of his GOP successor, John McCain, hangs on the current administration's ability to bail out Wall Street. Either way, Bush needed to sell his plan tonight to throw the financial sector a lifeline. So he stuck to the script, didn't entertain any questions (thinking on his feet is not his strong suit) and remarkably, didn't smirk. It was Bush at his most watchable. Only took 7 years.

The key provision of the Bush plan is to take $700 billion of the taxpayers' cash and use it to start buying up bad mortgage assets. The government will sit on these assets until they rebound at some point in the future and then sell them off, mitigating the initial $700 billion investment. But don't worry. None of that money is going to end up in the pockets of Wall Street executives. Because after we cut this enormous check, Congress is going to legislate new methods of oversight. Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't we change the rules of the game, then dump boatloads of money back in the market?

I respect the efforts of those individuals who want to try and prevent the collapse of major financial institutions. For better or worse, there are thousands of jobs, and billions in investor assets at risk. The same sidewalk-loitering, interview fodder on the local evening news who say, "it's their dumb mistakes, why should we pay?" are the same people whose 401k's are going to tank and who won't be able to get approval for a Gap card if this situation continues unchecked.

But there is a select group of people out there who wouldn't mind a helping of recession, and I'm one of them. We're the same folks who have are saving for retirement, protecting our credit, investing prudently and purchasing homes we can afford. And through fiscal common sense, we have managed to insulate ourselves from market corrections. And that's what this situation is. It's not economic catastrophe. It's not a crisis. It's a correction. Maybe you remember 9/11, Enron, etc. back in 2001? Same deal. From time to time, the market must realign itself. And there are always casualties. Last time, the government bailed out airlines. This time, it's brokerage houses who backed the wrong pony.

Now that Bush has publicly made his case, the reactionary masses are going to demand a bail out. There are too many baby boomers nearing retirement who haven't sufficiently reduced the risk in their portfolios. I'm sure that within the next week or two, we'll probably pick up the tab for at least half a trillion dollars worth of bad mortgages. And as result, we'll save a whole lot of retirement funds. But that only prolongs the problem.

Credit needs to be tough to get, or the cycle will repeat itself in short order. Nobody wants to see jobs lost or nest eggs evaporate. But until we force lenders to accept responsibility for the consequences of their determinations of creditworthiness, we ignore the fundamental cause of the current situation. Will we fund a bail out? Yes. Should we? Probably not. That's how capitalism is played.

Vote McCain/Spears '08!

Yeah, I went there. Sarah Palin, is starting to look more like Lynne Spears than a legitimate Vice-Presidential nominee. Let's review two key details about this GOP shooting star:
-Apparently, there have been rumors since Palin was announced as the VP nom, that her 4 month old son was actually the child of Palin's 17 year old daughter, Bristol. Nope, according to statement from the Palin camp today, Bristol's bundle of joy isn't due for another 4 months. So that means Sarah's going to be the 44 year old mother of a special-needs infant and the doting grandmother of her currently unwed teenage daughter's toddler about the same time she's supposed to assuming the second highest office in the executive branch of the federal government. Barack Obama has taken the only logical course of action and called off his dogs, stating that candidates' families are off-limits. But this kind of gaping vulnerability is too difficult for the rest of the democratic establishment and the media to ignore.
-Before all the baby-mama-drama, Sarah had already gotten herself wrapped up in another scandal. Back in 2006, Palin demanded that Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan fire Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten. Why? Because Wooten, Palin's brother-in-law had been having an affair with a married woman. The affair is certainly contemptible, but Palin overstepped her bounds as governor when she proceeded to dismiss Monegan after he refused to fire Wooten for cheating on Palin's sister. Both parties have now lawyered-up and an independent investigation into Palin's actions is expected to conclude by October.

So if Governor Palin is looking like she might not be the perfect VP pick after all, here's the kicker: McCain knew about all of this before he chose her. I was already of the opinion that McCain was completely out of touch with the electorate he was attempting to woo. But his decision regarding his running mate has sealed the deal. McCain is simply unfit to elect, as is Palin.

It's Nice to Live Where Your Vote Doesn't Count

I want to start this post by saying that EVERYONE should vote. No exceptions. I believe that voting, regardless of who you vote for, grants you the right to bitch about our elected officials. But if you don't participate in the process, then suck it up and shut your mouth. I don't care what you think.

Now, having said that, I acknowledge that it can be frustrating to vote in general elections in a state that is strongly red or blue. If your candidate is of the appropriate political bent for your neck of the woods, their success is a foregone conclusion. And people like to vote for the underdog. We enjoy the thought that maybe it's our ballot that gets the win. On the flip side, if you know there's no way your candidate is ever going to win your state, then casting your vote is like spitting in the wind. So from a motivational perspective, it's good to live in a battleground state.

And according to the politicos at CNN.com, I now reside in a battleground state(Virginia). But because my living arrangement here is temporary, I will still be voting in NY via an absentee ballot. As a result, I'm getting the worst of both worlds. See, I'm going to be casting my vote in a Democratic stronghold (NY), where there is a certain inevitability to the electoral outcome. But I'm living in a battleground state, where I will be bombarded with political ads for Barack Obama and John McCain for the next 4 months.

Now if I had to decide between living and voting in a battleground state and being in the crossfire of massive partisan ad-buys, or living and voting in a very blue state where the outcome is certain, but television remains ad free, well... I think I'd rather be in New York. Sure it would be nice to feel like a true decision-maker, but it seems like my candidates never win anyway.

Context Sensitive

I was browsing CNN.com this afternoon and saw that both the Obama and McCain campaigns had spoken out about a controversial New Yorker cover. The cover, pictured at left, shows the Obamas fist-bumping while dressed like militants, with a US flag in the fireplace. Both campaigns have condemned the cover as tasteless and offensive. And it sure looks that way.

The New Yorker responded that the cover was intended as satire. Their intention was to mock the perception of Obama that the right-wing propaganda machine is trying to create. Well why didn't you say so? Suddenly that cover is pretty darn funny. Too bad that no one at the New Yorker thought a caption might add some MUCH needed context to the image.

It just seems hard to believe that a group of editors could have that cartoon sitting on their desktops for a month and not one of them thought, ever so briefly, "You know what? The average American may not get this without a witty caption or one-liner."

Is the magazine publishing industry in such dire straights that these screwups are becoming commonplace? Let's ask the Golfweek editors who let fly with a noose on their cover after Kelly Tilghman's "lynching" remark. I know that it's tough selling glossy paper in a digital world. But that's no excuse for this type of mistake.