Sarah Palin Is A Brezhnev Republican

Remember when conservatives delightfully blistered John Edwards for hypocritically paying $400 for a haircut from his campaign treasury? Well, as many of you know by now, Politico reports that Governor Sarah Palin used donations to the Republican National Committee to spend $150,000 on clothes. All this while accusing Barack Obama for the sin of socialism.

A couple years I ago I started referring to politicians such as Palin as "Brezhnev Republicans." Under Lenoid Brezhnev the Soviet Union stagnated while the nomenklatura enriched themselves at the expense of regular people.

Sarah Palin epitomizes the mentality of Communist elites under the rule of Lenoid Brezhnev. It is the same mentality that allows them to loot while criticizing Barack Obama for daring to value work over wealth. Under Republican leadership the wealthiest have paid the least and horded their capital like lard. Nothing has trickled down to wage earners. This past month Brezhnev Republican George W. Bush nationalized the banking industry.

Yet, whenever Democrats such as Obama dare to address the sort of economic injustice faciliated by George W. Bush, John McCain and fashionista Sarah Palin, they're accussed of "socialism," "class warfare" and wanting to "redistribute" wealth. Well, John McCain who sold out to Charles Keating in the 1980s and Sarah Palin and her shopping spree are examples of Brezhnev Republicans.

Al-Quaida Prefers McCain

The Associated Press is reporting that an Al-Quaida linked website suggests in a message to their supporters they prefer John McCain over Barack Obama.

Here is a quote from the Associated Press's report:

"The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, 'impetuous' Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

'This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier,' the message said. 'Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush.'

SITE Intelligence Group, based in Bethesda, Md., monitors the Web site and translated the message.

'If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests,' the message said, 'this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it.'"

Of course none of this is news to those of us who protested the post 9/11 policies of President George W. Bush and his merry band of corporatist theocratic neocons. Electing John McCain will only continue polices that profit plutocratcs and help facilitate Armageddon as those who subscribe to endtimes are praying for. That is the real John McCain coalition: people who exploit war to fleece America and religious nuts hoping Armageddon will bring about the Kingdom of God. And Al-Quaida knows it.

Impressions From Obama/McCain Three

When it comes to tax policy, health care and the economy we already know what both candidates will say before they say it. On that front we didn't learn anything new about either one. Grading on a curve last night was easily McCain's best performance yet he was still off putting. Ultimately, I am left with the following impressions:

• Obama is as cool as the flip side of a pillow. He was never rattled no matter what outrageous incoming fire McCain sent his way. Obama smiled quite a bit while McCain spoke which may be his way of maintaining composure. Some might find that arrogant.

• Increasingly, McCain reminds me of a typical villain from the old Scoobie-Doo cartoons. Last night I could almost feel McCain thinking, "I would've have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids.!"

• McCain was rather flippant about the health of the mother when it comes to exemptions for late term abortions. To me he seemed callous.
  

• Obama remains evasive about what specific programs our current economic crisis may force him to cut.

• Joe the Plumber worked initially but McCain's obsessive references to him as a crutch was off putting.

• McCain's has a serial habit of interrupting which is quite off putting. It bothered me when Al Gore did it too and he's someone I admire. Interrupting people is insecurity disguised as arrogance.
  

• McCain's line about not being President Bush was good but a day late and a dollar short.
  

• One way or another I've seen nearly every presidential debate since primary season for both parties this year. Even though I'm a political junkie I'm glad they're over.

Cultural Ethos 2008

Last night's debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama illustrated a stark cultural contrast with previous presidential campaigns. There wasn't a single question about abortion, guns, race, crime, the death penalty, gay rights, religion, patriotic symbols such as flag lapels, family values or the Supreme Court. The Vice Presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin last week contained far more wedge oriented questions. Last night's debate however with its town hall format was more reflective of the mindset of 2008's silent majority.

Indeed, Presidential campaigns are momentary snapshots of our cultural ethos. For example, while volunteering for the Dukakis campaign as a college sophomore in 1988, I was called terms of endearment such as "communist" and "nigger lover." Fast forward to early summer in 2004 and I had my first hint that John Kerry was in trouble. While phone-banking I spoke to an unemployed laborer in the mid-west who had a good paying union job under President Clinton. He told me he was voting for George W. Bush because he believed that Kerry was going to take away his gun. This gentleman also expressed to me that he thought Vietnam war veteran Kerry was a "pussy." And that was weeks before Kerry was "Swiftboated."

However, while phone-banking recently, I spoke to an unemployed gentleman in Youngstown, Ohio who actually said to me,

"You know it occurs to me I have more in common with blacks who know something about tough times than white millionaires on Wall Street."

This is not your father's presidential campaign.

My attitude going into last night's debate resembled what I feel about NASCAR racing. Watching cars drive around in endless laps is not remotely interesting but I might watch because there could be a crash. Similarly, I didn't expect to learn anything new in last night's debate about either candidate that I didn't already know. I expected both to basically deliver the same scripted lines. I did wonder if McCain would be impolite enough to engage in character assassination in the town hall format. He didn't. As for McCain's "new" proposal about the housing crisis, the bailout plan that McCain voted for already gives the Treasury Secretary wide discretionary power to address the issue.

Hence, the debate itself to me was only memorable about the questions not asked. America is a somber country these days and swing voters have little patience for issues that distract from their economic insecurity. Yes, I realize Governor Sarah Palin will make news speaking in front of partisan wing nuts.

But the political terrain of October 2008 is entrenched due to economic calamity. Only a catastrophic event will prevent Barack Obama from becoming our next President. Gods, guns and the flag will not save Republicans this year.

A McCain Legacy: The 1980s S&L Scandal

Sarah Palin & Heaven

Political debates are an excersise of vapid talking points, quips and body language. Substance is irrelevant. Candidates are programmed to hold the attention span of people that watch American Idol and read tabloids while sitting on the toilet. Yet even these over scripted, dumbed down, brain massaged events have revealing moments.

