Surprise! Somebody in the McCain camp can add! Or maybe they just know somebody who can. Anyway, somebody sat down and added up all the inches of type and all the minutes of air time that both presidential candidates have received, and found that Barack Obama has had more media exposure than John McCain.
McCain’s supporters immediately pointed to this “study” as proof that the “liberal media” is biased toward Obama. As Bill Clinton would say, give me a break!
I am sure Obama has had more exposure in the media than McCain. As the first black person with a chance of becoming president of America, he is “good copy.” But have you read the columns of type? Have you watched the television programs? Have you listened to talk radio?
If you are retired, as I am, you probably have. After all, what else have we got to do?
And you will know that the media spend far more time attacking Obama than praising him. They devoted hours of air time and gallons of ink to Rev. Wright, chortling with glee as Obama’s one-time pastor ranted and raved against America. How many times have you heard about Obama’s missing flag pin? About his failure to put his hand over his heart when the national anthem was being played? About the 12 percent of Americans who think he is a Muslim?
How many times have you heard or read that Michelle Obama wasn’t proud of her country? And what about that “terrorist” fist bump? (Not to mention the New Yorker magazine cover!)
The media question everything Obama does, scan his moves through a microscope, recruit “guests” to come on their shows and call him “elitist.” They trumpeted McCain’s criticism that Obama had not been to Iraq recently, and when he went to Iraq, they echoed McCain’s criticism that Obama was showboating. Talk about damned if you don’t, damned if you do!
When McCain messes up, as he does daily, it gets a fleeting mention. He confused the Suni and Shia in Iraq; the media seemed OK with that. He misplaced Iraq next to Pakistan; that was OK, too. He reunited the Czech Republic with Slovakia; so who cared?
The media has mined Obama’s past for every passing encounter with alleged “subversives” and every day spent in a foreign country that might have Muslims living there. No one has looked into McCain’s checkered past. The media tells us McCain is a war hero. They talk about his time as a prisoner of war. (By the way, where is his flag pin?)
Nobody mentions his first marriage and shabby divorce. Nobody recounts his debauchery as a young seaman. Few reporters revisit his involvement in the Savings & Loan scandal (as a member of “the Keating Five” - remember?) Nobody dwells on the lifestyle of his beer baroness wife (I hate to bring this up, but there was that episode with the prescription drugs and the FBI investigation, for example). Nobody does a televised tour of their eight houses. Talk about elitist!
The media jumped all over Obama when he said he might “refine” his plan to get U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months. They castigated him for changing his mind about accepting public campaign financing and accepting a compromise on the FISA bill. But they glossed over McCain’s complete turnaround on an array of policy issues, from offshore drilling and tax breaks for the rich to abortion and evangelicals.
If I were a member of the McCain camp, I would rejoice in the lack of media scrutiny. McCain is lucky he’s not “good copy.”
The media won’t tell you this. They will tiptoe all around the truth, inventing “issues” and indulging in wild speculation. But here’s the unmentionable truth about the American presidential election:
It’s basically a referendum - make that two referendums - and has little to do with the issues at stake or the character of the candidates.
The first, and most obvious, referendum is on George W. Bush. Do Americans want a third Bush term? The answer, according to the polls is a resounding, “No.”
It’s the second referendum that’s too delicate to talk about. This one is on Barack Obama. And the question is: How many Americans would accept a black man as president? The answer to that one is blowing in the wind.
The two questions add up to a dilemma for many. They do not want another Bush presidency, but they can’t bring themselves to vote for a black man. (Of course, they won’t say this out loud; they’ll make some other excuse - he’s “inexperienced” or whatever.)
Some will probably vote for McCain (below) and hope against hope that he won’t be another Bush. Others will stay home.
On the reverse side of the coin, look for a record black turnout. Black Americans are going to vote in numbers never seen before. Do I think people should base their vote on race? No I don’t. Do I think millions will? Yes I do.
