It's a bit early, but this thing looks to be wrapped up in convincing style. Not Reagan convincing, but Clinton convincing, which, these days, is a welcome change from the lawsuit ridden elections of the last eight years.

I make my political opinions pretty well obvious, so it should come as no surprise that I voted for McCain. Regardless, this is a tremendous barometer for how far we've come. If I wasn't such a political junky, the historic nature of Obama's campaign may very well have been enough for me on its own. For the black community (and really, all minorities) this win is nothing short of monumental. It's hard not to be incredibly proud of our country tonight.

I have more than a few Republican friends who will disagree with me, but if Obama governs as a centrist -- which is what he ran as, but what many felt his record didn't show (myself included) -- he'll do very, very well. If he allows an all Democrat congress to drag him left, expect a whole new crop of cynics to emerge. If he, like Bush, fails to exercise his veto power against his own party, 2012 will be incredibly heated and incredibly devisive.

According to exit polling on the magic tv set (albeit early), 22% of voters identified themselves as liberal, 44% as moderates, and 34% as conservatives. We're still identifying ourselves as a center-right country. Bush/Cheney failed to recognize that in 2004 when they declared their win a "mandate," pissing off ~66% of the country all at once. Obama/Biden should be careful not to make the same mistake. A great first step would be to follow McCain's pledge to create a bi-partisan cabinet. We'll see.

Anyhow, enough waxing for now. Congrats to my dem friends who were involved with his, and others', campaigns.

Obama wins, 328-210 ev count, by 5% +/- 1 popular vote.

Of the big states in question, Obama wins Virginia and Ohio but not Florida.

Regardless of who you support -- go vote.

A better way to elect?

Been awhile since I posted some poli-talk regarding the campaign.. So.. here we go. Random rants.

Economy

Man, what a complete and utter change of pace in this president election. Starting with McCain's grandstanding of the suspension of his campaign for the bailout (which the notion of going back to dc, I agreed with, the method? well.. lets just say it was a little awkward.), this thing has swung 100% in Obama's direction.

Go back over the last 100 years worth of presidential elections and find an incumbent party who wins after October suffers a stock market decline. Now consider that the stock market decline is the worst since the depression era. (there is only one president who has won after a big decline, which was W. in 2004).

My specific policy concerns with McCain have come through this economic ordeal. The truth is, I don't care for either candidates economic proposals. It seems like the country is busy creating ways to reward those who make poor choices and ignore those that have acted responsibly. No wonder our 'capitalist' structure has, according to the media, been threatened. We're simply not capitalists anymore. At least, if we are, they don't seem to live in Washington.

Sarah Palin

Most candidates move to the center during the general election. At the start of this general, both Obama and McCain seemed to be moving closer to their respective parties. Obama had to make up to the Clinton crowd and win back some fans, and McCain felt the need to get the evangelicals on board. The difference between the two is that McCain didn't seem to stop trying to appeal to that portion of the base. At one point around the Palin pick, McCain held a 15% advantage over independents. That's gone now, and will likely be a key figure in his loss this November. McCain's correct when he tells Obama that he is not President Bush. No matter how much Obama and his supporters want to say they are the same, it's just not the situation. The problem is that while McCain is saying that, he's spending an awful lot of time and money trying to look like he's cut from the same clothe. I don't get it.

Then again, without Palin on the ticket, this thing would have probably been over a long, long time ago. So, there's that.

Colin Powel

Today's endorsement of Obama by one of my favorite washington figures (Colin Powell) serves as a reassurance that we, collectively, always find a way to figure it out. I'll likely send in my absentee ballot (which is sitting on my desk) with a vote for McCain, but Obama will have every opportunity to earn my vote for 2012. As I've said previously re. Obama, I'm fascinated by the guy. I love his books, I think he has correctly identified many of the problems our country faces, I'm just a little gun shy on his proposals and policies. More importantly than that, I can't stand me some Nancy Pelosi.

