#18 -- Ulysses S. Grant.  He was a major military player in the Civil War, orchestrating many of the successful Union battles.  In 1866, he was named general of the armies, the first person since George Washington to hold that rank.  Grant's presidency was certainly characterized by many positives: his fight to help gain rights for African-Americans, including the passage of the 15th amendment, the positive direction of his Native American policy, and establishing the nation's first national park stand out as highlights.  However, there's a lot on the negative side: his administration was epically corrupt.  He continued Johnson's "efforts" to diminish the power of the President for his two terms.  The numerous scandals and his own political lack of experience, despite being such a strong leader on the military front, rendered his administration pretty much impotent by the middle of his second term.  So... EE: yes; good: no.

(Also, a quick shout-out to my friends Amanda and Dave, who earlier tonight as I talked to her was having contractions 4-5 minutes apart and contemplating a trip to the hospital to give birth to their first baby!  Good luck you guys!!)

Last week they ran an article on how the Democratic Primary was rigged for Obama, and in fact had been rigged years ago, in their own words:

The nomination was rigged, long ago. The people responsible for ignoring the will of the voters and selecting Barack Obama as the nominee have been plotting and planning for years. This was no accident. The full scope of what happened may never be known, but in hindsight some of it is obvious.

I'm a bit confused as to how they can even make such a leap... the other posts on the blog are insane, true, but this one steps into grounds of convoluted illogical assumptions that are so deep they stagger me. Have they forgotten that it was Hilary Clinton that led the charge to have the delegates unseated? Do they realize what they are suggesting? Their claim that the election was rigged via the treatment of Michigan and Florida is a claim that Hillary rigged the election for Obama...

They actually believe that Hillary Clinton, in their mind the rightful presidential nominee for the Democratic party, rigged the Democratic Primary so that her opponent, Barack Obama, would win. In what sort of universe does a conspiracy theory like this even make sense!?! It's like claiming that Kennedy hired his own assassin! This sort of stuff reaches so far down the well of crazy that I am really excited to see what they come up with next. It's like watching a car wreck, I can't stop reading their blog. It's a whole new level of insanity, and while it creeps me out, like the patron of a good horror movie I keep coming back for more.

If the crazy half-baked conspiracy theory wasn't enough, the author has the absolute audacity to suggest that Hillary's campaign is akin to the Civil Rights Movement. I'm sorry, but at that point the dose of crazy goes from funny to pathetic. If you really think you can compare a race's struggle to not only have the right to vote, but the right to attend the same schools, live and work where they want, and not have to live in constant fear for their lives, you are just pathetically misinformed.

Edit:They're even running an article today about how Obama was "supposed to pay" for Hillary's debt. Um, when was this decided? I know Hillary asked him to, but why should he? She didn't have the decency to bow out when it was clear to everyone else she had lost. She needs to pay her own damn bills. Obama is not liable for her irresponsibly continued campaign.

#12 -- Zachary Taylor.  Attained the rank of Major General in the Army and was a national war hero.  Having never held political office or even bothered with telling people his political leanings, it was pretty much a crap shoot when he won office to see what he would do.  It turns out he was pretty against the expansion of slavery, which incited the South.  But then he went and died of suspected cholera and never really got to see his policies through, as his veep, Millard Fillmore, took over and supported a somewhat different philosophy.  Had Taylor lived and won a re-election to see his policies through, it might have stemmed the spread of slavery and even, possibly, prevent the Civil War.  Besides that, though, he was fairly mediocre... scaled back on the pursuit of Manifest Destiny a great deal, made a treaty with Britain with unnecessarily large concessions, and no one in Congress took him seriously, so he couldn't otherwise get much done.  All that aside, I'm simply inclined to just not count him, between being unable to determine if he was a really good president, being undecided whether to count his army career as "executive experience" and the shortness of his presidency.

#13 - Millard Fillmore.  He was a VP, a U.S. Senator, a state senator (in NY) and the NY State Comptroller.  Lots of political experience to be sure, but no executive experience.  He took over after Taylor's death.  He supported the Compromise of 1850, which was a complex set of laws but to summarize, it made California a free state, allowed the possibility of Utah and New Mexico to enter the Union as slave states, and a couple other provisos that attempted to appease all sides but instead inflamed them all instead.  The Compromise did serve to probably delay what was now a nearly inevitable Civil War, so it can be credited for that.  Millard Fillmore also has a number of other accomplishments as part of his legacy - establishing trade with Japan, and presiding over a great number of foreign relations successes in his short tenure.  Common belief seems to be that his presidency was unremarkable, but given the tempestuousness of the times he found himself as President, it seems to me he did a pretty decent job.  He was not nominated to run for a second term more because the Whig party was in disarray more than for his popularity at the time.  So... I might be in the minority here, but...  EE: no; good: yes.