That’s the unvarnished truth. A lot of Americans will vote on the issues, a lot will vote on the character of the candidates, but a lot will be motivated by prejudice.
So what does this mean?
I think it means a low turnout as disenchanted Republicans stay home. But enough Republican voters will show up at the polls to carry quite a few states. I see McCain winning Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, West Virgina, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Utah, North and South Dakota, Arizona, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Montana largely because of Obama’s ethnic background. Alaska will probably go to McCain because so many Alaskans think they will get rich if oil drilling is permitted on federal land up there.
I see Obama winning North and South Carolina and the District of Columbia because of a massive black turnout. He will win California, Oregon, Washington state, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Iowa, Illinois, Idaho, Minnesota, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Jersey because of an unprecedented turnout by young voters and fired-up liberals. I think Indiana, Missouri, Michigan and Ohio will teeter and fall to Obama, as economic misery trumps xenophobia. Nebraska and Kansas will likely vote for Obama to get ethanol subsidies, and Hawaii will back him because he was born there.
One key to Obama’s victory will be the Hispanic vote. The Republicans and their loud-mouthed supporters have antagonized many Hispanics by their hostile remarks and uncharitable approach to the problem of undocumented immigrants. That means Obama will win Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Virginia’s new Hispanic population will probably tip the scales there, too.
But I guess it doesn’t matter why people vote - just as long as they vote. So, see you at the polls in November!
The Republican Party is a huge public relations machine. Because its leaders have no real goals except grabbing and keeping power (thereby enriching themselves and their cronies), they will say anything and pretend to believe anything, however preposterous.
I was just watching the Republican governor of Louisiana on television, and I was so impressed by his acting that I considered nominating him for an Oscar. This 36-year-old Indian-American (that’s Indian not Native American) was born Piyush Jindal but calls himself Bobby (after a Brady Bunch character).
Jindal’s brow was furrowed and his lips pursed as he delivered his party’s message du jour: Offshore drilling is the answer to our economic problems and the Democratic Congress refuses to permit it.
I have to assume that Jindal (photo below) is not a fool. A Rhodes Scholar, he has a bachelor’s degree in biology and public safety and a master’s degree in political science. He has been elected and re-elected. He is a contender for the vice president’s slot on John McCain’s ticket. He must know that he is misleading viewers. So why is this reputedly bright young man spouting such nonsense?
It’s the party message, and that’s what party leaders are going to say from now to November. No matter that it’s a lie. No matter that it’s a stupid lie. If enough people say it enough times, enough voters might buy it for McCain to win the White House (they know they can’t win a majority in Congress, everybody knows that).
You and I may not be Rhodes Scholars, but we can put two and two together to come up with four. So we know that offshore drilling would do little more than help the oil companies get richer than they are. If you have stock in an oil company, you may want to vote for Jindal’s buddies. I’m sure they all have stock in oil companies.
If you don’t have stock in an oil company, here’s all you would get from increased offshore drilling:
- The chance of disastrous oil spills with catastrophic consequences for the environment and tourism
- No chance of oil from offshore drilling reaching your neighborhood gas station for five to 10 years
- No real impact on gas prices, as oil is sold in a global marketplace and America has only a small percentage of the world’s oil
- Short-term reassurance to the public, which would probably slow lifestyle changes that are already producing significant reduction in oil consumption. (But the certainty that the earth’s oil cannot last forever, that someday the piper must be paid.)
The Republicans are betting on two human weaknesses:
- Voters don’t want to make the effort to figure things out for themselves.
- A promise of short-term relief will outweigh sensible long-term policies every time.
Isn’t it a shame that the Party of Lincoln has come to this!
When I see so many urbane black people on television today, I am proud of the progress that has taken place in America during my lifetime. I listen to commentators like Donna Brazile on CNN and I am impressed. And it’s not just because I happen to agree with her politics (she is a prominent Democrat). I also like her style. She comes across as a cultured, educated woman.
