Joe Wins, Sarah Revives

The first and only VP candidate's debate of 2008 is now history. So what did we learn?

To nobody's surprise, Joe Biden showed that he knows his stuff. He articulated well the differences between the two tickets and was particularly effective in painting John McCain as not the right man to lead the country. He was articulate, emotive, and never condescending or abrasive. He was the model of a gracious statesman. I think he left no doubt in most viewers' minds that he's ready to lead the country if something unforeseen were to happen to Barack Obama.

To some people's surprise, Sarah Palin performed above expectations. I expected that she would present herself well after seeing some of her stump speeches. The question on everybody's mind was: will she look or sound uninformed like she did in some of her recent high profile interviews? Here she exceeded most expectations. She didn't come off as being unintelligent or abrasive. She checked "most but not all" of her condescending speech inflections which give some people migraines. Honestly, I don't like Palin's style as she uses facial expressions and a speech style that tries to be ingratiating. She likes to use folksy words like "gotcha" and phrases like "you betcha" which I feel is best left back in Alaska. But most importantly for her, she made no large stumble or gaffe. Sure she failed to answer a few questions and decided instead to say whatever she wanted which I guess is a "Palin thing." Heck, she even stated early in the debate that, “I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you (Biden?) want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record.” And she did use the name of a Union Civil War general (McClellan) in stead of the actual name of the current commander in Afghanistan (McKiernan). But hey, given what we all saw in the interviews leading up to this debate, it could have been a lot worse. I think she revived her own career and maybe she'll be less of a punch-line for a few days. Personally, I still don't feel she made a strong enough case for herself in terms of being able to lead this country if something were to happen to John McCain (which is the primary responsibility as a Vice President).

Conclusions? Joe Biden won the debate on all the substantive points. Sarah Palin performed better than the extremely low expectations that had been set for her. Biden helped make the case for Obama. Palin helped revive her own faltering national image. But how does any of this help John McCain? I think McCain was the loser tonight and that certainly won't help is stumbling campaign.

*** 10-9-08 UPDATE ***

Someone asked me if I had read the transcript to the debate between Senator Biden and Governor Palin and I responded that I hadn't. So I went back and read some of the actual answers (more like statements) by the candidates. What struck me was just how few times Palin actually answered the questions. If you remove Palin's charming smile and ingratiating tone and just read her answers to the questions, her lack of coherence is simply appalling. She doesn't sound as if she even graduated from college. It's no wonder that her oldest boy is going into the armed services (and not headed to college) and that her oldest girl is knocked-up (and not headed to college). I'll give you just one appalling example at Palin's incoherence:

---

GWEN IFILL: Governor?

GOVERNOR PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It's not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.

---

That is a direct quote of Governor Palin. You can find the entire transcript which includes many of her other incoherent statements at the following link:

Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate

Main Street America: No Trust, No Faith

So the House of Representatives voted down the Wall Street Bailout Bill yesterday. Was this a total surprise? Not to me.

Why did this bill fail? Representatives received thousands of phone calls and e-mails from their constituents (Main Street Americans) who basically told them, "Hell no." Many Representatives could not vote for this especially if they were up for re-election in November.

Why did their constituents say "Hell no" to this bill? President Bush could not sell the bailout concept to the American people. House and Senate leaders could not sell the bill to the American people or their fellow lawmakers. Financial advisers and analysts could not persuade the American people that it is needed. Main Street Americans have no trust in the wheels of government and have lost faith in the process.

Who is to blame for this lack of trust and faith by the American people? This is the most difficult question to answer. Simply put. there's a lot of blame to go around. Visceral partisan politics is certainly one reason. Washington has the appearance of helping only the wealthy and the greedy over recent years. But I would say as of late, the main problem is President Bush. His economic policy mistakes and foreign policy blunders have left a bad taste in the mouth of the electorate. He can not sell the American people on anything that appears to come from his administration. He can not even sell members of his own party who are suppose to respect and follow his "leadership." President Bush is beyond the label of "lame duck." He is the "damned duck."

How will a bailout bill get passed? I think one will be passed the second time around. I think many representatives wanted to make a loud statement the first time and then they'll pass a modified version at the next opportunity. But I don't think the American people will get behind this bill unless something happens that directly affects them or their family (like one of their banks folding or they get turned down while attempting to purchase a car or refinance a loan). This crisis has not truly been felt yet by the average American who does not have great quantities of stock (or any at all). Right now, most Main Street Americans still feel that the problem is not theirs and they don't want to help people that they see as greedy and unworthy of assistance.