OK, I need to go to bed.  30 to go.  Yikes.

Seriously, though, was that Benny Hinn introducing him around a little over halfway through?  Hmmm.  Not sure the Hinn-Hagee connection bodes well.  And the whole new "Country First" slogan is a little too reminiscent of Deutschland Über Alles for my comfort.

Brokaw admits McCain can't touch Obama from last week, or Palin from last night.  I agree, and this was the consensus at work, among a pool of pretty rabid Republicans [sic].

Finally, the Crypt Keeper comes out.  A rock star he's not.  Maybe he should've been partying with Keith Richards instead of ...whatever it was he has been doing the last several decades.

Palin again with the Israeli flag lapel pin... what gives?

Okay, is it just me, or was the delivery of the "I just can't wait to introduce her [Palin] to Washington" line just a little creepy, in a Chester the Molester kind of way?

Johnny Windsock is going on about knowing who he works for; does that include Charles Keating, and his modern moral equivalents?  And the cost of living crap:  how can someone who is not even aware of how many houses he owns credibly claim to "know what it feels like" to have food costs skyrocketing?  (And leave aside the fact that he self-admittedly has no idea how the economy works)

He's going on about the "Contract on America" and the Reagan Revolution, and how the Republicans [sic] have lost their way in DC.  He conveniently leaves out the part about his complicity in every misstep along the way.  The guy that opposed each iteration of the Bush tax cuts is going on about lowering taxes... how, exactly, does that work?

What is this? Kindergarten?

McCain: blah, blah, blah Obama

Crowd: Boo!

McCain: Yadda, yadda, yadda Obama

Crowd: Boo!

McCain: Easily disprovable lie about how he -- and the government -- are the answer to all our country's problems

Crowd: (ecstatic applause)

Here's an idea:  stop new government programs, end existing governmental meddling, and strongly encourage self-reliance?

Ugh. Vouchers.  (Wild applause)

Ouch!  Slam on unions, and Mr Palin is in the audience.  How's that gonna work?

Privatizing (rather than abolishing) Social Security has to be coming soon...

Wha???  Ron Paul's platform worked its way into Windbag's agenda?  End $700 billion in foreign aid?  I must've heard that wrong.  Of course, he's talking about just the "bad" guys, not all foreign aid.

Lies upon lies about how many and what quality of jobs he'll create, and how few and how bad Obama's jobs would be.  As if the market has no power to do anything without direct government oversight.  Sheesh!

Georgia.  Georgia, Georgia, Georgia.  He pretends to have a balanced view of foreign policy, and doesn't disclose his deep attachments to other global players.  Feh.  Politicians.

Expounding his international relations experience.  What this really is, is veiled threats of untold wars.  And he tries to cover by claiming "the good of the country" and "I hate war."  It's a wonder the earth doesn't swallow him up for telling such whoppers.

"I'll change things in Washington."  Why would someone who's been a DC insider for three decades and has a vested interest in the status quo want to change anything?  And why do these shills believe him?

Again, with the POW.  Does his record only have one track?

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."  Where have I heard this before?

Wow... did you know Ol' Windsock was a POW?

Okay, I understand it was nightmarishly difficult.  I understand being in a VC prison camp and being tortured was a horror to live through.  But to take that experience and use it as a gimmick to spend a lifetime in service of himself and the unitary power of the state, it just defies reason...  the state is not the people, and the government is not the nation!

I was never the same again.  I was not my own man anymore, I was my country's.

Is this a tacit confession that he is bought and paid for?  Or I again reading something Machiavellian into this?

And the close... I;m better than Obama... I know you can;t tell if you look... nationalism, fascism, corporatism... and a sprinkling of hard-to-buy populism.  Cue balloons.  I said, cue balloons.  Cue balloons NOW! CUE THE FU-- okay, that's better.

And I am finally, totally, completely and perhaps irrevocably offended now.  Playing Heart over the end of McSame's convention speech?  Barracuda, even?  Okay, so now they've gone and completely ruined the '80s for me.

Jerks.

Gov. Palin, you've definitely given me the reason to vote FOR McCain rather than just voting AGAINST Obama.

---Media Lizzy

As prepared for delivery, here are excerpts from Senator John McCain's speech tonight:

On running mate Alaska Governor Sarah Palin:

"I’m very proud to have introduced our next Vice President to the country. But I can’t wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming."

On solving problems in Washington:

"The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn’t a cause, it’s a symptom. It’s what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you.

Again and again, I’ve worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That’s how I will govern as President. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not."

On love of country:

"I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s."