But I am becoming increasingly aware of another manifestation of black progress, and the irony implicit in this development troubles me deeply.
There are so many black faces spouting the “conservative” line. I am dead certain that these people have benefited from America’s progress over the past half century. Where do you think they got their education? Where did their parents get the opportunities that led to their often-privileged upbringing? Where would they have been today if nothing had changed since the ’50s?
Surely, they are reaping the rewards of the civil rights marchers, the brave souls who dared the truncheons, dogs and fire hoses (and in some cases nooses and bullets) to free black Americans from the fetters that kept them in bondage.
Of course black Americans need feel no obligation to those who paid the price of today’s freedoms. They are “free at last” to support whatever cause they fancy, state whatever opinion they espouse, vote according to their conscience or their whims. That was, after all, what the civil rights pioneers shed their blood to bring about.
But - to me - there is an element of betrayal here. I believe that like Esau in the Bible, the black conservatives of today have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. I cannot believe that they feel in their hearts what comes out of their mouths.
I don’t for a minute suggest that they actually receive cash payments like some so-called journalists back in the early days of the “No Child Left Behind” program. But I suspect there’s a profit motive sometimes, nonetheless.
Conservative activists and their enormously wealthy backers embrace black conservatives, boosting their careers and indirectly lining their pockets. They are always in demand to present “the other side of the story.” The fact that their arguments are often intellectually dishonest and sometimes demonstrably erroneous matters not at all.
While it seems as if an epidemic of black conservatives is afflicting America, the phenomenon is not entirely new. I have been reading about a black man named Walter E. Williams, an economist, author and columnist, now in his seventies, who has propagated right-wing propaganda on every front imaginable for decades. This man is so single-minded in his opposition to every rational thought that I have to assume he is sincere. No one could be so wrong so consistently without conviction.
This fervent disciple of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of total selfishness has prospered over the years. He is a darling of people like Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing radio commentator whose programs reduce political commentary to a kind of comical absurdity. (To give you an example of Williams’ line of thinking, his latest cause is defense of the speculators who have helped to drive up the price of oil.)
While these conservative black Americans preach self-reliance and denounce government efforts to distribute society’s wealth a little more evenly, they forget that without society, without government, there would be no wealth.
No individual can produce enough wealth to live comfortably without the help of society. Go ahead, try to grow a thousand acres of corn by yourself. Where would you be without the tractors and harvesters, fertilizers and pesticides that make such a project possible? How would you make money from the corn without society’s marketing mechanisms?
What kind of house could you build - from scratch - for yourself - without help? Even a log cabin would require a lot more skill that most modern Americans possess.
How would you get information? Would you print your own books? Build your own television sets? Create your own broadcast studios or your own Internet?
Where would you get health care? Who would develop your vaccines when deadly diseases break out? I’d like to see you mine your own petroleum and refine your own gasoline - all by yourself.
On their face, such theories are preposterous. But when this line of reasoning comes from a black person, an educated, urbane black person, few of us dare to point out how absurd they are. If we did, we would probably be accused of racism.
It is far too complicated to prove in a blog, but, trust me, the underlying cause of the world’s current economic crisis lies in the commodities trading system. (Please don’t tell American Homeland Securities Czar Michael Chertoff that I said this, or I will surely be whisked away to Guantanamo and water-boarded.)
To criticize the underlying structure of the capitalist world’s financial system is heresy of the worst kind in the United States, and you won’t find much commentary of that kind on the Web. Apparently, the only people sticking their neck out on this topic live in India, people like Sonia Gandhi (photo below), who is described as a “left-wing” politician. Her “left-wing” comments include the statement that “forward trading, particularly in wheat, has had an adverse impact” in her country. She has even gone so far as to call for “a more effective regulatory framework to deal with speculation.”