McCain Rallies

Oh come on. How many republican protestors were arrested at the DNC? How many "Abort Biden" shirts have you seen vs "Abort Palin?" How many times has Obama stood up and corrected someone at one of his rallies for attacking McCain like what McCain did for Obama last week? Wasn't it Obama who told his supporters to go door to door and "get in their face and argue?" You know how pissed I'd be if someone had the audacity to come to my front door and "get in my face" over a political election?

I, personally, have never before seen this kind of intensity out of the left. I'm simply not that pissed off, and yes, I pay a whole lot of attention. The reason I'm not that pissed off is because I also read a lot of history. Things simply repeat in this country and we do the best that we can to contend with changing dynamics. It's part of life, not the end of times. I know that there are Republicans that are uber pissed/scared, but I haven't met any of them. I've only seen them on TV. As far as democrats go, all you need to do is read twitter and count the personal attacks against Palin and McCain. It's 100%, without a doubt, shameful. You're free to not like a candidate or all the candidates. The irony of it is that all of them are far more accomplished than most of us will ever be. They've dedicated their life to public service. Show some respect already. On both sides.

McCain's Chances

So goes Ohio, so goes the nation. With early voting taking place already, this thing is likely already over for McCain. Let's just hope it doesn't come down to a margin within the massive voter fraud taking place there. (then again, Obama is an awful lot like Kennedy.... heyyoOOOO! ;). Chances are though, that it'll be a solid national win for Obama. All the signs seem to be pointing to that, and there are only two weeks left.

I'll say this though, I will not be one of those people who bitch about it incessantly with the "not my president" bumper sticker and the "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. We're a republic. We vote. Candidates win or lose and we go on with our lives. Win graciously, lose graciously. Those silly, childish bumper stickers do nothing but promote the false notion that you bear no responsibility for our country. We're all in this together.

Anyhow.. That's enough rambling for now ;)

I've been swamped lately and haven't had too much time for the poli-talk. Plenty of it going around as it is anyway, though I've been itching to critique some of the things going on with the McCain campaign.

I wanted though, to jump in on the small business discussions going around. I have had a few people tell me that small businesses making more than $250,000 are the exception, not the rule, and they'd love to be banking 250k ebt, etc.

I think this is where it's important to keep a little perspective.

Small business is defined in the U.S. has companies with 100 employees or less. Let's take a 100 person company, and divide $250,000 in revenue out. That leaves you with $2500 for each employee to cover costs, salary, etc -- with nothing left over for reinvestment, growth, rent, utilities, supplies, etc.

$250,000, more likely, is about enough to cover 5 employees with enough left over to reinvest, pay benefits, taxes, rent, utilities, etc. etc. Even with that, thats assuming each employee makes/costs around $30,000-$40,000 a year.

But, but, that's all a write off! Yep. But it's a discussion about growth, not maintaining. If you want to grow your company, you'll need to reinvest a substantial amount. Keeping $250k isn't something that will get you very far, especially in the midst of a credit crisis where no one can borrow anything. It's a lot of money when looked at as take home revenue for one individual owner, it's not when looked at from a re-investment stand point. For my tech friends -- think about blowing up a startup with full time employees with $250,000 in total VC money. It may be enough to get you going, but heaven forbid a speed bump shows up.

And thats the argument. Companies looking to grow need to keep every penny they can in order to properly reinvest and survive economic swings. If we're looking to create jobs, we need to grow business. We're heading into a questionable economy that will likely take years to play out. Companies, specifically small ones with out a lot of resources, need to be very, very cautious of cash flow. Higher taxes will almost certainly play a part of that. And regarding companies banking far more than that, if we want to keep jobs here, we need to provide manageable corporate tax rates (one of the major reasons AB sold to InBev earlier in the year.) We're global now and "them's the breaks".

It wasn't that long ago when it was the primaries. Obama, when pushed, admitted he may not be able to implement his tax policy immediately depending on the economy. He knows, precisely, what the costs of this are. And that's fine. He calls it like he sees it, which is, to quote him, "to spread the wealth around." (the joe the plumber discussion).