#8 - Martin Van Buren. He was a Secretary of State and a Vice President, which do not qualify him... but was governor of New York state for like 3 months. So that counts! Van Buren was instrumental in building the political system as it exists today, which is quite noteworthy. Historians, however, do not hold him, as a President, in very high regard. The United States went through a really bad economic depression during his tenure, and his insistence on clinging to his strong beliefs in Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democratic ideals prevented him from taking actions as President to ease the depression. Also, despite his leadership in the political arena, he somehow could not manage to get the Congress to pass any sort of measure to try to ease the depression until three years into it. His impotency seem to be his greatest presidential legacy. So... EE: yes. Good: no.

#9 -- William Henry Harrison. I simply don't have the heart to try to count him. It's way too hard to assess the value of his presidency when he died 32 days into it. Perhaps had he kept his coat on at his inauguration I'd have more to write about. Thus WHH gets a pass. What's interesting to note is that beyond this reputation regarding his unfortunate demise, I realized I didn't know a thing about him. He became a national hero as a general in the War of 1812, and before that has been governor of the Indian territory (present-day Illinois and Indiana) during which he managed to finagle the Native Americans out of thousands of acres of land for little to no compensation. His presidential campaign was notable for two reasons. First, it was the first 'modern' political campaign. Although WHH was from what might have been the wealthiest family in Virginia, his handlers managed to create an image of him as a commoner, a man of and for the people. Second, he was the first Whig elected to office.

#10 - John Tyler. Tyler was the first VP to take over the role of president because of the president's death. Before his 32 days as VP, his experience included being a lawyer, governor, and senator. It may be Tyler's greatest presidential accomplishment that he managed to become president after WHH's death at all; there was a lot of confusion over the wording in the Constitution regarding the succession of the veep should the president die, and not everyone thought that it meant Tyler should become the de facto president. His presidency also included the entry of Texas as a state... and little else. He was stubborn and uncompromising and thus just didn't get much done. Plus as a slave-owning aristocrat he was mostly out of touch with everyone in the country except other slave-owning aristocrats. So... EE: yes; Good: no.

Ten down, 33 to go! But alas I must pick up Lane from preschool.

I want to try to fit in a couple more old white dudes before I feed the kids lunch!

#5 - James Monroe. Monroe was a senator and governor of Virginia before becoming President, so he does have executive experience. Was he good? All signs point to yes! After all, his presidency was known as the "Era of Good Feelings". He made great strides in domestic policy, sponsoring greater feelings of nationalism. He is perhaps best known for the Monroe Doctrine (declaring the Americas' independence from colonization and foreign rule), which arguably set the USA's course toward being a superpower. So... EE: yes; Good: yes.

#6 - John Quincy Adams. He did a lot of ambassador type work, and served as a very successful Secretary of State under James Monroe. But no official executive experience. Adams was the subject of a lot of bad blood for the way the election went down, and was thusly rendered pretty impotent with Congress. While there's no argument with his accomplishments both before and after his presidency (when he actually served in the US House of Representatives for 17 years after his one term as President) his presidency is characterized by its lack of accomplishment. He had lofty and noble ideas, but they were often out of touch with the current political climate and he was hugely disliked as president. Andrew Jackson defeated him handily after his first term. So... EE? No. Good? No.

#7 -- Andrew Jackson. He was a plantation owner, lawyer, and military officer, among other things. By all accounts he was a very successful plantation owner, making a number of large land acquisitions and at one point owning upwards of 150 slaves. His military career was, in a word, legendary. He achieved the rank of major general and appears to have been the very model of one - he led some very important victories. One victory was over the Seminole in Florida, convincing Spain to relinquish their positions there and paving the way for Florida to become a state. Jackson also served as the first governor of Florida for a few months. So, I'd say he has executive experience -- the combination of successful plantation owner (and self-made at that), a heroic military career at a fairly high rank (major general isn't in my definition of executive power but he was very successful in his role), and his short time as governor. He also served as a Representative and Senator, but we all know that doesn't count. ;) His presidency is the subject of much speculation. Some seem to look toward his ability to reduce the national debt and expand the scope of presidential authority to raise him on a pedestal. Others see him as a tyrannical hothead who took everything personally, seemed to formulate his personal political beliefs out of spite, started the Spoils system, perpetuated the Trail of Tears and other Native American removals, and feel he was the closest to having a Caesar-type ruler as the U.S. has ever come. (One of his many nicknames was "King Andrew".) I'm not sure his moderate successes outshine the many negatives of his presidency. Thus, my personal inclination is to say he did more harm than good. So, I'm going to say.... EE: yes; good: no.

OK, time to feed the kids lunch. More coming soon!!

But does it matter?  Do you need that sort of experience to go down in history as a good president?  And if you have that sort of experience, does it help solidify your place in history as a good president?