If the financial analysts are correct, the major hurt is right around the corner. I hope this crisis can be resolved so that: a) Markets are stabilized; b) the American people's money, if lent, will be returned; and c) Wall Street is held accountable if any wrong doing has occurred. But like most Main Street Americans, I don't trust any of "them" and I have little faith that even these three concerns will be adequately covered. And God help whoever assumes the office of the Presidency come next January.

This Hillary Supporter for the Obama/Biden Ticket

I opened up my Yahoo page this morning and read the results of a recent poll that made me mad. Here's the poll breakdown:



* THE ASSOCIATED PRESS-YAHOO POLL
* Interview dates: September 5, 2008 – September 15, 2008
* Interviews: 1,740 adults; 1,546 registered voters
* 825 Democrats; 715 Republicans
* Overall, 74 percent of Democrats say they will vote for Obama, compared to 87 percent of Republicans behind the Arizona senator. About 9 in 10 Clinton supporters are Democrats.

I don't understand this reluctance by some of my fellow Hillary supporters to get off the fence and support Obama. Like most Hillary supporters, I too voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. I voted for Al Gore in 2000 (the President by Popular vote). I supported Hillary during the 2008 primaries and I think she would have made a damn fine President. But honestly, I didn't want to see her as a Vice Presidential candidate and I don't think she ever wanted that role.

What bothers me here is that we Hillary supporters align with Obama on issue after issue after issue but some of us are still soft on his candidacy? Obama (like Hillary) supports:

* Creating a timeline to withdraw troops from Iraq
* Removing the tax cuts for the wealthy
* Reproductive rights for women and other pro-women issues
* Universal Healthcare
* Alternative energy solutions and not the "Drill Baby Drill" mentality of McCain. This includes: enacting a Windfall Profits Tax to provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.

And I could go on but just go to Obama's site and read about the issues for yourself at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Oh and a couple of words about McCain's VP choice. Sarah Palin is nothing but a Republican stunt (a bone thrown to right-wingers in the Republican party). Yes, she's a woman but she's just a cute, right-winger in lipstick with almost no governmental experience or knowledge of the wider world (got her passport last year). She limped through an interview with the laid-back Charlie Gibson (fact checkers found errors in her responses and "non-responses"). And the only reason Palin has the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country is because she pays Alaskans over $2,000 a year from oil revenues (a program called the Alaska Permanent Fund). In other words, Alaskans are paid to like her.

The McCain/Palin ticket offers nothing for us Hillary supporters. Their proposed policies are mostly an extension of the George Bush Presidency and we don't need another 4 years like the last 8 years. The rest of my fellow Hillary supporters need to wake-up and see what's really at stake here and support the Obama/Biden ticket so that we can put this country back on a sane and progressive heading.

Why Does Senator Barack Obama Hate Michigan?

Senator Barack Obama doesn't seem to like Michigan (I believe he's pointing at our star in the picture). He didn't want to help the democrats of Michigan have their voices heard by supporting some kind of primary re-vote. Of course, that wasn't in his best interest as he was satisfactorily ahead in the delegate count when the issue was brought up (maybe his tune will change if Sen. Clinton wins some more primaries).

But now, Sen. Obama wants to blame the Detroit auto industry for our nation's oil woes (see recent news story "Obama hits Big 3 on SUVs"). This is a well worn leftist doctrine to blame industry for nearly everything. You see according to this doctrine, industry is the faceless enemy out to rob us of our dollars, our freedoms, our future. Well I'm a centrist and I think the leftist doctrine is a bunch of hooey. What Sen. Obama fails to acknowledge is the "personal responsibility of each American" in regards to our environment and economy. The American consumer has had automobile choices (even from the Big 3) over the past decade that were reasonably fuel efficient. The American consumer voted with its pocketbook for SUVs and trucks. Well it is a free market (hear that Sen. Obama) and the American consumer wanted what its appetite demanded - large, hulking vehicles. The automotive companies simply met the desires of the consumers. Funny though, while Sen. Obama throws rocks at the Big 3, he fails to acknowledge that Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW and whole lot of brands also have large, hulking vehicles in their current portfolios. To borrow his own phrase "that's truth-telling" Sen. Obama.