I'm just surprised by how many Obama supporters aren't willing to call it out the same way. Look past the talking points (for both candidates). Tax increases do not equate to higher revenue. Tax cuts do not equate to lower revenue. There are pros/cons to both plans, and truthfully it likely maps out to a bell curve when it comes to growing the economy properly. Our goal is to find the right mix of tax rates to reach the highest point of efficiency. With a decreasing amount of growth, the answer isn't to raise taxes to cover spending, it's to cut spending and provide as much relief as possible to tax payers. Specifically tax payers looking to grow revenue (and even more specifically, companies looking to take revenue in from other economies around the world, but I digress).

I have to be honest. It's not easy being a right leaning technology guy.

Shocking, I know.

Every time I post something, it's typically because I'm noticing strong reactions to a certain topic or I feel like I'm not seeing my viewpoint represented in other places around our little "world." There's a risk associated to talking about politics, regardless of your opinions. In the new media world, I feel like there is an even larger risk associated to talking about things from a republican stand point.

But there's a funny thing I've noted about the posts I've written. They've generated far less comments, but far more e-mails and personal interactions in real life. Yesterday at BlogOrlando, this was experienced in a very real way. I had a handful of people come up and start telling me how much they've enjoyed reading some these posts, even if they've disagreed. The conversations that were generated by these interactions were thoughtful, well balanced, and frankly very much the type of thing our country needs more of.

Now, it's impossible to know how many have stopped reading or stopped following because of the poli-talk, but I'm not sure if it's an important metric. I like surrounding myself with folks who are willing to listen/read things that they disagree with. Fanaticism is born out of echo chambers. It always has been, and it always will be. Our nation relies on cognitive dissonance to maintain a relatively balanced existence.

We've been told, repeatedly, that the two major parties each represent two completely different directions for our country. That we've never before experienced such an important election. We've been told that we're on the verge of either falling apart or rising up for the "next great chapter," or that the "other guy" is going to get us all blown to hell by our enemies. I, largely, don't buy it.

We've allowed these things -- these sales pitches from people selling us something -- to divide us and start referring to people as "idiots" if they vote for this person or that person. We've seen people "outraged" by Obama or Palin's lack of experience. For perspective, ask folks about something truly outrageous, like Darfur, and note their general apathy. It's because they're reacting to very well crafted pitches that suit whatever ax they're looking to grind.

This sort of thing lends itself to people breaking off into their comfortable little groups that all agree with each other. You'll see them, on either side, start patting each other on the back and celebrating their obvious intellectual superiority to the other side. The funny outcome of this is that on issues where the majority agree, people tend to assume it's the other guys who are standing in the way. I've been using nuclear power as a way of feeling this tendency out. Pro-nuke plant dem's have this belief that it's the "big oil republicans" that have stood in the way. Forgetting that it was the pro-trees portion of the left that stopped the President Bush inspired energy bill to build more nuke plants back in 2005/2006 (wait, isn't W an oil guy?)

I guess I share my contrarian point of view not to convince people that I'm correct, and certainly not to start fights or make people uncomfortable. I share these things largely to interrupt the echo chamber that our little online world has become. Challenge everything, view things from as many vantage points as you can, and decide your views on an issue because you've thought about it and reached a conclusion based on the information that you've seen, not because your candidate (or your party) says so.

If you want to point political fingers about our current housing meltdown, it might be good idea to know a little background information.

Here's a start.

Somebody might want to tell the Obama campaign exactly why McCain isn't able to use a computer and email.

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. - Boston Globe (circa 2000).

I haven't posted much about the campaign in few days or so. It's tough to know where to even start. The media/Obama campaign/DNC keeps walking into trap after trap. Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, it's hard not to acknowledge that August was simply abysmal for the Democrats. September, so far, appears to be heading in a similar direction. Obama now trails in national polls and is dead even in EVs (he was previously dominating both).

My general thought has been that Obama has yet to run against John McCain. First, he was running against Bush, which if you follow politics outside of every four years, you'd know Bush & McCain are as close to mortal enemies as a political party would allow for (with apologies to Ron Paul, of course).