Indian blogger Jaspal Singh Sidhu had this recent comment: “Stock marketing and futures trading are the main instruments of speculation in the capitalist economy in which the capital is invested and reinvested with a sole purpose of making a profit. Thus the capital grows, multiplies and gets concentrated in a few hands. In such an economic set-up, the futures trading wields a tight grip over the real economy, influences the movement of spot prices. But, it also happens that the futures trade starts moving in an absurdly divergent manner, showing no connection with the spot market. Thus, it becomes sheer gambling for a profit.”
I suppose Jaspal Singh Sidhu would be described as a “left winger” here in the good ol’ USA.
(By that definition, you have to list medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas as a “left winger” because he argued that it was a moral obligation of businesses to sell goods at a just price.)
So, I am going to go way out on the left wing and blame “futures” trading for the world’s economic woes.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (especially now that the hotshots in Washington seem to be agreeing with me): The current spike in oil prices is due more to futures trading than to the increase in demand.
Here’s a simplistic explanation of the incredibly complex commodities trading system.
In various world centers there are institutions called commodities exchanges, where basic products like wheat, barley, sugar, corn, cotton, cocoa, coffee, milk products, pork bellies, oil, metals, etc. are traded. This has been going on for several centuries, and it started as a way of providing farmers and produce buyers with a central marketplace.
These exchanges also provide for buying and selling “derivatives.” That’s just a fancy name for a contract to buy something. You don’t actually buy the wheat or oil, or whatever, you buy the right to buy the wheat, oil, or whatever at a certain price on a certain date in the future. You might argue that this provides stability in the marketplace: A farmer raising corn can sell a future contract on his corn, which will not be harvested for several months, and know what price he will be paid; a breakfast cereal producer can buy the contract in advance and guarantee the price will not go up. This protects the farmer from price declines and the buyer from price increases.
But it also provides an arena for speculators to go hog wild. Indeed, the system has become so perverted that you can gamble on interest rates, ocean freight contracts and a whole range of other “derivatives.” And these contracts can include spot prices, forwards, futures and options on futures. (When I try to put the meaning of “forwards” into words, my head hurts. It’s a convoluted way of betting that the price in a futures contract will go up or down, I think. An “option” is the right to buy something, so in this context, an option would be the right to buy the right to buy something. You can probably figure out what a spot price is as wll as I can.)
This kind of gambling is great fun for rich people and often makes them even richer. In recent years the richest of the rich have formed “hedge funds,” which pool their vast resources to take advantage of the market. But it’s a matter of life and death to the rest of us.
It is the commodities system that determines how much we pay for a loaf of bread, a jug of milk or a gallon of gas. And I think that’s far too serious for fun and games. If that makes me a “left-winger,” I guess I’ll just have to live with the designation. And if Mr. Chertoff adds me to his “watch list,” I’ll have to live with that, too.
You and I know that the questions TV “news” commentators ask their guests determine the “slant” of the program, and can do a lot of good or harm to the politician being discussed. So, I find myself wondering just what ax these guys might have to grind.
I was wondering, for example, why David Gregory’s program, “Race for the White House” on MSNBC, is often so toxic to Barack Obama. After all, MSNBC is not Fox News. MSNBC even offers liberal rants from Keith Olbermann and more subdued liberalism from Rachel Maddow to balance the conservatism of Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan. Mike Barnicle and their ilk. Most viewers have probably figured out which commentators are coming at us from the left and which are coming from the right. We realize we’re likely to get “straight talk” from nobody, but at least we are able to put the commentators’ remarks in the context of their political orientation once we figure out who is grinding what ax.
What bothers me about Gregory (at right) is his sneakiness. This is a longtime mewsman who got his start in Arizona (John McCain’s state) and was once awarded the title of Best White House Correspondent by the Media Research Center, one of those right-wing organizations. He and Bush are so cozy that the president calls him “Stretch,” in recognition of Gregory’s 6 foot-5 frame. (To be fair, Gregory got in trouble with conservatives back in 2006 when he asked White House spokesman Tony Snow a tough question and later when he got into a rage and started shouting at Scott McClellan.)