Yesterday, like most political bloggers, I posted my analysis of the Biden-Palin debate and referenced Palin's most memorable sound-bite:

"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 focused on Palin's rhetorical attempt to distract from McCain's culpability as an enabler of George W. Bush's pathetic record. The "say it ain't so Joe" line was obviously scripted and delivered well enough. I neglected however to focus on Palin's most revealing sentence of the evening:

"Her reward is in heaven, right?"

I can't prove it but I doubt that line was scripted. Watching it again as well as reading the transcript, Palin's heaven line feels quite spontaneous. Hence, I am compelled to ask, does Palin truly believe that a teacher's sole reward will be in heaven? Why isn't teaching itself a reward? Perhaps if God decreed that a teacher's reward awaits in heaven, one can believe a union advocating for better pay and benefits for teachers is superfluous. As long as teachers are rewarded in heaven, why should it matter if they keep up with the cost of living?

In that one sentence, Palin illustrated a medieval pre-Enlightenment mindset that regulates the Republican Party's base. In previous campaigns, Republican corporatists humored this mindset and earned the support of religious zealots by nominating conservative judges, delivering "values" oriented rhetoric and passing homophobic legislation. Even as the religious zealots were humored, the GOP's corporatists and traditional conservative nationalists retained the real power in their white rich man's party. As we've seen the previous eight years however, these people are no longer just being humored. They have joined the Republican Party's ruling class.

How many of these neocons share the Palin mindset and are pushing for war in Iran to facilitate the Apocalypse, bring about Judgment Day and establish the Kingdom of God? John McCain in my opinion does not share this mindset. Rather, McCain is merely a garden variety crazy war monger with an impetuous temperament. In Sarah Palin he selected a running mate that shares the George W. Bush delusion of religious zealotry. A religious zealotry that resembles the crazy Jihadists who believe seventy-two virgins await them in heaven if they successfully execute suicide terrorist missions.

Republican Jihadists like Palin believe that a holy war against Muslims is a means of carrying out God's plan. Republican nationalists like McCain believe in a reckless concept of American exceptionalism as justification for an American empire and he's more than willing to shed blood for it. Simply put, the McCain/Palin ticket represents a coalition of nationalist nuts and religious nuts.

In my phone-banking activities the economy is the dominant issue on voters minds. But the presidency is more that simply a catalog of public policy positions like the economy. Otherwise we could just program liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate, nationalist and green androids and let the voters decide which political philosophy they wanted.

The office of President however is a stewardship and the decision making stems from the core value system, life experience, intellectual acumen and temperament of the occupant. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are far from perfect. But they're both intelligent, with their hearts in the right place and neither is crazy.

Governor Palin's, "Her reward is in heaven" line has further motivated me to work for the Obama/Biden ticket. We have enough crazy leaders in this world. And eight years of crazy people in the executive branch is enough.

The Biden-Palin Debate

Sarah Palin comfortably exceeded the soft bigotry of her low expectations last night. The rigid debate format worked well for Palin. Unlike her recent interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, Palin was able to feint and dodge effectively with her personality and folksy colloquialisms. One on one interviews do not enable subjects to run out the clock or distract from their lack of knowledge with honed talking points. Last night however, Palin was able to stay on message and reassure the Republican's Party conservative base.

Senator Joe Biden delivered a solid and graciously pugnacious performance but was overshadowed because of Palin's low expectations. Mostly Biden diligently draped the Bush Administration's record around John McCain's neck.

Palin valiantly attempted to re-focus the debate on the future with her "say it ain't so Joe" sound bite critique of Biden's constant refrain about the Bush years. She delivered her sound bite well and McCain will no doubt try to build on the refrain about looking forward instead of backwards. However, it's doubtful McCain-Palin will be able to escape blame for the Bush Administration's as well as the entire Republican Party's mismanagement since 2001.

To the extent anyone cares about substance I was struck by two things. First, the Biden-Palin exchange about gay rights. Both agreed they didn't support gay marriage however Palin seemed to concede she didn't want to deny homosexual couples access to hospital visitation rights as well as the insurance benefits enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Yet when moderator Gwen Ifill attempted to press Palin that she agreed with Joe Biden about these sorts of civil liberties, Palin instead retorted that she agreed with Biden about not re-defining traditional marriage. In effect, Palin ignored the question and Ifill opted not to follow up and moved on.

The other issue of substance that struck me was the cognitive dissonance about Afghanistan. Biden quoted America's commanding general in Afghanistan in noting that an Iraqi type surge wasn't likely to work. Obviously, Biden wanted to illustrate the Bush Administration's failures in Afghanistan. Yet Biden also simultaneously suggested that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. That would seem to be an irreconcilable contradiction.

Palin of course also had her own cognitive dissonance in that she simultaneously supported more oversight while promoting the traditional Republican meme of getting government off the backs of the people.

Overall, the trajectory of this presidential election remained unchanged. John McCain has conceded Michigan which means that among the remaining battleground states he will have to draw the equivalent of an inside straight to win.

Palin, has stopped the bleeding on her Vice Presidential candidacy and conservatives are no doubt relieved. She can now be permitted to campaign without adult supervision in the conservative districts of swing states to ensure the GOP's base turns out.

However, last night's debate will quickly be old news. Once again attempted legislation for the Wall Street bailout will dominate and the focus will turn to Obama-McCain for October 7th's debate and stay there until November 4th. Hence, this remains Barack Obama's election to lose.

As for Sarah Palin, let's just say that in 2012 both Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will have stiff competition for the support of evangelical caucus voters in Iowa. So while Palin may not be a heartbeat away from the presidency after November 4th, I would not be surprised if the same ignorant country that put George W. Bush in the White House eventually makes her husband America's "First Dude."

Publish Post

The First Debate

Substance is typically irrelevant in political debates. With the debates this political season substance is especially irrelevant because of the financial crisis on Wall Street. It was hard not to smirk as both candidates discussed their plans for the economy.

Neither Obama nor McCain spoke credibly last night. Those who have capital are hording it and not about to extend credit so small businesses can make payroll or allow the people of Main Street to pay their mortgages. Credit will not be extended without a bailout and nobody can be sure that giving in to these 21st century robber barrons will solve the problem. Hence, when Obama promises that ninety five percent of the public will receive a tax cut under his administration he's blowing smoke up America's ass. And so is McCain with his "spending freeze" or asking Americans to believe that reforming earmarks will act as a growth stimulus for the economy.