This should be fun.  I love this sort of thing, and I'm sure I'll learn more about our past commanders-in-chief.  Maybe you will, too!  I'm way too lazy to cite stuff, so you'll just have to trust me that I'm not making anything up.  I'm just doing this for fun so I don't want to hear any grumbling about my lack of sources.  I'm doing this for me, for my own enjoyment, and just typing it up here so that others might get a kick out of it, too.

I'm going to write this as I research it.  Meaning, as I write, I'm not going to know what I find out about future presidents.  I'm going to start at #1, and go all the way through #43, summarizing the CV of each for its level of "executive experience" and then deciding if each has been remembered as a "good" president (mostly through my own opinion but I will try to be somewhat objective).  And I guess I should have a way analyze the results.  Maybe a comparative percentage presentation -- percent of 'good' presidents with executive experience combined with 'bad' presidents without executive experience (null) vs. percent of 'good' presidents without executive experience combined with 'bad' presidents with executive experience (alternative).  That should work.  I'd expect, based on the rhetoric during the Republican convention so far that the first percentage will be higher than the second percentage.  We shall see!

First, let's define "executive experience".  (And again, I have very little knowledge in the way of the backgrounds of the Presidents through the ages -- I have no idea what I'm going to find as I Google each man.)

OK -- executive experience:  Let's call it an 'executive' government job -- at minimally, the level of governor.  I'm simply not convinced that VP should count.  Yes, in the early days of the country they were elected separately, and nowadays they often play significant advisory roles, and they preside over the Senate counting votes and breaking ties, I gotta say, I just don't see how 'executive' it is.  And the Secretaries of the Cabinets.... on the face I want to count them, but they are heads of such narrowly focused organizations.... I just asked Frank and he votes no, not to count them.  So I won't.  Owning and/or running a fairly large business as CEO.  Attaining the rank of Lieutenant General or General in the Armed Forces (or Vice Admiral or higher in the Navy).  And maybe I'll give credit as I go for some other stuff.

I am not aiming to decree someone a good or bad person, or to lift up or decry their activities and accomplishments before and after the presidency.  Obviously our initial string of Presidents were all founding fathers, and in and that of itself is a measure of their personal greatness.  I'm trying to objectively form an opinion of these men as Presidents, independent of their other life achievements (or lack thereof).  So... should I decide that Thomas Jefferson was a crappy president, please don't crucify me.  I'll just decide, of my own opinion based on the trifle of things I read for each president, whether they were 'good' or 'bad' (ie. not necessarily BAD, but mediocre or worse).  Feel free to argue with me.  It will only increase my own learning on the matter.

So let's get to it, shall we?

#1 -- George Washington.  He was a General.  He led the entire Continental Army and then later the official United States Army.  Before his army career he was a farmer (a rich and successful one, though he did not make himself rich, he was 'old money'.)   Good president?  By all accounts, I would say so.  It seems pretty agreed upon how thoughtful and fair he was, and how he listened and sought out opinions from all sides before making a decision.  Most importantly, the new country did not crumble under his leadership, as it most likely had the potential to in those early years.  So:  EE: yes.  Good: yes.

Oooh, I'm going to need a spreadsheet.  If only I had a friend or two who liked this sort of thing...

#2 -- John Adams.  He was VP for eight years under GW.  Before that he served in what could be considered the legislative branch of the colonial government, first for the Massachusetts colony and then in the Continental Congress.  Before THAT he was a lawyer, who notably defended the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre and were subsequently charged with murder.  He achieved acquittals for six, and two were convicted of manslaughter.  So under my definition, he doesn't have the executive experience I'm looking for.  It seems to be generally agreed that while he was viewed unfavorably during his time, history has viewed John Adams with a more favorable eye.  Specifically, the U.S. was having major problems with France.  The American populace hungered to go to war with France.  John Adams managed to avoid war and even more so, become allies with France before the end of his term.  I have to vote that Adams, all in all, was a success.  Again, the fledgling country stayed afloat, and since there's "no such thing as a good war or a bad peace", avoiding a war with a major superpower of the time was obviously (to me and others) a pretty wise move.  So... EE?  No.  Good?  Yes.

#3 -- Thomas Jefferson.  Among his other notable accomplishments, like having Jeffersonian Democracy named after him, and penning a famous document or two, he served as Governor of Virginia for three years before becoming VP and then President after defeating John Adams.  There's no arguing that Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable and intelligent man, with an amazing gift for the written word.  But to look at the major events of his presidential administration, I have to say he may have done more harm than good.  Among the good was the Louisiana Purchase and commissioning the Lewis and Clark expedition.  The bad included being the author of the words "all men are created equal" but doing little to eliminate slavery as an institution, and only freeing his own slaves in his will, upon his death.  He chose during his administration to suspend all trade with England and France (as American sailors were being captured in great numbers by British navy ships and forced into service for the Crown) which sunk the country into an awful economic state.  This trade war eventually led to the War of 1812 with Britain, possibly the closest our country came to collapse.  Great man?  Legendary?  I'll say yes.  Good president?  Against every ounce of my being, against the fabled greatness, I'm going to say, no.  So.... EE: yes; Good: no.