The reality is the the stakes have changed. The world oil market has been infiltrated by speculators (like the housing market was until it went bust). Competition for available oil has increased because of a combination of world population and a thriving economies like those of China and some other emerging countries. Our own refining industry is overburdened. But in the end, we Americans are most to blame. We wanted what our psyches and appetites demanded - bigness. We Americans like all-you-can-eat buffets; biggie-sized meals; large McMansions; and big hulking vehicles. But Sen. Obama doesn't want us to look in the mirror. He would prefer to let us off the hook and shift the blame on to faceless industry. That's a shame. And that makes me question his overall judgment.

If Senator Obama wants to really establish some "truth-telling" in our country then he needs to call-out the American consumer. But he won't. Tell America that it needs to buy (more likely lease) more fuel efficient "available" alternatives (my suggestions besides the obvious hybrids: Honda Fit, Ford Focus, Toyota Yaris or this fall's Saturn Astra). Fuel efficient vehicles are sitting on retail lots across America gathering dust and pollen just waiting for a good home (though I hear a few are finally rolling off the lots since gas recently surpassed $3.50 a gallon). Now that's some "truth-telling" that I'd like to hear from Sen. Obama. Also, he needs to assure us Michiganders that he doesn't hate us.

Let's Commence with the Overpriced Commencements

If you visit the University of Michigan's central campus these days, you'll notice that the famous Diag has a new look. There's speaker stands, plastic flooring, bleachers, and about 30,000 chairs all occupying the space normally reserved for trees, students, and squirrels. There's a commotion of workers dragging stuff and pounding things and shouting orders. The bizarreness of it all is sort of refreshing as the cycles of the Diag are usually pretty predictable. What is all this about? It's about the 2008 UM commencements.

But here's a thought: who is paying for all of this additional commencement labor and equipment? Since the University is renovating the "Big House" and couldn't hold Undergraduate commencements there, they looked elsewhere. Initially, they had the idea of using the large convocation center on EMU's west campus. Good idea as it's all set up for such an activity (with loads of parking) and UM would only need to toss up some banners and "maize and blue" the place up a bit. But then the complaints started to arise. Students didn't want to graduate somewhere other than on their own campus. Family and Alumni supported the students' protest and the University caved in.

But now rumors are flying about the cost associated with this change in venue. And we aren't talking about thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars but in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold the one-time commencements on the Diag (and we're talking over and above the usual cost). It's easy to imagine this extra money as lots of equipment had to be rented and not all the help are UM employees but some are contracted help (including around the clock security in place to secure all of this expensive equipment).

I do hope the graduating UM seniors appreciate this effort and cost in the years to come (but not to worry, the University Alumni Association isn't going to let them forget it). They should think about all of this extra University money being spent on their one-time Diag ceremony and how it could have been spent. Money that isn't helping the local community like better employee raises. Money that isn't helping to fund student pet projects like reading programs in poor communities. Money that isn't spent on helping to build homes in blighted areas. Money that isn't spent on food kitchen programs or family shelters. I can name any number of social causes that the students panhandle for on nearly a daily basis around the Diag but you get the picture. So commence with the overpriced commencements and let the leaders of tomorrow have their expensive party.

The Michigan Democratic Party Needs New Leadership

You decide? Not Democrats and Independents in the state of Michigan due to the January disaster also known as the 2008 Democratic Primary.

With the race for the Democratic Presidential nominee between Senators Clinton and Obama so close that each state has become a crucial battleground after Super Tuesday, I think it is now even more clear that the Michigan Democratic Party (MDP) horribly failed Democrats and Independents in our state. The MDP and the National Democratic Committee (NDC) failed to negotiate (isn't that what politics is about?) and in so doing silenced the state of Michigan during this important part of the democratic process.

Like many other Democrats and Independents, I did not vote on the day of the sham Primary. What was the point? Even if I supported Hillary Clinton, a vote for her was a waste of time without legitimate delegates. The entire Primary was a waste of time and resources. The party Spin Doctors were out prior to the Primary trying to convince people to go vote "Uncommitted." What the hell does that mean? It would seem that the idea was to give up "my" opinion of the best suited candidate and place that decision fully into the hands of some fictitious delegate. Huh? And I suspect the MDP has a bridge across Lake Superior that they'd like to sell me too. No, I mean that I would "donate" for. Screw you.

What should happen following this debacle? Well who's responsible for not working out an agreement between the DNC and the MDP? From this state, the ultimate responsibility is with the leadership of this state's party and that is Party Chairman Mark Brewer. Simply stated: Mark Brewer should step down and clear the way for new leadership. The Michigan Democratic Party needs to work with the NDC and not run rogue and sacrifice the voices of Michigan voters.