So that means we have to evaluate style instead. Obama was doing just fine until about 10PM Eastern Standard Time. Then McCain the brawler asserted himself, interrupting Obama and getting under the younger man's skin. Ironic because Obama is supposed to be the one without emotion. I cringed when McCain effectively interrupted Obama and mocked his plans for talking with the psychotic president of Iran. McCain scored and one could read irritation on Obama's face because he knew it.

Obama fights fire with water. That is an admirable quality in a president and leader. It's one of the reasons I support his candidacy. Overall, I believe Obama held his own against McCain the brawler and appeared sure footed on the issue of foreign policy which conventional wisdom suggests is McCain's strength. Personally, I believe the record shows that McCain's record on foreign policy is disastrous but that's substance. We're assessing style here.

In future debates Obama must cease saying that "John is right." That phrase should be replaced with "John doesn't get it." If Obama wants to be more civil he can put it this way, "I regret to say that John doesn't get it." For variety he might say, "Once again John doesn't get it" and then make his points.

I suspect McCain came off as overly condescending for some with his constant refrain, "You don't understand." Perhaps Obama's reflexive "John is right" reassured some people that he's a leader looking for consensus and common ground. In my opinion however Obama needed to be more combative. This is easily fixed by dumping "John is right" into the rhetorical landfill.

The debate was a tie. Neither had a major gaffe or delivered a knockout punch. That's probably good for Obama. The next two debates will address subjects that Obama can speak to more comfortably. Next week Joe Biden will likely demonstrate more gravitas than the hapless Sarah Palin in the Vice Presidential debate. Hence this remains Obama's election to lose.

John McCain is a twentieth century man ill equipped to address our current challenges. Using the phrase "John doesn't get it" to preface his points would better help Obama drive that point home.

Faux Statesmanship

As many of you know by now, John McCain is "suspending" his campaign and asking that this Friday's debate be postponed due to the financial crisis. As reported in the Washington Post the McCain campaign released the following statement:

"It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration's proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.''

Hence, McCain is urging President Bush to,

"to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem."

This is nothing more than faux statesmanship. Recent polls obviously have the McCain campaign at Defcon One and they needed a stunt. As political tactics are concerned it's very clever. It distracts from the the New York Times reporting about the firm of McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis still being paid by Freddie Mac.

Meanwhile, McCain is hoping Obama will be in a box. If Obama plays along he's following the leader. If Obama doesn't play along McCain will claim he's putting the welfare of the country ahead of politics.

As long as there will be spin going against him either way, I think Obama should tell it like it is. The right position is to say that now more than ever we need to debate economic policy in front of the voters. Hence I would propose postponing the foreign policy debate and instead making this Friday's debate about the economy. If McCain refuses than Obama should appear anyway and address the country himself and present the direction he wants to go.

Republicans as well as financial industry insiders are like bank robbers with nitro-glycerine. They're hoping to coerce Congress into passing legislation that provides them billions in corporate welfare with minimal oversight to review the details. The Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department are complicit in our economic debacle and don't want any sunlight on their accountability for this mess. So they're also pushing for this legislation with minimal oversight before too many people hold them accountable for their incestuous relationship with Wall Street.

I readily acknowledge we have a calamity on our hands. Liberals like me have seen this coming for years and we were ridiculed as being alarmists. Yet even as the Dow drops we're not going to fix this by nationalizing the banking industry in haste.

This should be a deliberate process that is transparent and openly debated. That is what campaigns are for. FDR and Herbert Hoover didn't suspend their presidential campaigns in 1932 when this country's economy was tottering on the abys. FDR and Thomas Dewey didn't suspend their presidential campaigns during World War Two in 1944.

More recently New York City still held a mayoral election in November 2001 nearly two months after 9/11. Back then Democratic Party candidates took a brief pause because 9/11 coincided with their primary. But the pause was shortlived and vigorous campaigning resumed.

And Spain held an election following a terrorist attack a couple years ago with no suspension of campaigning.

That's what democracies do. Even in emergencies and this economic crisis is no different. Senator Obama please don't allow your opponent to get away with faux statesmanship. This a nothing more than a stunt to help facilitate corporate welfare for the financial services industry while maintaining the fiction that John McCain is a maverick instead of a corporatist champion. Many of these people are hoping that you will give cover to a plan designed to hinder your administration if you're elected from spending on health care and other domestic initiatives.

McCain's political stunt, backed by these very same people is also designed to prevent your election so these money lending corporatists can continue to steal from wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.

Trying To Have Hope

I want to have hope for my country. And I'm doing my best to help elect the most viable progressive candidate president by volunteering for the Obama campaign. While I'm fully aware of his flaws I regard Obama as intelligent and believe his decision making process on high stakes issues will mostly be judicious and thoughtful. Hell, compared to John McCain, Barack Obama is Plato.

Nevertheless, when contemplating the socio-economic and geopolitical place we find ourselves in it's hard to feel anything but despair. We're engaged in two failed military occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan is imploding and al quaeda is rebuilding. As for Iraq, with all due respect to the "surge," a military occupation that requires billions of America's treasure as well our blood, not to mention the blood of Iraqis that have been shed to maintain a semblance of stability is not a success.

And now we're forced to spend trillions to bail out Wall Street thanks to the medacity of the Bush Administration and their cabal of chuckle heads, cronies and plutocrats. Much of this is of course being financed by creditors overseas.

I mean, what the hell will a new president be able to do upon taking office? How can can any president deliver on campaign promises of tax cuts or spending programs for infrastructure, education and health care when you combine the cost of two military occupations with the bail out of Wall Street? I know Obama wants to get out of Iraq but ending that occupation in a prudent manner can't be done quickly. We're going to spend billions more money in Iraq even if Obama wins. Also, there is the moral requirements to help finance Iraq's reconstruction considering we invaded their country without legitimate provocation, tortured their citizens at Abu Ghraib and killed a whole lot of their people to make money for Halliburton, Bechtel and Blackwater USA.