#4 -- James Madison.  He mostly wrote the Constitution, and as a US Representative helped establish the first ten amendments to the Constitution, more commonly known as the Bill of Rights.  He was Secretary of State under Jefferson.  But, according to me, no "executive experience".  Most notable during his presidency was the War of 1812 with Britain.  Details aside, the U.S. won and remained an independent nation.  Rousing success, if you ask me, even if he bungled a lot of it, and even if Britain was a bit distracted by France at the time.  His policies also led to a stronger military and growing economic freedom and prosperity.  Maybe he wasn't a super duper fabulous president, but I think he made the most of the situations presented him.  So.... EE: no; Good: yes.

Damn, this is taking a long time to get through each one.  But I shall persevere!!  More to come!

By the way, about Giuliani:  I take back everything bad I thought about the Democrats' euphoric expressions during Obama's acceptance speech last week.  Every bad word, every bad thought.  Except that I foresaw the Republicans braying about this being the "most important election of your lifetimes."  That canard always pops up, especially over at the RNC.  But I would've been more entertained (if slightly more disgusted) if the Mayor of 9-11 had been all dolled up.

The applause, etc, seems a little contrived with Palin, at least so far; but she's apparently getting to them.  Breaking the ice by singing Johnny Windsock's praises.  Feh.

The thing that really, really bothers me about Palin is the Israel flag lapel pin.  I couldn't care less whether a pol wears a US flag pin or not.  Kiss my arse before I'll wear one.  I don't do free advertising for just anyone.

But if you're going to accept a nomination for VP of a country, and you're going to wear a country's flag as a lapel pin, wouldn't it be wise for them to be the same country?  Added to the grovelling before AIPAC she did recently, it seems she's just another Establishment shill, albeit with a fresh face.

I fear that all the talk burning up the ether about Palin's strong libertarian bent is smoke and mirrors if she's using that medium to advertise her true loyalties.

Of course, this could all be her way of endearing herself to the elites,  hoping they'll back McCain's play and give her entrée into the 2012 Presidency (because, let's face it, Johnny Windsock likely doesn't have a second term in him, between his age and his health), while doing her best to push a true small-government agenda.

For all of me, the jury is still out on this chica.  She's certainly engaging, and apparently has something to offer to just about any demographic.  We'll soon see.

It could not have been said better!

"...eloquence is no substitute for a record."

Senator Joe Lieberman on Senator Barack Obama's weak candidacy for President, at the Republican National Committee Convention, St. Paul, Minnesota, September 2, 2008. 

The words of wisdom, all the more poignant,from the man who ran as the Democratic Vice Presidential running of Al Gore in 2004, who now is an independent senator from the state of Connecticut.  Senator Joe Lieberman in support of Senator John McCain, at the risk of alienation from the Democratic Party.

"Joe Lieberman waves to the RNC delegates September 2, 2008"
Image courtesy of http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bush_convention_mccain/2008/09/02/127162.html. 

See:
1.  Transcript of Senator Joe Lieberman's speech to the RNC.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/sen_liebermans_speech_to_the_r.html.
2.  Review on Senator Joe Liberman at RNC. http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/bush_convention_mccain/2008/09/02/127162.html.

What a empassioned speech! Go Fred!!!

They have in their minds now that experimenting with drugs is completely acceptable, Barack did it. Smoking pot is no big deal, Obama did it. Smoking crack is no big deal, Obama did it. They aren't so much into heroin because Obama didn't do that. Students who just last year were in clubs and groups trying to convince others to stay off drugs, to thinking it's no big deal if Obama did it. Instead of keeping others off drugs through peer pressure and spreading the truth about what drugs do to your body, now they are willing to try pot and some even talk about how chilled they feel when they smoke it. Others, who were already experimenting, but not with the harder drugs have decided that crack is safe and not an issue at all, afterall, Obama did it and "he's gonna be president". Since Obama wrote about his drug use and since he's now been elevated from nowhere in a slick chicago way, the teens are really tuned in to him. They all want to be like Obama. "He's a brother" and gonna be prez. He smoked pot and used coke and is gonna be prez. It's not going to hurt me to smoke a little weed and snort a little coke, obama did it, so maybe it'll even "help" to do these things, I can be more like Obama.

