Presidential Election @ MindSay

Maybe I'm the only one but I wasn't all that impressed by Michelle Obama's speech on Monday night. The speech was fine and she did a good job delivering it (although i could have swore I saw a bit of teeth clenching in some of her delivery) but she just seemed to be so muted. Love her or hate her the Michelle Obama who we were introduced to in the early days of this election cycle was a strongwilled woman with a good bit of character to her. Of course she was derided by people because this country has a very antiquated idea of how a first lady should behave...its all pearls, plastered on smile and demure attitude. I was hoping to see a bit more Theresa Heinz Kerry and less Mrs. Bush ( pick one it really doesn't matter). I guess this is the game that must be played to keep people from being afraid of the "angry black woman".



Rep. Dennis Kucinich gave a rousing speech on Tuesday afternoon/evening. He said all the things you would expect in a Democratic Convention speech (and had been missing up till this point): how much Bush has sucked, how much McCain does suck, a little cheerleading for the current nominee. But no one saw it because Dennis was exiled to the early evening/late afternoon shift while the Mr & Mrs Walking Dead Mark Warner and Kathleen Sibelius) were trotted in primetime to bore the assembled masses into a catatonic state. We can all agree that Dennis is funny looking but the guy deserves better than he gets from his own party.



So the anouncement of Joe Biden has given no hint of a bounce to the Obama campaign which doesn't surprise me. For starters Biden is the antithesis of everything that Obama has built his political persona on. He's been in the senate since forever, he voted for the Iraq War and under his time on the Judiciary Committee we got not only Alito and Roberts (both of whom Joe seemed to glefully let pass through to the high court) but he totally frakked up the Clarence Thomas hearings. But those greatest hits aren't the biggest reasons why Biden is a horrible choice.
Nope, the main reasons Biden sucks is that he is a whore for the banking/credit card industries in his home state and to show just how big of a whore he wrote the horrible Bankruptcy Bill that sticks it to the regular people who try and file for bankruptcy while making it easier than  ever for corporations to do the same thing. So the pick of Joe Buiden just makes me envision Joe doing for the credit cards and banks what Dick Cheney did for the oil industry...namely giving them carte blanche to rewrite laws as they see fit. You can't attack McCain on being horrible for working class folks when your running mate has already tried to fuck them in the ass with no lube.
Then there is the fact that Joe Biden seems to have a colossal hardon for any draconian "tough on crime" legislation that he can dream up. Joe is the genius who wrote the law that got Tommy Chong locked up for a year. In Biden's world the way to win the "War on Drugs" is to create more and more strict laws that really amount to jack shit. You'd think that a guy who has been around as long as Joe (he coined the term "Drug Czar") would have realized by now that harsher penalties and longer jail sentences isn't the answer to fixing the drug problem in this country.
Add to that Bidens recorded history of sucking at the teat of John McCain, lets count the ways Joe has allowed himself to be teabagged by McCain:

Calls McCain his personal hero
Said he would be honored to be McCain's running mate
Said that the Iraq War would have been successful if Bush had listened to McCain
As recently as this past April Biden praised McCain's foreign policy skills
Praised McCain's leadership on the global warming issue

And I'm sure all of this stuff will come up when Joe goes into attack dog mode during the rest of the political season which will sorta neuter his effectiveness.



For the past few weeks all the focus of this election has been on whether or not Hillary Clinton was doing enough to help Obama win.
"Her body language is off", "Her eyes give her away", "She isn't speaking enthusiastically enough". "She's plotting against him so she can run again in 2012".
Boo fucking hoo.
It seemed like the groundwork was being layed to blame Hillary Clinton if Obama didn't win in November.
This despite the fact that Clinton has done more than any other loser in Democratic Primary history for the winner.
She endorsed almost immediately after conceding, she has campaigned with and for Obama and she gave a rousing stump speech on his behalf at the convention. Let's compare that to recent losers:
At the 88 Convention Jesse Jackson threatened to have his name entered into contention for the vice-presidency which would have forced a floor fight and during his speech Jesse never endorsed Dukakis by name.
In 1992 Jerry Brown put his name into nomination at the convention, seconded his own nomination and went on to give a speech where he didn't even mention Bill Clinton let alone endorse him. One of Brown's best quotes during the election was that "supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket on the Titanic".
And let's not get started on how big a douchebag Ted Kennedy, the most revered elder statesman of the Democratic Party and the Lion of the Senate, acted when he lost to Jimmy Carter. He had poor Jimmy chasing him all over the convention arena trying to get a picture of the two of them shaking hands to no avail.
Well last night Clinton took the stage and delivered the most effective stump speech on Obama's behalf
 that I've seen since this whole thing started. She hit every beat that she needed to: recognized her supporters as well as her own impressive showing, implored her supporters to back Obama and took direct shots at McCain (and Bush too!). She looked presidential. At the very least she looked vice-presidential.
So now the ball is in Obama's court where it should have been all along. No one is obligated to vote for him and as the candidate it is Obama's job to convince people that he is worth voting for...no one else can be blamed for any failures in this campaign except for the Obama camp themselves. Win or lose the credit or blame goes to Barack Obama.
And for all of those who have been wishing and hoping for Hillary to "just go away", well sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but she has positioned herself to be the "Lioness of Senate" in the Democratic Party. She is incredibly popular with her base and her performance last night has won her even more converts. She's not going anywhere.