And we can't just pull out of Afghanistan. After financing our proxy war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 80s we turned our back on those people. And we know the tragic legacy of that mistake. Yet our presence isn't helping and a "surge" in Afghanistan will not bring any more political reconciliation to that country than it has in Iraq. If anything the internal dynamics of Afghanistan and their culture of war lords is even more cumbersome. Yet many Democrats, including Obama have talked about increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan. And that will cost billions too.

At least when FDR became president it was merely a matter of political will to implement the New Deal and establish institutions that helped build an enduring middle class for the twentieth century. Also, when FDR became president America wasn't consumed by two military occupations as the next president will be . Hence, when the gathering storm clouds of the Axis Powers engulfed the world in war, FDR was able to mobilize America's industrial prowess for the effort. Suppose the liquidity crisis on Wall Street today empowers another Hitler overseas who exploits global economic depression and seizes power? What then if America is overextended with our occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Political will by itself won't be enough for the next president. Global liquidity is in rapidly short supply and the world is running out of oil. Global warming is a ticking time bomb and many regions in the world, including the American southwest our contending with a water shortage crisis. Addressing these challenges requires capital and lots of it. Capital that we don't have. Hence, somehow the next president is going to have to pull a rabbit out of their hat and create a new twenty-first century socio-economic paradigm on the cheap. And he'll have to do it fast.

I believe Obama at least grasps the challenges ahead. Sadly, John McCain appears to be out of his depth with a limited grasp of the modern world.

1932 Redux?

By now you're all aware of the latest financial calamity coming out of Wall Street with Lehman Brothers declaring bankruptcy and Merrill being bought out by Bank of America. Meanwhile, the American Insurance Group is teetering on the abyss and forced to lean on their subsidiaries for $20 billion in loans.

One has to wonder if standard depository banks are also endangered. The Federal Deposit Corporation (FDIC) created during the New Deal era is ultimately just an IOU. If this financial calamity however extends to depository banks all of us are in serious trouble. Thankfully, depository banks are subject to more regulation and have avoided calamity so far. But for how long can they remain immune?

Was it so long ago that George W. Bush and his plutocratic soul mates such as John McCain advocated for putting Social Security into this morass? If Republicans had their way, millions of elderly Americans would be confronting poverty right now.

Our current mess is the direct result of conservative ideology that pushed for the deregulation of the financial services sector. Consequently we're on the same path of economic catastrophe that we found ourselves in 1932 when FDR first ran for president.

With Barack Obama we have some hope. John McCain only offers more lipstick for pigs.

The Winning Narrative

Change is passé. Barack Obama squeezed all the juice out of the change orange since announcing his candidacy in February 2007. Personally, I never thought much of the “change you can believe in” slogan but there is no denying Obama went far with it.

However, Sarah Palin’s selection as McCain’s running mate has convinced the public change is coming no matter who wins. Even worse, the very same corporate media that complained Obama only offered “words” compared to Hillary Clinton’s policy specifics during the primary season now argue that McCain’s lack of specifics does not diminish his stature as a maverick. Is that fair? Of course not! But there is no sense whining about it. These are the cards we’ve been dealt.

So how do we change the narrative? The solution is to present the voting public with a stark choice: progress or calamity. Change vs. more of the same is stale and no longer resonates.

The public does not equate John McCain and Sarah Palin with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. That’s the sense I have from phone banking since both conventions. The GOP pulled off a Houdini escape from their record and the media is letting them get away with it. Sarah Pallin is an inexperienced right wing ideologue. But she has made the McCain brand fresh again whereas the public has been watching the Obama campaign for almost two years.

It’s time to replace change vs. more of the same. Instead, every day until November 4th the Obama campaign needs to hammer two messages:

1. Obama-Biden equals progress.
2. McCain-Palin equals calamity.
   

That is the message that needs to be repeated in every advertisement, stump speech, interview, news conference and reinforced by campaign surrogates. One virtue of the progress or calamity narrative is that it happens to be true.

If McCain-Palin is elected more bridges will collapse, as local governments are fiscally incapable today of modernizing our infrastructure. Our roads will remain in disrepair resulting in fatalities. Modernized infrastructure prevents disasters. However, the McCain-Palin ideology favors crony capitalism and bridges to nowhere instead of upgrading our electrical grid, replenishing our shrinking reservoirs and building a mass transit system for the 21st century. McCain-Pallin's inattention to infrastructure will put America on a collision course with multiple catastrophes. America is confronting a water shortage crisis in its southwest as well as more Hurricane Katrina disasters and the deliberate wrecking of FEMA that was professionalized a decade ago under President Clinton.

An Obama-Biden administration will propose creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to help finance revitalizing our transportation. Overall an Obama-Biden administration will prioritize strengthening America’s infrastructure to provide a more stable foundation for a 21st century economy.

Every day millions of Americans are living on the abyss of catastrophe as their HMOs drive them into fiscal insolvency. Under McCain-Palin the plight of the uninsured and under-insured will metastasize as illnesses are not properly treated and families are battered into financial submission paying for treatment. More of the elderly will be forced to choose between paying for food or prescription drugs as the medical industrial complex is strengthened at the expense of wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.

An Obama-Biden administration will propose a national health plan that makes available for all Americans affordable health coverage similar to the benefits enjoyed by members of Congress. Obama’s plan includes the self-employed and small businesses. Click here to read more details.

As the purchasing power of regular folks continues to erode, crime will rise with more people out of work. More children will grow up in households where one or both parents are working multiple jobs and not home to provide supervision and nurturing resulting in an increase in juvenile crime. Local governments under McCain-Palin will be too under-funded to address these challenges because of tax cuts to the rich instead of providing federal aid. Meanwhile, state correctional facilities that sustain itself through incarceration of non-violent criminals for recreational drug use will parole violent criminals due to overcrowding. This is a ticking time bomb in American society that will be exacerbated under McCain-Pallin.

If elected, an Obama-Biden administration will invest over $1 billion to empower low-income wage earners in transitional jobs and career pathway programs that are proven to help low tech laborers succeed in the workforce. An Obama-Biden administration will also work to better help integrate ex-convicts into society with job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling, and ensuring access to employment opportunities. Click here to read more details.