At first, I suspected that Gregory is a conservative. How else to explain his defense of Ann Coulter (Rush Limbaugh’s female counterpart), for example? (In an interview with Elizabeth Edwards, Gregory said that if you strip away the rhetoric, Coulter makes valid points.)
You have to be pretty far right to defend Ann Coulter. But I think it’s probably fairer to say Gregory just doesn’t like liberals. On one TV show, he berated Hillary Clinton and others “on the left” who were urging America to get out of Iraq, for instance.
Considering his background, it’s not surprising that his sympathies would lie with the high and mighty. According to a Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz, Gregory is the son of a Broadway producer, and grew up among celebrities like Richard Burton, Rex Harrison and Henry Fonda. He married former federal prosecutor Beth Wilkinson, the general counsel for Fannie Mae, and associates with big shots. According to Kurtz’s article, Michael Chertoff was among their guests at a baby shower.
When you move in that kind of social circle, it’s hard to sympathize with those who would stand up for “the little people.” It’s no wonder that Gregory seems more sympathetic to an admiral’s son and his beer baroness wife than to a former social worker from the south side of Chicago.
You’ve heard from John McCain. You’ve heard from Barack Obama. You’ve heard from a lot of folks who have ideas on how to fix America’s economy. So you might as well hear from me.
First, some background. Back in 1776, a Scottish economist named Adam Smith wrote a book titled “The Wealth of Nations.” In it, he posited the existence of a force he called “The Invisible Hand.” No, it was not a horror story, although it has led to many horror stories over the years.
Smith and his horde of disciples argue that in a free market, an individual pursuing his own self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole. In other words, turn the greedy and unscrupulous loose upon the earth, and sit back and reap the benefits.
This has proved an enticing idea to generations of politicians, probably because it justifies collecting their salaries for sitting back and letting Nature take its course. (In America, the President collects a base pay of $400,000 a year, the Vice President makes $208,000 and members of Congress make $170,000 - plus “perks” of various kinds).
The revered American President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who studied Economics at Eureka College (I think it’s somewhere in Illinois), embraced the Adam Smith approach. Reagan liked the idea of letting Nature take its course, especially when he felt like taking a nap during meetings. As you probably know, Reagan deregulated several major industries, and if you want to see how that worked out, check the state of the airline industry today.
But, like so many plausible sounding ideas, the notion of “The Invisible Hand” doesn’t work. Nobel Prize economist Joseph E. Stiglitz says, “The reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.”
Stiglitz insists that “government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas.”
If you want to delve deeper into this debate, you can check out the Web, as I did. I concluded Stiglitz was right and Adam Smith was wrong.
Now, for my plan to fix the economy of America. It relies on the willingness of the nation’s leaders to intervene where necessary, and to abandon the silly notion that this kind of responsible behavior is “socialism.” They would have to police America’s financial systems and put an end to the pillaging that has been unchecked for far too long. Unless they do that, nothing will work because whatever new wealth is produced will be siphoned off by a few market manipulators, never reaching the mass of the people.
With the financial markets cleaned up, the folks in the White House and Capitol Building must get together and set priorities, which they must then agree to fund. My first priority would be research. I want billions - make that trillions - for research. So what if we don’t have the money? We might as well print up some more while it still has buying power. We’ll never live to pay off the National Debt and balance the budget the way we’ve been going. With my proposal we at least have a chance of hitting the jackpot and paying off our debts.
With trillions of dollars to spend, our brightest minds (in both the public and private sectors) should be encouraged to conquer new frontiers… They should be challenged to achieve scientific breakthroughs… To find cures for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and mental diseases, for example… To solve our energy crisis… And to discover new products, new techniques in every field, and new forms of communication and transportation… The sky would be the limit.