Is this the role model we want for our children? Is this the behavior we want them to emulate? I don't want to see my students killed in car crash because they were too stoned to drive and I don't want to see them kill an innocent person because of it either. Oh, but it's ok, obama did it. He doesn't speak out against it, he does no anti-drug announcements, he doesn't consider what he did to be wrong and neither do they. This piss-poor role model needs to either do his job, or get the hll off the ticket. Doesn't matter if you don't have a resume, doens't matter if you don't have experience, as long as you can be a sexist pig, call your opponents racists, use drugs to your heart's content and plagarize speeches to read off a teleprompter, you can be POTUS because the great Arugula said you could. No Birth Certificate? Well, he ran out of rolling papers and needed something. Multiple passports? Not if they can't find them. Citizenship problems? Buy people off, no big deal.

Hope and Change. Yeah, "hope" for what? hope they can find rolling papers or a nice bong? "Change" to what? Change to using cocaine instead of just marijuana like obama did?

This is NOT "hope and change" we can believe in, this is hope and change that will destory our nation.

I'm happy with McCain's VP pick, it's going to make voting for McCain all the more easy in November.

Item:
The focus on being "qualified" for the office of POTUS has two problems with it. The first is that it should be a priority topic during the primary election cycle, not the run up to the general election. While it is mete and proper to question a candidate's executive skills, his nomination by his party should be the final word on his being "qualified"... of course, pundits in the opposition are free to question the electorate of the other party nominating a candidate who arguably is less than fully competent for the post, but this is not an invitation to bash B... um, yes. ;) The second problem is in the lack of objectivity in determining what the qualifications should be. Since I'm practicing how to be brief, I'll expand on that with just one point: the Commander-in-Chief is defined as the civilian commander of the nation's military. It is grossly ignorant at best and willfully disingenuous at worst to demand that a president also have military experience. We want him to be a skilled executive, not a battle strategist. That's why we have professional soldiers in charge. It is their job to conduct wars and give critical feedback on the orders they receive; it's the C-in-C's job to make the highest level decisions and order the soldiers to implement them or order them to desist in actions contrary to them.

Item:
There really is no polite way to put this, and I'm generally not caring to try to be polite in this topic... The American electorate is incompetent to elect the POTUS, and they willingly conspire with the campaign strategists to keep it so.

I have no intention of being brief on this one, fair warning.

Who would you rather have in the White House? On the one hand: a combination of sexy girl-next-door and universal mother (the Greeks and Romans had much to say on that combo) who will look to the Bible first and listen to advice second... or a 4'6" 180-lb. spinster with an advanced degree in international relations and the best circle of advisers she can find? The latter stereotype doesn't currently exist to my knowledge, and the former is only a coincidental resemblance to Gov. Palin, who does deserve respect for her career to this point.

The question I'm asking is this: do you (general) really believe that a person's appearance is a worthy qualification for leadership?

I have the utmost contempt in mind when saying that the vast majority of my fellow citizens answer that question with a resounding "yes" in every election. Candidates spend a substantial amount of time and money on how they look and sound, regardless of the issues of the moment or the day. They want to look attractive and sound honest -- and vice versa... and they have no care for actually being honest and letting the eligible voters decide if they believe them or not. Let me clarify that: the candidates who are actually honest and want to do what I just implied they should do are convinced by past experience and their advisers to play the game instead. Their election opponents will play, and not playing is too much of a disadvantage to overcome and win... winning being, of course, the only goal. The American Voter buys this, encourages this, indeed punishes candidates who want to break from that mold and actually present an honest image.

So, I have two messages, one for each camp:

My dear Obamaniacs, please put your candidate under a microscope and examine him in detail. Find reasons to vote for him that have nothing to do with how he makes you feel. This has been a public service announcement in beginner's civics and the duties of citizens who have the right to vote.

My dear undecideds who now will vote for McCain because of his choice of VP, get your heads and hands out of your trousers (both genders!) and take a look in the mirror. If you now plan to vote for Palin after spending many weeks or months agonizing because you can't quite vote for McCain, you deserve to be taken out back and bombarded with verbal insults after being stripped... of your right to vote. You truly do not understand your duty as a voting citizen, and I'm no longer so patient as to let you learn your lesson by getting the POTUS you deserve... because I'm dying out here, and I'm running out of options.

Oh, who am I, you ask? Good question. I am the 21-year-old whose chosen career and skill set has, in the middle of the previous four years of my college career, become a ticket to flipping burgers; I am the young father or mother leaving children behind so I can be maimed and killed in an undeclared war; I am the single mother holding three jobs and still in need of the public assistance that no longer exists; I am the middle class white-collar person who did not take out a mortgage I couldn't afford, doesn't buy a tank (SUV) and makes his kids pack themselves into the back seat of a 33mpg economy car; I am the hard-working blue-collar Atlas of the American economy (no, that's not sarcasm, they really are) who yearly watches the Board of Directors and shareholders bitterly complain because their stock dividend is "only" 10% higher than last year, while they vote to slash this year's raise, increase my share of benefit costs, and spend some of their profits on lobbyists and campaign contributions for Republicrats and Democans who cut their tax liabilities directly or look away as they prance through loopholes to greater wealth.