McCain-Palin’s “drill baby drill” energy policy means America will be at Saudi Arabia’s mercy as they continue to buy American real-estate. The very same Saudi Arabia that eighteen of the 9/11 hijackers came from. We will also have no leverage against the evil KGB spy-master Vladimir Putin as he tries to become a 21st century Peter the Great through the power of Russian oil.

Click here to listen to Obama’s August 4th speech in Lansing, Michigan about energy policy.

A McCain-Palin administration would be stocked with delusional zealots who hope to prosecute war with Iran while our overextended military is burdened with two military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. If these zealots have their way, Iran will respond by attacking Israel and Israel will respond with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile if McCain-Palin is elected the Taliban is more likely to prevail in Afghanistan and al Quaeda will once again have bases there and Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks on American soil. Even worse a McCain-Palin administration will further radicalize the Islamic world and make it impossible for moderate voices to emerge.

Click here to either read or watch a video of an October 2007 speech in which Obama outlines a forward looking foreign policy based on rationality and diplomacy.

If McCain-Palin is elected the damage to the federal bench will be irreversible for decades. Not only the Supreme Court is at stake but the entire federal judiciary. McCain-Palin will appoint judges presiding over legal controversies with respect to new technologies and civil liberties. Their Supreme Court will be stocked with more John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas extremists that will protect the rights of government agencies and private industry to retaliate against whistle blowers. And if that isn’t enough, a McCain-Palin administration will ensure America returns to the days of back alley abortions.

Consider what The Nation had to say on June 12th:

“When the U.S Senate voted in September 2007, on whether to restore habeas corpus protections for those detained by the United States, the senators who would emerge as the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees for president parted company.

Illinois Democrat Barack Obama embraced the basic Constitutional principle that individuals who are detained by the U.S. government have a right to challenge their detention -- no matter where they are held.

Arizona Republican John McCain rejected the wisdom of the founders of the American experiment and voted against restoring habeas corpus protections for foreign suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and others who are detained by U.S. authorities.

Today, the Supreme Court said Obama was right and McCain was wrong.”

It is infinitely preferable to have a president who believes in habeas corpus nominating justices for the Supreme Court.

And let’s not forget global warming. If McCain-Palin is elected the civilized world will lose the shrinking window of opportunity to reverse global warming. That means the polar ice caps will melt and Manhattan Island will be underneath the sea.

Click here to watch Obama’s video about energy plan to combat global warming.

McCain-Palin is not simply more of the same. McCain-Palin means irreversible calamity for America and the world. Electing Obama-Biden means progress and hope that America will address the challenges ahead and establish cooperative relationships with the civilized world. The future of civilization may well come down to how effectively we persuade undecided voters in Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio and Pennsylvania on November 4th. That is the sort of urgency we need to convey. Indeed that is the sort of urgency Obama himself must convey.

This isn’t reality television. This isn’t kids stuff. This is a choice between progress or calamity. Starting tomorrow we have fifty-four days to ensure the American people understand that choice.

The Real Stakes

John McCain wants Sarah Palin to distract voters from the real stakes of this election: blood, war and death. Don't let him get away with it.

Obama, McCain & the Infrastructure Thing

Sarah Palin has enabled John McCain to revive the culture war as we argue over who is the real elitist, sexist or patriot. We've seen these sorts of smokescreens from Republicans before. They're diabolically brilliant at distracting voters with visceral appeals to the politics of cultural resentment while exploiting America's dark underbelly of racism and xenophobia. McCain/Palin even have the chutzpah to campaign as patriotic change agents eager to fight on behalf of regular folks while promoting polices that amount to class warfare against wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.

How easy to get caught up in Sarah Palin's polarizing celebrity and lose sight of the real issues at stake. That's exactly what the GOP wants. I too have been consumed by the Palin phenomenon in recent days and the GOP's toxic convention. Well it's time to get back to basics. Obama did a good job of that yesterday with respect to the new unemployment figures. I'd like to take a moment and focus attention on another vitally important issue that's easily overtaken by cultural politics: infrastructure.

Infrastructure is the lynchpin for any nation's ability to compete in a modern global economy. Fifty-two years ago we had a forward looking Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower who signed The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. The law appropriated $25 billion for the construction of 41,000 miles of interstate highways. It was the largest publics works project in American history at the time. Gasp! It required the power of our federal government.

Ninety-percent of the project was paid through a highway trust fund while the states contributed ten percent of the funding. Eisenhower believed this law vital to America's national security interests to help the military to mobilize troops more effectively in case of invasion by a foreign power. Ultimately, the investment more than paid for itself through jobs, economic growth and the development of the suburbs.

However, the Interstate Highway System also resulted in vehicle pollution and increased our dependence on foreign oil. Hence, with global warming and collapsing bridges our infrastructure requires a twenty-first century upgrade. Senator Obama addresses this issue of infrastructure at his website:

"As our society becomes more mobile and interconnected, the need for 21st century transportation networks has never been greater. However, too many of our nation’s railways, highways,bridges, airports, and neighborhood streets are slowly decaying due to lack of investment and strategic longterm planning. Barack Obama believes that America’s long-term competitiveness depends on the stability of our critical infrastructure. As president, Obama will make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority."

You can read the rest of Obama's infrastructure program by clicking here. Among the details referenced on his website is his proposal to create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. According to the Obama campaign, the purpose of this bank is to,

"expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation. These projects will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity."

Now presidential candidates make many promises and one may have valid criticisms and questions about Obama's program. You might therefore be interested in comparing Obama's infrastructure program with John McCain's. However, when reviewing John McCain's website, his use of the word "infrastructure" is rather non-sequitor. For example:

"America cannot afford to lag in providing its citizens access to 21st Century infrastructure. Our children cannot count on a good education without high-speed Internet access. Without access, our citizens risk being left out of the societal and cultural changes that are sweeping the planet on a wave of innovation. Solving the problems of health care, immigration, climate change, and energy dependence all require connecting our citizens to a world-class network."

Hard to argue with the need for providing high speed Internet access. But what about modernizing our transportation system? Has he thought about that? McCain uses the word infrastructure again with this paragraph:

"As President, John McCain would continue to encourage private investment to facilitate the build-out of infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet connectivity all over America. However, where private industry does not answer the call because of market failures or other obstacles, John McCain believes that people acting through their local governments should be able to invest in their own future by building out infrastructure to provide high-speed Internet services."