Molecular experiment
That’s how we can produce new, exciting jobs! That’s how we can challenge our youth! That’s how we can attract brilliant minds from other countries! And that’s how we can end this self-defeating system that has Americans competing for low-pay, low-skill jobs with billions of people all over the world.
The problem is that research takes time to yield results. And nobody can say how long it will be before the breakthroughs start coming. Can you imagine the carping and complaining that would go on in the media while we waited for results?
If I asked you to name the candidates for U.S. President, you would probably list John McCain and Barack Obama - and give me a funny look.
If you were a political junkie you might add Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.
I am almost certain you haven’t heard about Cynthia McKinney’s candidacy. McKinney (photo below) was nominated Friday as the Green Party’s presidential candidate. Her running mate is hip hop artist and political activist Rosa Clemente.
McKinney admits she doesn’t expect to win the presidency. Her platform (titled “Power to the People”) includes single-payer universal health care, the immediate surrender of American forces on all fronts, the creation of a Department of Peace and reparations for American Blacks.
The former Democrat joined the Green Party after losing her seat in Congress, where she served six terms. You may recall an episode in which she assaulted a security guard at the Capitol a couple years back. Right. That Cynthia McKinney.
McKinney, who was married to Jamaican politician Coy Grandison (PNP) and lived in Jamaica, has deep roots in the American civil rights movement. Her father was Atlanta’s first black cop and a perennial protester. She was Georgia’s first black female member of Congress. She has made a career of protesting againt the American establishment, sometimes in outlandish ways.
Why am I writing about her? Well, I think all the candidates deserve to be mentioned, and I was wondering if she might have been the person the New Yorker editors had in mind when they decided to run that wild and woolly cartoon on their cover. But, who on earth is the guy in the funny hat and the bathrobe?
Just in case you were wondering, here’s my position on the U.S. President’s job, which is currently up for grabs: “If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.”
OK, I confess. I stole that line. It was originally used in 1884 by General William Tecumseh Sherman (photo below), and has been repeated (in various versions) several times since, most notably by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 and Dick Cheney more recently (as if…).
The version I like best is Mo Udall’s. Queried by the press in 1983, the Democratic Congressman from Arizona (who had campaigned for president in 1976) said, “If nominated, I shall run to Mexico. If elected, I shall fight extradition.”
It’s amazing that the line doesn’t get used more often. Who in their right mind would want the job of American president? Yet just look at what the current crop of candidates have been willing to go through to get it!
I look at Barack Obama’s once-youthful countenance, and I can see the ravages of the long campaign he has endured, the abuse to which he has been subjected and the hostility to which he has been exposed. He smiles less, and his smile is nowhere near as radiant as it once was. And there’s John McCain, almost doddering, stuck for an answer sometimes, contradicting himself at others, obviously weary to the bone.
“Senator McCain,” asks a reporter, “what do you have to say to the fact that insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control pills?”
McCain can think of nothing to say. He rubs his eyes, massages his jaw, bows his head… His expression seems to say, “Who is this woman and why is she tormenting me?”
And these are the winners so far. What about the losers?
Have you looked into Hillary Clinton’s eyes? Have you seen the heartbreak? Do you wonder that she can still smile and bob her head, almost but not quite, like the Hillary of old?
Do you cringe as billionaire Mitt Romney comes crawling to McCain’s side after his humiliating defeat, swallowing his pride, begging for a chance at the vice presidency?
How would you feel if you offered your service to your nation and received single-digit support?
Yet, there’s always a cavalry charge. The trumpet sounds and here comes Ralph Nader, like a Don Quixote re-run, charging at the same old windmills with the same chance of success.
And, like the voice of one crying in the wilderness, there’s Bob Barr, preaching small government, fiscal responsibility, individual freedom, his voice blowing in the wind. And up on his brave little legs once again is Dennis Kucinich, reading his articles of impeachment against George W. Bush, oblivious to the fact that no one is listening.
And when someone wins the laurel wreath - as some poor wretch will - what will the prize be?