Joe Biden is the "featured" speaker tonight since he formally accepts the vice-presidential candidacy but in all honesty no one really gives two shits about what Biden is going to say. Instead all of the attention will be focused on Bill Clinton. No one knows what the hell he plans on talking about tonight but after seeing how Hillary performed last night I think it is a safe bet to say that Bill will kick copious amounts of ass when he gives his speech. Hopefully he'll follow his wife's lead and give a full throated endorsement of Obama just to silence the completely asinine critics who can't seem to understand why Clinton has seemed a bit cool towards Obama. I guess they don't understand why Bill would need a little time to get over having his presidency (the only two term Dem president since FDR!) shat upon and being labeled a racist with the tacit approval of the Obama campaign.
One of the things I have always liked about Bill Clinton is that he has a hard time being disingenuous and this has especially become true since he left the White House. If he has hard feelings about something or someone then its right there for the world to see. In this current political climate where you can't tell one lying shit heel from another its kind of refreshing to have someone around who is pretty much an open book emotionally.

After several weeks of Alzheimer's moments, whining about not getting as much media love as The Chosen One, visiting sausage houses and getting his face scraped, the best thing John McCain could come up with to combat Obama's Beatles-esque world tour is this ad:



I don't know which face sums up this lame ass attempt at negative campaigning better:


I think I'm leaning towards the baby, he has just the right mix of bewilderment and exasperation to sum up how I feel about this tomfoolery.
I mean, what exactly is this ad supposed to make me think about?
That if we elect Obama he'll be photographed getting out of the presidential limo with no panties on?
If the Republicans know whats good for them they will arrange an "accident" for Matlock so that a competent candidate can take his place before November.

Chopper



Just one time! One time, I would love to see a candidate not only admit to his flaws but stand up for them! It wasn't the NRA thing that caught my attention (nor is that flaw, although I know some of you think it is I'm sorry to say), it was the prostitute thing.

I don't think I ever have or will see a candidate who does this. But you know what? I'd be hard pressed to vote against a candidate who did. If Bill Clinton had come clean and said, "Yes, I have smoked pot. I experimented with it when I was young" I might have voted for him. I might have voted for Bush, too, if he had admitted to some of his flaws, and we all know he has many.

Yeah, surprise! I didn't vote for Bush. Either time. I'm the freako who votes for third party candidates, Libertarian.

Anyway, that video had me pumped up. I didn't agree with all his opinions - I don't have issues with gay people and am pro-choice - but when that prostitute thing hit, I was cheering. I'll admit it started when he farted after hearing Hillary's name, but I digress.

It amazes me that they come up with fictional characters of this nature and people react well to them, then candidates don't take a hint. Hey Obama, McCain, try being honest and admit to something. You're both human, you've both done stupid shit, let's hear some of it! Be honest! Tell us about the time you snorted coke when you were 19! Admit to playing with yourself in the men's room once! Admit to checking out women way younger than you - yeah, I'm looking at you, John - and maybe copping a feel. You aren't perfect. Anyone with an IQ over 40 knows that! Just admit to ONE stinkin' thing and maybe I'll pay attention.

Clinton Tells Vocal Obama Supporters: “I’ll Work My Heart Out For Him”
Posted by Fernando Suarez
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/05/02/politics/fromtheroad/entry4068514.shtml

RALEIGH, N.C. -- During the annual North Carolina Democratic Party's Jefferson Jackson Dinner tonight, Hillary Clinton said she will not only back Barack Obama if he is the party’s nominee, she will work hard for him.

“If Senator Obama is the nominee, you better believe I’ll work my heart out for him,” Clinton said.

The comment seemed to backfire, as the large Obama presence began chanting his name, "causing Clinton to pause and try to regain control of the podium and talk over the chants.

She immediately followed up saying if she is the nominee, Obama “will do the very same for me.” It is unclear if that line was part of her original speech or if she used it as a way to bounce back from the interruption.

The crowd of 5,200 people seemed relatively split between Clinton and Obama supporters, but Obama’s crowd was certainly more vocal. At one point Clinton thanked Gov. Mike Easley, D-N.C., for his recent endorsement, which drew loud jeers from the Obama section. The "boos" went on long enough for Clinton to, again, have to pause. She said, “One of the great things about our country, you can support whoever you want to support, that’s the way America works best,” which drew loud cheers from her supporters.