Well that's nice. Once again McCain references the word infrastructure with respect to high speed Internet access. Wonderful that the man is finally taking an interest in the Internet and that he has such faith in the ability of local governments to address our infrastructure needs. Never mind that state governments are in dire economic straits and struggling to pay for any infrastructure improvements. As the New York Times recently reported, budgets gaps are forcing states to grapple with the risks of private financing for infrastructure projects to repair crumbling bridges, roads and airports. Among the potential risks is having foreign powers subsidizing repairs to our infrastructure.

Did I neglect to mention that John McCain is not offering a program with respect to modernizing our transportation and infrastructure? However, McCain's website (I wonder if he's read it) uses the word infrastructure three times with respect to America's space program.

For what it's worth, according to dictonary.com, there are three definitions to the word infrastructure:

1. the basic, underlying framework or features of a system or organization.
2. the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools.
3. the military installations of a country.
   

Yet when reviewing McCain's website, one can't help but wonder if he understands the meaning of the word. Ironically, the New York Times reported last year that McCain criticized congress following the Minnesota bridge collapse for failing to address infrastructure repairs:

“I think, perhaps, you could make an argument that part of the responsibility lies with the Congress of the United States,’’ Mr. McCain said at a town hall meeting here just outside of Des Moines. “Do you know what we do with your tax dollars every time you go and fill up your gas tank, and that money that flows to Washington as a result of that? We spend approximately 20 billion –b — billion dollars of that money on pork barrel earmark projects.’’

No doubt he had the "bridge to nowhere in mind" that his running mate was for before she was against. I'll give McCain credit for at least using the word infrastructure in its proper context at the time.

The upshot my fellow citizens is that John McCain and his Republican Party haven't applied any serious thinking to infrastructure since President Eisenhower. They don't care. The basics of good government such as infrastructure does not interest John McCain or his party. And if he becomes President America will continue to decline.

Barack Obama as he himself has acknowledged is not a perfect candidate. Personally I wish Obama was bolder and less risk averse. But at least the vitally important issue of infrastructure is on the front lobes of his brain.

Those of you who are activists like myself, please consider talking to people about infrastructure. For much of the summer I've struggled while phone banking against the undercurrent of racism and ignorance (he's a Muslim, he's all talk, he dissed the troops and so forth). However, most recently I have found myself getting traction when interjecting infrastructure into the conversation - even with people who seemed cynical or culturally opposed to Obama. Bricks and mortar is something everyone understands.

Thought of the Day

Remember when President Bush boasted he would smoke Osama Bin Laden from his cave? Well the McCain campaign is hoping the media will have an even harder time forcing Governor Sarah Palin to emerge from her hermetically sealed dungeon. If my guess is right however, a daily barrage of scandals and revelations coming from Alaska will force the McCain campaign to schedule some kind of press conference.

Regardless, October promises to be the most anticipated Vice Presidential debate since Dan Qualye and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. I only hope Gwen Ifill of PBS won't allow Palin to weasel out of tough questions.

Truth and Consequences

As this presidential campaign unfolds there are three truths being neglected by Obama and McCain, the corporate media and the entire political class:

• America no longer has the leverage, infrastructure and intellectual heft to maintain a corporate empire through military and economic power.

• Unless there is accountability for the Bush Administration’s war crimes committed since 9/11 America is in grave danger.

• Our society has insufficient institutions to safeguard the livelihoods of wage earners in a 21st century global economy.
  

The silence on these truths is deafening. As Frank Rich noted in today’s New York Times, the Bush Administration’s torture regime has actually facilitated the resurgence of al Quaeda. But Rich is only one truth teller within the decrepit corporate media establishment and he’s pissing in the wind. Meanwhile, in a post cold war world other countries don’t automatically rally to our banner. And in a post 9/11 world we’ve managed to alienate the civilized world while emboldening our enemies.

Our financial and banking system has become a brutal hockey game without impartial referees. McCain and Obama are debating whether to target tax cuts for the rich or the elusive middle class when we really need an entirely new socio-economic model. Christ, does McCain really believe that a balanced budget and holy jihad against pork barrel spending can be an elixir for the mess we’re in? And how does Obama really hope to assuage what ails America by violating the constitution and expanding Bush’s faith based initiatives?

Neither McCain nor Obama are addressing these realities because our culture doesn’t embrace truth. 2008 is 1932 on steroids. But Americans just want to elect somebody who will promise to let them party like it’s 1999. Do enough Americans get it? Do enough Americans want to get it? Ultimately, Obama and McCain are a reflection of us.

Memo To Obama: Enough of the Battered Wife Syndrome

I have supported Obama's candidacy since John Edwards departed the race. I still believe it was the right thing to do given the flawed alternative Hillary Clinton represented. To nominate Clinton would have been tantamount to rewarding poor judgment (Iraq) and bad behavior (race baiting). So I did some phone banking, donated to Obama's campaign and will continue to support his candidacy against John McCain. To elect McCain would be a calamity.

However, Obama's campaign has in recent days demonstrated the same chronic pathology of the Democratic Party itself: battered wife syndrome. Yes, I know the rationale is that Obama had to move to the center for the general election campaign. I understand that is inevitable and to some degree necessary. And I am willing to cut Obama some slack. Power without principle is barren and principle without power is futile and I appreciate the delicate balance. I also appreciate that as the first black nominee of a major political party Obama is walking a tightrope.

However, Obama's retreat on FISA resembles Bill Clinton's despicable calculation about welfare reform in 1996: removing an issue from the table and playing not to lose regardless of the human consequences. I don't want the standard bearer of my party to play not to lose when it comes to my civil liberties.

It's also bad politics. Jon Tester prevailed in his 2006 Montana senate campaign against Conrad Burns while opposing the Partiot Act! And Montana isn't exactly known for their latte drinking limousine liberals. They're plenty of civil libertarian minded people in America who would applaud Obama if he stood up for principle and opposed this corporate fascist legislation. FISA is corporate welfare and get out of jail free cards for the telecommunication companies. But the Democrats are so damn scared of the big bad elephant that their standard bearer ducks and covers when it's time to stand up and be counted! Or is Obama's stance appeasement for Democrats such as Jay Rockefeller, their ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee and a shameless whore for telecommunications money? Either way it's inexcusable.