Rounding up coverage of Biden reaction last week, I quoted former Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson, who thought that Obama going the old white political insider route “gives an opening to the McCain campaign to pick a woman or make an out-of-the-box selection.” Well, today the McCain campaign took that opening and charged through it:

(h/t Petulant for the vid)

Now, before you get all ZOMG glass ceiling shattered!!1 at the prospect of a female veep (which begs the question: why didn't McCain vet Senator Clinton, hmm? No. Re. Spect.) keep in mind that Palin is, by and large, a Trojan hammer, as NARAL president Nancy Keenan outlines in the following press release:

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that Sen. John McCain’s selection today of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate is further evidence that a McCain presidency will be just another four years of the same old Bush-style anti-choice policies. Just like McCain, Palin opposes a woman’s right to choose. Palin has also stated her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

"John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate proves just how rigid and extreme his administration would be when it comes to a woman’s right to choose," Keenan said. "For 25 years, McCain has opposed a woman’s right to choose, and we know that he will continue to push anti-choice policies in the White House. McCain’s pick of anti-choice Sarah Palin is further evidence that his White House will be just another four years of Bush-style policies. Any remaining doubts about McCain’s extreme anti-choice position should be put to rest when voters learn about the combined anti-choice records of Sarah Palin and John McCain."

Palin, a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.]

"Americans are tired of the kind of divisive anti-choice policies that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin have pledged to continue to support. The contrast between pro-choice Sen. Obama and anti-choice Sen. McCain is clear. Voters are looking for a leader who respects women’s freedom and privacy. Barack Obama is that leader."

Sen. McCain’s selection of Palin as his vice-presidential running mate is especially troublesome for the unique audience of women voters NARAL Pro-Choice America is targeting: Independent and Republican pro-choice women in suburban and exurban swing districts. These women play a pivotal role in the presidential election. Recent polling confirms how, once these voters know McCain’s extreme opposition to a woman’s right to choose and family planning, they will switch parties to support Sen. Barack Obama.

NARAL Pro-Choice America, which tracks all choice-related votes in Congress and ranks all 50 states on the status of women’s reproductive rights, classifies Sarah Palin as anti-choice.

Information about the polling can be found here. Learn more about NARAL Pro-Choice America’s actions to educate voters on McCain’s anti-choice record at www.MeetTheRealMcCain.com.

This 2005 Nerve article by Lynn Harris gives some background on Feminists for Life:

According to its tastefully designed website, FFL — describing itself as a "nonsectarian, nonpartisan, grassroots organization ... shaped by the core feminist values of justice, nondiscrimination, and nonviolence" — "recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women." The goal of the group: "systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion — primarily lack of practical resources and support — through holistic, woman-centered solutions."
Well, that's refreshing. No railing against the ladies for making selfish choices, no little pictures of tiny feet. A commitment to non-violence, a focus on the "root causes" — they use the word " holistic," for God's sake. It all sounds entirely reasonable, doesn't it?
Try radical. The group believes abortion is an act of violence that is unacceptable under any circumstances. Unacceptable under any circumstances. Including rape, incest, major fetal defects, and danger to the mother's life. This position — "holistic solutions" aside — puts [FFL] to the right of their sister organization, Attila the Hun for Life.

Not only that, but FFL is sketchy about birth control. "Preconception issues, including abstinence and contraception, are outside of our mission," reads their website. "Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while
others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons." So it's not clear precisely how FFL would go about reducing unwanted pregnancies. Or, for that matter, rape and incest.

Katha Pollitt disputes FFL's appropriation of the 'feminist' moniker:

It is indeed feminist to say no woman should have to abort a wanted child to stay in school or have a career--FFL's line is thus an advance on the more typical antichoice position, which is that women have abortions to go to Europe or fit into their prom dress. You can see why their upbeat, rebellious slogans--"refuse to choose," "question abortion," "women deserve better"--appeal to students. (But what do those students think when they find that the postabortion resources links are all to Christian groups and that FFL's sunny pregnancy-assistance advice includes going on food stamps or welfare?) Exposing the constraints on women's choices, however, is only one side of feminism. The other is acknowledging women as moral agents, trusting women to decide what is best for themselves. For FFL there's only one right decision: Have that baby. And since women's moral judgment cannot be trusted, abortion must be outlawed, whatever the consequences for women's lives and health--for rape victims and 12-year-olds and 50-year-olds, women carrying Tay-Sachs fetuses and women at risk of heart attack or stroke, women who have all the children they can handle and women who don't want children at all. FFL argues that abortion harms women--that's why it clings to the outdated cancer claims. But it would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer, filled every woman's heart with joy, lowered the national deficit and found Jimmy Hoffa. That's because they aren't really feminists--a feminist could not force another woman to bear a child, any more than she could turn a pregnant teenager out into a snowstorm. They are fetalists.

