Saturday, August 23, 2008

3 Things

First up: I hear it already from the left. "Obama just balanced his ticket, which is exactly what Bush did. What's wrong with that?"

One thing is wrong with that: Bush may have run as an outsider, but he didn't run as an outsider that belittled the current government. He may have said "I can do it better", but he didn't specifically rail against the works of those currently serving. He definitely never called Washington "broke".

Which, of course, is practically Obama's calling card. And who does he tab for his #2? Well, a guy who's been part of that "broke" system since Obama was 11!

So what is it, Senator? Is America really not broke? Or are you asking us to elect to the #2 job in the land a man who, after 36 years as a power broker in the most powerful city in the world, hasn't been able to keep DC from getting broken? Is that the kind of "change" you're asking us to believe in?

I wonder: when Obama says that America is no longer what it once was, does he mean what it was before Biden came into office? Or is this something that just happened WHILE Biden was in office? Either way, this horrible America who's future Obama doesn't want for his children--well, at some point it's a product of Biden's tenure in the highest deliberative body in the land, right?

And THAT'S who he chose for his #2???

UP NEXT: I hate identity politics. People should be valued because of what they have done or because of how they will do what they want to do, period.

But I'm not that naive. I know that identity politics is a game played by both sides of the aisle.

Otherwise how do you explain Sandra Day O'Connor? And that was from a President who is known to be much more conservative than our current nominee.

Still, I'd LOVE it if McCain wouldn't play any identity gamesmanship with his VP choice.

I know, I know, there is a distinct chance that something like that will happen. Whether he goes for the Jewish vote (Cantor or Lieberman), the female vote (Palin or Fiorina), or the ambiguous gender vote (Crist--sorry, had to be done), there is no doubt that "identity politics" is in play.

Listen, I don't have a hard time accepting any of these guys and gals as a running mate, except Lieberman. But if tabbed for his #2 spot, I think McCain should not even COME CLOSE to mentioning that one of their "qualifications" for the job is that they belong to some politically valuable demographic group.

After all, the VP needs to belong to only one group: the very very few people that could actually run this country if called on to do such. And that is the "value" that McCain's pick must not only have, but which must be talked about from morning 'til night until the public is able to make that judgement for themselves.

And he better not get it wrong!

ON ANOTHER NOTE: I know a lot of people, even the very bright Hugh Hewitt, think that Obama's choice clears the way for Romney.

I think it does the exact opposite.

The GOP/RNC/McCain team are already busy showing all the clips of Biden criticizing his ticket's #1 guy--and those make for beautiful attack ads.

Let's not give up on the strength of that angle by opening the game to any of the criticisms that McCain and Romney had of each other during the primaries.

Especially lacking, to me at least, is the analysis that because Biden is so seasoned in "debate formats" that we need someone equally experienced in order to balance him out.

While I don't think McCain should pick a neophyte a la John Edwards of 2004, I do HOPE that any of the names currently being circulated would be able to control a debate with Biden. Come on, the guy's lived in a glass house for the last 36 years--all of our possible stars had best be able to "relate" better than him!


Post a Comment

<< Home