Today, Obama again demonstrated battered wife syndrome and fearfully distanced himself from Wesley Clark. Clark merely had the temerity to suggest that McCain's history as a POW, while meriting our respect doesn't qualify him to be commander and chief. Clark didn't question McCain's patriotism or his service to his country like Republicans did to war veteran John Kerry in 2004. Wesley Clark is arguably the most effective surrogate the Democratic party has on national security issues and Obama allowed the McCain campaign to take him out!

It seems when Democrats are in a tight race their battered wife syndrome surfaces because they don't want to lose on the margins. And when the political winds are at their back Democrats become cautious because they don't want to blow a lead. We've seen this from Democratic nominees before. The stakes for America and the world are too high for Dukakis, Gore and Kerry redux. And what if you do win as expected Senator? As president, will you duck and cover as soon as the conservatives have a bug up their butts or disavow fellow Democrats like Wesley Clark who dare to challenge Republicans about their weak national security credentials? You're better than that. Act like it.

Grieving For Tim Russert

Unless hermetically sealed in a dungeon you know that Tim Russert sadly died from a heart attack yesterday at the age of 58. Death is an egocentric experience for survivors. When loved ones or public figures pass on it's human nature to think about our own mortality and even grieve over people we've never met. And so I find myself grieving over the passing of Tim Russert. Yes Russert was integral to a corporate media I’ve come to despise but somehow I always cared about what he said while others were easy to tune out.

Tim Russert represented a new breed of journalist I’m not comfortable with: someone who crossed over from the world of politics. Legendary sports broadcaster Howard Cosell used to derisively refer to the "jockocracy" of former athletes who crossed over to sports journalism as "analysts" but added little value at the expense of professionalism. That's often been my feeling about people such as Tony Snow and George Stephanopolous who cashed in on their celebrity and exploited the corporatization of broadcast media.

On the surface, Russert seemed to personify this new breed. Watch video of New York Governor Mario Cuomo's iconic speech at the 1984 Democratic National Convention and you'll see his smiling adviser Tim Russert sitting in the front row. Russert was an insider’s insider having served as Chief of Staff to New York’s legendary cerebral Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. How could such a man ever represent the people while covering the establishment?

And yet this new breed as represented by Tim Russert turned out to be a throwback to a bygone era. He relentlessly held the powerful accountable for their words and deeds. Russert first won my respect in 1992 when he grilled independent presidential candidate Ross Perot. At the time I didn’t watch Meet the Press regularly. I grew up watching ABC’s This Week With David Brinkley and regarded Russert as an unworthy upstart.

If you think back, at one point it seemed plausible that Ross Perot might prevail over a weak incumbent in George Herbert Walker Bush as well as a young embattled governor from a small state in Bill Clinton. Russert however skillfully exposed Perot as being out of his depth as well as illustrating a temperment not suitable for the presidency. Prior to that interview the media was consumed by Perot’s spell and Russert broke through in a way lifelong professionals hadn’t.

And so whenever Russert fell short I was instinctively more critical because I expected more from him. When someone establishes a threshold of excellence they have the burden of not falling below the standard they’ve set. And I always expected more from Tim Russert.

The shallow mediocrity of today’s media has become routine: horserace questions at the expense of substance, celebrity hype and regurgitation of the propaganda machine from the powerful in order to maintain access and preserve corporate interests. General Electric owns NBC so naturally their news division and Russert himself were not immune to those prerogatives and it frustrated me because I knew this smart guy with working class roots from Buffalo had to know better.

For example, Tim Russert consistently regurgitated the propaganda that Social Security was on the abyss, a position advocated by corporate interests represented in the media who wanted to privatize it. As Media Matters noted in December 2004:

“Media outlets and personalities, like NBC's Tim Russert, have generally repeated the Bush administration line that Social Security 'faces a crisis.' In fact, Social Security assets are not projected to be exhausted until 2042, at the earliest -- hardly the dire emergency the administration and the media portray. And even if no changes are made, tax income at that point would still cover 73 percent of costs, and the system could still pay out 68 percent by 2078.”

And as the Washington Bureau Chief of NBC News, Russert was complicit with the rest of the corporate media for failing to challenge the Bush Administration’s rationale for war. This exchange between Russert and Bill Moyers during a PBS documentary last year angered the hell out of me:

BILL MOYERS: What do you make of the fact that of the 414 Iraq stories broadcast on NBC, ABC and CBS nightly news, from September 2002 until February 2003, almost all the stories could be traced back to sources from the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department?

TIM RUSSERT: It's important that you have a-- an oppos-- opposition party. That's our system of government.

BILL MOYERS: So, it's not news unless there's somebody-

TIM RUSSERT: No, no, no. I didn't say that. But it's important to have an opposition party, your opposit-- opposing views.

In a post at the time, I wrote:

“How the hell does any reporter justify allowing a political party to interpret the truth? Political parties are not about truth. Political parties are self-serving entities dedicated to obtaining and maintaining power. Since the Democrats were spineless and didn’t provide an alternative dialogue, Pincus and Russert believe they should be excused from doing their jobs? Ridiculous. Yes, Republicans were feculent and irresponsible while Democrats were feckless and cowardly. All the more reason for the press to do their job and relentlessly pursue the truth.”

The Pincus I refer to in that post is longtime Washington Post national security reporter Walter Pincus. I expected more of people such as Pincus and Tim Russert. Nevertheless, Russert was superior at holding the Bush Administration accountable for their lies and misdeeds afterwards.

We’ve all seen the famous clip of Dick Cheney telling Russert Americans would be regarded as liberators in Iraq. Russert was infinitely more thorough than his colleagues at preparing for interviews and challenging presidential aspirants. As Republican nominee John McCain recalled:

“I once told him I haven't had so much fun since my last interrogation at prison camp.''