What I see waiting for the winner is an economy in tatters, a nation stuck inextricably in not one war but two (or perhaps three), and a bitterly divided government, where old grudges take precedence over urgent challenges, where politicians are prepared, like Samson in the Bible, to pull down the temple on themselves.
Here’s how AP economic writer Martin Crutsinger assesses the situation:
The economy showed the depth of its twin problems on Tuesday, slow growth and rising inflation, as the nation wrestled with a teetering financial system, a slumping dollar and rising prices for food and fuel.
Crutsinger quoted the Labor Department as reporting that soaring costs for gasoline and food had “pushed inflation at the wholesale level up by a bigger-than-expected 1.8 percent in June, leaving inflation rising over the past year at the fastest pace in more than a quarter-century. Over the past 12 months, wholesale prices are up 9.2 percent, the largest year-over-year surge since June 1981, another period when soaring energy costs were giving the country inflation pains.”
Did you need the Labor Department to tell you that? I didn’t. I can tell the Labor Department a thing or two about rising prices. Evaporated milk (the store brand) used to be about 60 cents a can at my local grocery; it’s now over a dollar. The cheapest kitty litter used to be something like 90 cents a bag; it’s now $1.63. And do I need to mention gas?
These problems are not unique to America. Things are a lot worse in many other countries, especially in the poorest ones. And who will the world be looking to for solutions? Why, the president of the USA, of course.
And, as for me, I can see no solutions - no immediate ones, anyway.
Despite the conniving by so many powerful people dedicated to Barack Obama’s defeat, I am sure that John McCain will not be America’s next President. The country would not have survived for more than 230 years if the majority of its citizens were that obtuse.
A lot of voters don’t pay close attention to the issues and you might get the impression that they’re, well, somewhat gullible. But, believe me, most Americans can recognize a scam the second time around, and they’re not going to be fooled again so soon. You know the old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
They got taken by George W. Bush, and they are not going to be taken by McCain. It’s as simple as that.
With that in mind, I won’t bother to predict McCain’s choice for vice president. Trust me: It will not matter. Instead, I will concentrate on Obama’s running mate.
So here goes… Remember, you heard it here first.
Actually, Carolyn Kennedy would be my “dream” choice. But, I know that’s not going to happen. The world isn’t that sensible a place. So, I’ll look at the more mundane possibilities.
There are many good choices available, but I would rule out several good candidates because to put it bluntly, they’re too old. Disqualifications include Hillary Clinton, Wes Clark, Sam Nunn, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Kathleen Sebelius and Jim Webb. You see, I am betting that Obama will pick someone young enough to win the presidency for the Democrats after his eight years in the White House.
I would also pick someone with a management record, a governor as opposed to a senator, someone like New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. They are both 50 years old and have solid administrative track records. A Hispanic, Richardson would help secure the Latin American vote, but judging from the polls, Obama doesn’t need much help there. I would give the nod to Napolitano. She would give Obama a boost in the western states and she was named by Time Magazine as one of America’s five best governors.
“Janet who?” is probably your next question, so let me fill you in.
The 21st governor of Arizona is considered one of America’s most innovative leaders. Her causes include better schools, affordable health care, sensible and progressive economic development, secure borders and a comprehensive plan to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants. She is also known for her devotion to fiscal responsibility, an asset the next administration is really going to need.
Here are some of the things she’s achieved in Arizona:
- Voluntary full-day kindergarten
- A pay raise for teachers
- Record financial support for universities and community colleges
- Health insurance reforms, including coverage for all of Arizona’s children
The first woman to chair the National Governors Association, she is a former U.S. Attorney for Arizona and her state’s first-ever female Attorney General.
My only concern is her health. She is a cancer survivor who has had a mastectomy, but this is the year 2008, after all, and cancer is not the bogeyman it once was. It could even be an asset, as she would be acutely aware of the health issues facing Americans.