This has been one of the most audibly divided Jefferson-Jackson Dinners to date. The fund-raising dinners are held annually by the Democratic Party of each state, but in previous ones, the crowds have been slightly more respectful of each candidate.

Clinton spoke broadly of the differences between Democrats and Republicans in the coming election. She reassured the crowd that if she is elected, she will not back down to a fight. "I am no shrinking violet. When I say I will stand up for you I will stand up for you!"

For those of you who might have missed it, here is the transcript of the Clinton - Obama exchange about gun rights in the Democrat Presidential Debate the other night.

For your reference.

(Gibson is the moderator)

GIBSON: Back to the Philadelphia debate, the Democratic debate, just less than a week now before the Pennsylvania primary. And I would be remiss, tonight, if I didn't take note of the fact that today is the one-year anniversary of Virginia Tech. And I think it's fair to say that probably every American during this day at one point or another, said a small prayer for the great people of that university and for those who died.

It also, I suspect, makes this an appropriate time to talk about guns. And it has not been talked about much in this campaign. And it's an important issue in the state of Pennsylvania. Both of you, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now, when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns.

Why don't you emphasize that now, Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, Charlie, on Friday, I was with Mayor Nutter, who is here, in west Philadelphia, at the YMCA there, to talk about what we could do together to bring down the crime rate that has ravaged Philadelphia.

You know, more than one person, on average, a day is murdered in Philadelphia. And Mayor Nutter is very committed, as the mayor of this great city, to try to do what he can to stem the violence.

And what I said then is what I have been saying, that I will be a good partner for cities like Philadelphia as president, because I will bring back the COPS program, the so-called COPS program, where we had 100,000 police on the streets, which really helped drive down the crime rate and also helped create better community relations.

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now, once again, because it has lapsed and the Republicans will not reinstate it, are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

I will also work to make sure that police departments in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, across America, get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns. Because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80 percent of the guns used in gun crimes are in the hands of that criminal, that gang member, unfortunately people who are sometimes, you know, mentally challenged, because it got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.

So I believe that we can balance what I think is the right equation. I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns. But I also believe that most lawful gun owners, whom I have spoken with for many years across our country, also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands.

And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn't reflect the common sense of the American people.

So we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling and the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.

GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law -- it's had a law since 1976; it's now before the United States Supreme Court -- that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barrelled rifle.

Is that a law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

There's the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that's passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply.

But you also have the reality of what's happening here in Philadelphia and what's happening in Chicago.

And...

GIBSON: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do you still favor the licensing of guns?

And in 1996, your campaign issued a questionnaire, and your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

OBAMA: No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

What I think we can provide is common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns.

We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

The point is, is that what we have to do is get beyond the politics of this issue and figure out what, in fact, is working.

Look, in my hometown of Chicago, on the south side of Chicago, we've had 34 gun deaths last year of Chicago public school children.

And I think that most law-abiding gun owners all across America would recognize that it is perfectly appropriate for local communities and states and the federal government to try to figure out, how do we stop that kind of killing?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, you have a home in D.C. Do you support the D.C. ban?

CLINTON: You know, George, I want to give local communities the opportunity to have some authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe.

This case you're referring to before the Supreme Court is apparently dividing the Bush administration. You know, the Bush administration basically said, "We don't have enough facts to know whether or not it is appropriate."
Related
Campaign Lessons From a Tough Week
WATCH: Doubting Obama's Patriotism?

And Vice President Cheney, who you know is a fourth, special branch of government all unto himself, has actually filed a brief, saying, "Oh, no, we have to -- you know, he have to prevent D.C. from doing this."

STEPHANOPOULOS: But what do you think? Do you support it or not?

CLINTON: What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is the D.C. ban consistent with that right?

CLINTON: Well, I think a total ban with no exceptions under any circumstances might be found by the court not to be, but I don't know the facts.

But I don't think that should blow open a hole that says that D.C. or Philadelphia or anybody else cannot come up with sensible regulations to protect their people and keep, you know, machine guns and assault weapons out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them.

GIBSON: Well, with all due respect, I'm not sure I got an answer from Senator Obama, but do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

CLINTON: What I favor is what works in New York. You know, we have a set of rules in New York City, and we have a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in New York City is certainly not going to work in Montana.

So for the federal government to be having any kind of, you know, blanket rules that they're going to try to impose I think doesn't make sense.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator, you were for that when you ran for Senate in New York.

CLINTON: I was for the New York rules; that's right. I was for the New York rules, because they have worked over time. And there isn't a lot uproar in New York about changing them, because I go to upstate New York, where we have a lot of hunters and people who are collectors and people who are sport shooters. They have every reason to believe that their rights are being respected.

You walk down the street with a police officer in Manhattan, he wants to be sure that there is some way of protecting him and protecting the people that are in his charge.