Barack Obama couldn’t be considered a serious candidate until he went one on one with Russert. Hillary Clinton’s ultra cautious staff knew that Tim Russert could not be ducked. You were not presidential timber if you avoided Tim Russert.

Personalities at NBC such as Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman have come under scrutiny for sexist remarks regarding Hillary Clinton this election season. Russert managed to be tough and hold Clinton accountable on issues such as the war or NAFTA without disrespecting her gender. As a man, a father, husband, brother and son, Russert wasn’t compelled to belittle women. Nor was he going to disrespect the first viable female presidential candidate by taking it easy on her. So many in the media struggled with the right protocol for covering Hillary Clinton’s candidacy while Russert simply remained a tough, thorough and fair professional.

Perhaps, Russert’s greatest legacy is cultural. His references to his father as “Big Russ” helped promote the ideal standards for fathers, sons and husbands: accountability, devotion to one’s family, respecting our wives and mothers, an optimistic work ethic and appreciation for our dads.

Tomorrow is Father’s Day and I grieve for Russert’s father who suffered the worst parental nightmare: outliving their children. How sad for Russert’s own son poised to celebrate Father’s Day following his graduation at Boston University to lose his Dad. For the rest of his life Father's Day will bring pangs of pain and I'm in pain just thinking about it.

I know that every Sunday morning I’m going to miss Tim Russert. This campaign it's become routine for me to go online and play some snippet of daily analysis from Russert. Now, every time I watch some pseudo journalist ask one horserace question after another in some short sound bite interview I will feel his absence.

Thankfully, I still have my own Dad to call on Father’s Day and talk about politics and life with. Nobody should ever take that for granted.

John McCain's Friend Phil Gramm

With the drama of the Obama/Clinton race finally over we can focus on the sharp contrasting platforms and personalities of Barack Obama and John McCain.

An old cliché is that we can judge people by the company they keep. McCain’s camp has vigorously tried to scare people about Obama’s associations. Well, if you’re a hard working wage earner consider John McCain’s friend Phil Gramm. In 1996, John McCain endorsed former Texas Senator Phil Gramm’s quest for the presidency. As a Senator, Gramm was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and worked hard to promote the interests of banks and credit card companies at the expense of wage earners and small business entrepreneurs.

Gramm is currently one of five campaign co-chairs for John McCain. One can surmise that Gramm, who fancies himself an expert on economics, will have a major influence and perhaps a senior position in a McCain administration. Gramm was also an advocate of undermining the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that mandated depository banks to contribute housing and small business loans in poorer communities to help people join the middle class. During the 1990s, the CRA under President Bill Clinton was actually enforced and helped raise the standard of living of people who needed it most.

Instead, John McCain's friend preferred to deregulate the financial services industry and promote predatory lending practices that enriched the wealthy at the expense of working people. Gramm is a classic practitioner of class warfare waged from the top. Furthermore, elitists have even scapegoated the CRA about the current mortgage housing crisis and look upon Phil Gramm as their ally on the inside. To learn more about the CRA and how it is being scapegoated, listen to my recent podcast interview with economist Jared Bernstein by clicking here.

Today, Phil Gramm is the vice chairman of a U.S. division of Zurich-based financial powerhouse UBS and as Newsweek reports:

“UBS has recently written off huge losses in subprime-mortgage-based securities, and last week liberal bloggers noted that Gramm was a registered UBS lobbyist on mortgage-securities issues until at least December 2007.

NEWSWEEK has learned that UBS is also currently the focus of congressional and Justice Department investigations into schemes that allegedly enabled wealthy Americans to evade income taxes by stashing their money in overseas havens, according to several law-enforcement and banking officials in both the United States and Europe, who all asked for anonymity when discussing ongoing investigations. In April, UBS withdrew Gramm's lobbying registration, but one of his former congressional aides, John Savercool, is still registered to lobby legislators for UBS on numerous issues, including a bill cosponsored by Sen. Barack Obama that would crack down on foreign tax havens. ‘UBS is treating these investigations with the utmost seriousness and has committed substantial resources to cooperate,’ a UBS spokesman told NEWSWEEK, adding that Gramm was deregistered as a lobbyist because he spends less than 20 percent of his time on such activity. Hazelbaker said the McCain campaign ‘will not comment on the details … of ongoing investigations and legal charges not yet proved in court.’”

As a liberal blogger, I am especially proud how Newsweek acknowledged that, “last week liberal bloggers noted that Gramm was a registered UBS lobbyist on mortgage-securities issues until at least December 2007.”

We liberal bloggers must remain vigilant in the pursuit of truth and relentlessly remind people of what John McCain and his supporters are really about. McCain will try to portray himself as a maverick reformer and change agent. Facts are stubborn things though as Ronald Reagan used to stay. McCain’s longtime relationship with Phil Gramm suggests that a McCain presidency would represent more corporatism and class warfare waged from the top.

Just A YouTube Post

I admit it. I have writers block. Even as I've been talking with people about the presidential campaign, phone banking for Obama and debating with friends/colleagues/acquaintances about policy, I just can't structure my thoughts in recent days. Suffice to say I am infuriated at the sensationalized coverage of Reverend Wright and how the media hype has dwarfed the more important issues pertaining to our foreign policy and economy.

Personally, I'm rather burned out by this campaign and it's only May. So much at stake. Our country is in trouble. The times could not be more serious. From my vantage point America is an empire in decline. Our education system is in decline. Our infrastructure is decaying. America's for profit health care system is making us sicker. Republican nominee John McCain is promoting a health plan that would reward employers for dropping their coverage. McCain's so called tax credit for people to buy insurance can't begin to keep up with the rising costs. Our military is overextended as we occupy not one but two nations with a back door draft. The world is poised to run out of fresh water because of global warming. And the campaign continues to become more vapid by the hour.

So, given the vapid discourse I thought I would post this humorous YouTube video entitled "The Empire Strikes Back" from an Obama supporter. It won't readdress the imbalance of the media coverage questioning Obama's "values." Nor will it raise the level of debate about the issues I referenced above. One could fairly argue that I'm just feeding the beast of superficiality by posting it. But for the time being it will make me feel better. And for now that's enough. I'll have more substantive essays and interview posts in the days ahead.