All of which makes me wonder if, by picking Palin as his running mate, McCain is actually making a play for pro-life Evangelicals and Catholics, rather than disaffected Clinton voters. By tapping a socially conservative abortion foe, the McCain campaign may be attempting to once again make the Christian Right vote a factor in November, after many believed religious conservatives didn't trust McCain enough to wholeheartedly support him. David Waters of WapO's On Faith points to a recent CBSNews.com interview with Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission:

CBSNews.com: Who’s on the list of people mentioned for VP that you think would most excite Southern Baptists and other members of the conservative faith community?

Richard Land: Probably Governor Palin of Alaska, because she's a person of strong faith. She just had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child. And there's a wonderful quote that she gave about her baby, and the fact that she would never, ever consider having an abortion just because her child had Downs Syndrome. She's strongly pro-life.

She's a virtual lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She would ring so many bells. And I just think it would help with independents because she's a woman. She's a reform Governor. I think that, from what I hear, that would be the choice that would probably ring the most bells... .

And, true to Land's prediction, (church) bells are ringing in exultation, as noted by Waters:

Evangelical leaders were elated Friday.

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council:

"Sarah Palin clearly addresses the issues so many conservatives are concerned about. It balances out the ticket," said Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council. "She's also really a checkmate for the Democratic Party because folks who were looking to make history for Barack Obama can make history by voting for John McCain in seeing the first woman elected to the vice-presidency. It was a very strategic move by John McCain."

Pro-life advocates and website were buzzing Friday about McCain's choice.

"Sarah Palin is the whole package. There couldn't be a better vice presidential pick," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an influential pro-life PAC. "By choosing the boldly pro-life Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has taken his stand as the one true, authentic pro-life ticket."

"[T]he one true, authentic pro-life ticket." I have a feeling McCain's [deliberately ambiguous] latter day pro-life branding effort has completely answered any lingering doubts conservative Christian voters may have held regarding his commitment to key socon issues. Instead of an 'out of the box' decision, choosing Palin as his VP nominee amounts to more of the same from John McCain: "a classic, Rovian appease-the-base choice."

Update: Ramesh Ponnuru believes the cons outweigh the pros with regards to Palin as VP. Interesting analysis, as Ponnuru is, theoretically, representative of the market being targeted.

Update 2: More on the conservative reaction to Palin @ The Great Orange Satan (h/t Chet).

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

I watched as Sen. John McCain selected Palin as his VP. Tremendous showing of 'humanize' I must say. I think Gov. Palin said it best. "Hillary made 18 million cracks in that glass ceiling and I don't think that women are finished."

I have to thank Senator McCain for appointing a woman. It clearly took guts.

As far as Republicans go, I have to say John McCain doesn't give me the dry heaves. Sure, he graduated 894th out of 899 from his class at Annapolis (and probably only got in because daddy and granddaddy were admirals). Sure, he cheated on his disabled first wife when he came home from being a POW and she'd been in a car accident and she wasn't the stunning beauty he'd left behind to go to war. And that whole "you're rich if you make over $5 million a year" claim was a bit nauseating. Still, I can give him props too. That whole POW thing. That he still supports his ex-wife financially (and voluntarily so) that she may get the best treatment. He may be a bit crazy but I think deep down he's got a good heart and he loves this country. If he won, I wouldn't get the sense of impending doom that I got when W won both times. I wouldn't be happy, and I certainly don't want him to win, but I do think he's a notch or two above a George W. Bush/Cheney administration.

And you just gotta love this VP pick. I'm not naive enough to think that he did it to ensure a history-making winning ticket no matter who wins, though that is very cool. I can see this for what it obviously is -- direct pandering to the hoards of undecided Hillary Clinton supporters who are thinking about not voting for Barack Obama because they are "disenfranchised with the primary process" (aka they are sore losers). The McCain camp obviously things these hoards want to get behind a woman -- ANY woman -- and were thus more than happy to offer one up for them. I find this kind of insulting, because it assumes (and perhaps rightly so for at least some of the Hillary supporters) that the only reason they liked Hillary is because she has a vagina. I hope at least some of her now disenfranchised supporters liked her for more than that, had more reason than than to offer her their support. But maybe not.

Anyway, despite the motivation for the choice, it does make me happy to see an election where we're going to end up with an historic result. I'm so, so glad for it. It renews my hope.