Palins first mistake: Mentioning Hillary

Note to Palin, Don't mention Hillary at a Republican Rally. Doing so tends to lead to boos and makes it hard for people to see beyond the rumors that you were picked mainly to bring in Hillary votes.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/30/palin-booed-for-mentioning-hillary-clinton/

Interesting article claiming Palin's son is actually the son of her 16 year old daughter... I wonder if this will get legs or if there is nothing to it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

Gustav is proof God doesn’t want Republicans re-elected

To borrow a line from Pastor John Hagee, who you might remember said in 2006 (referring to Hurricane Katrina and homosexuals) "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that", it now appears that God does not want Republicans to win by sending Gustav barreling towards New Orleans during their convention. The Republicans have discussed rescheduling their convention (no small feat) and Bush and others have considered not attending, but it does not matter if they go with business as usual or not. The damage of Katrina has been done and nobody will forget how badly the Administration botched the job.

If they cancel the convention, it shows that they are embarrassed by Katrina. If they go through with the event, they will surely mention New Orleans throughout their convention, but this will only open old wounds. Already, the news is covering Hurricane Gustav regularly, which must be a nightmare for them on the eve of convention and on the weekend of VP announcement. Oh well, God works in mysterious ways.

FYI, Pastor John Hagee has endorsed McCain, although McCain has rejected the endorsement.

UPDATE: Looks like the DNC took my joking play on Gustav and Hagee seriously, Ooops:

McCain Falls into the Clinton Trap

By selecting Sarah Palin, Senator McCain has effectively fallen into Senator Obama and Clinton's trap. In a last ditch effort to win over Clinton supporters, McCain thinks simply picking a woman, any woman, will gain votes. By doing so he is insulting female voters by suggesting that women have no regard for real policies and stands on issues. He is forgetting why Clinton appeals to women in the first place; pro-choice, popularity, real experience, and overcoming personal and professional obstacles. None of which Palin has. Instead, she is a life time member of the NRA (which is important to Clinton supporters I am sure) who has served only a little over a year as a governor of a State with relatively small problems and a small population. Before being governor, most of her experience is as a mayor and council member of a town smaller than Obama's original district in Illinois (~9,000 people). Obama may be inexperienced, but he looks much more experienced compared to Palin; who may have an actual chance at being president if elected.

McCain wanted to serve with someone he is "comfortable with"; it is not surprising then that he would pick an attractive young woman to serve with him. Standing next to each other, he stands out as a creepy old man. The two could not contrast more standing next to each other. It is like watching a grandfather watch his granddaughter at cheerleading practice when she talks. The images of them together ultimately bring to mind the accusations early in the primaries that McCain had an inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. Using a woman politically, just because she is a woman, is sexist and perfectly illustrates how McCain fundamentally "does not get it". Palin represents the type of woman conservatives think women should be: motherly, wholesome, and a beauty queen that won't outshine her partner.

Inevitably, Palin will screw up once in a while as she lacks the political experience Clinton has (even experienced hands make mistakes). I worry that this will actually hurt women in the future. Because when someone is promoted to a high status position that s/he is not well suited for and things go wrong, anything about that person (like their sex) could potentially be criticized. If McCain loses, which it looks like he will now, there will be a tendency in some people to blame the failure on Palin as the woman, not Palin as the inappropriately appointed vp.

Announcing his choice on his birthday only brings attention to the fact that he is very old and that there is a high probability that the vice president will have to replace him. This singular fact will dominate his campaign from now on. Picking the vice president is the first major decision a president has to make and McCain flinched. Picking Palin only shows that McCain is impulsive under stress and does not consider experience to be important. This decision virtually gives his party no ground to stand on when arguing against Obama's experience and youth. Clearly, he has put politics not country first.

Palin will certainly rally McCain's base, but he will need more than them to win this election. The McCain-Palin ticket is now running on the "reform Washington" platform that Obama has already strongly established. The "reform Washington" message does not come across well when it comes from the same party that created the need for change in the first place. There is more at stake than simple corruption and ethics in Washington; what about the economy? No incumbent party has won the Whitehouse when the consumer confidence index is this low. McCain has certainly shaken up the campaign trail, but it did not need shaking. The candidates were virtually in a dead heat, but now as the dust settles Obama will certainly emerge. Obama is a smart man that is a master at politics (he beat the Clintons) and I have not even mentioned Biden.

Religion in Politics?

(Having just watched the religion in politics debate) It seems to me that evangelicals are willing to watch the world burn as long as abortions are illegal. Why does this singular issue dominate this demographic in an election year when so many other issues are at stake. What good does it to bring a child into a world full of poverty, unaffordable healthcare, endless war, and corruption? Maybe any given child will be able to fight those issues by being born I guess. Fine. but I don't understand why evangelicals can't find common ground on this issue by focusing on reducing the need for abortions all together; promoting responsible sex, communication between adults and children; reducing the stigma of sex. The past 8 years have had an administration that takes the pro-life stance; promoting abstinence over responsible sex and abortions have not decreased. Maybe there are different approaches.

This election season strikes a cord with me. The past 2 election cycles I have felt extremely disappointed. I actually started my Peace Corps application 4 years ago when Bush was reelected because I wanted to leave so badly. But I am still here, my application is being processed and never before have I felt more compelled to be involved politically. I guess I am just frustrated. I liked John McCain before he started taking the pro-Bush approach. This is a mistake that will cost him and I don't understand why he is doing it. It seems like the Republicans put forth the next person in line; the guy who was"owed his due" (to quote Carl Rove upon the passing of tax breaks for the richest americans). However, I have been for Obama since before the Iowa primary because I understand that when you elect someone you are not just electing one person. You are electing someone's ability to appoint people in important positions; which Obama has. Instead of McCain saying "I don't understand the economy", Obama's approach is "This is a complicated issue that deserves the right people regardless of party affiliation", which I respect and can stand behind.