Then he was running against a VP candidate in Sarah Palin. Inexperience only calls attention to his own, religion arguments only bring up Rev. Wright, can't go after earmarks because he requested $1 billion of them, and can't say hardly anything without it being twisted into sexism charges (whether it is or isn't, i.e. "lipstick on a pig")

This ad is supposed to be the first in a long line of "sharpened attacks" against Sen. McCain. We'll have to see if this little over sight of theirs gets picked up outside political dork media (I saw it at National Review), or if Obama's camp keeps hammering on it.

If I had to stereotype a presidential election, I'd say that Dem's create a story/narrative. Republicans poke holes in it until everyone grows cynical towards that story/narrative. I read something on Politico that basically said President Clinton's whole gig is to not make the campaign about him (he'll only do that to his wife's campaign, I guess). I'd imagine that was a big part of his success. There wasn't much to poke a hole in. Compare that to war hero Kerry. By October, everyone had started to remember he and Jane Fonda and all the war protests.

The Republican camp has started picking apart Obama's narrative in a way that spins things in their direction. They've characterized Obama has a snob. Elitest, pretentious, egotistical -- the whole bit.. Making fun of someone for not being able to physically do something -- that has the potential to play right into that caricature and fuel the charges. Not to mention it's more red meat for the base to get fired up over.

Whether or not McCain's camp will respond to it, who knows. I'd suspect that they won't, actually. At least not formally. We'll likely see it on Bill O'reilly and all the conservative talk shows, and it may echo out from there.

Funny/well made. Enjoy ;)

Well, she's got grit, that's for sure.

This whole time we've been thinking that the narrative is experience vs. non experience. I criticized the Biden pick over it, as I wasn't not sure how it fit in. Damn near everyone criticized the Palin pick for the same reasons. I guess for me, there was a sense that things weren't what they seemed, and we'd have to wait for her to talk to be sure. Typically, narratives aren't set until the convention. This has just been such a long and painful campaign cycle, it felt easy to jump the gun.

I thought there might be experience and woman issues as major story lines. What I missed though, is something that I think Steve Schmidt deserves a whole lot of credit for. The narrative is neither of these things, at least, primarily.

The plot has turned into small town America vs big cities.

I had all but forgotten the "they cling to guns and religion" comment. That was truly a turning point for the Obama/Hillary showdown if you put it on a time line. I think it was Peggy Noonan who said there are ~250 cities with 100k or more, and 100k or more cities with 10k or less.

To put it in geek terms, small towns are the long tail in American politics.

So what does this mean for the race? No idea. All I know is McCain stands a much better chance today than he would have with a tradional pick. There are about 60 days left until the election though. Lot's of things can happen, and some of the dirt being thrown at Gov. Palin may very well stick. We've yet to see any real polling numbers on any of this but should start to get a better idea in a week or two.

National polls don't matter much, instead watch polling in Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Penn, and Virginia. Penn is a long shot for republicans, it'll be more about trying to force Democrats to spend money and time defending it. Indiana and Minnesota are other long shots for both parties. To give you an idea of how close this election is, if everyone voted Today, Obama would win by less than a state. If Colorado, which has traditionally been republican and is now on the fence, again votes republican, McCain wins. This isn't the landslide a lot of folks like to pretend it'll be.

I should say, since I have a lot of friends who are over the top Obama supporters, that I'm fascinated by the guy. I keep his 2004 DNC speech on my ipod, after he gave it I immediately read his first book and then when his second book came out, I read it that week straight through. I love his story, I love his charisma, I love his feelings towards community. I just simply disagree with his view on the role of government, and I'd be a hack if I didn't acknowledge that.

Most folks take that to mean that I was going to vote McCain anyway. Perhaps, but truth be told if a pollster called and asked, I likely would have said Bob Barr. I was thinking it may very well be a protest vote kind of year. What I needed to see from McCain was vintage McCain, not robotic scripted awkward McCain. Picking a vp out of left right field that infuriates so many people? Now, that's more like it. McCain is supposed to be unpredictable. That's part of his charm. And truth be told -- I'm just as annoyed with what the GOP has done lately as everybody else. I think most fiscal conservative types are.

We'll see how all this plays out. I'm just thrilled that no matter what happens, a history changing ticket wins. We've come a long way.

Here come the smears, and here comes the push back. So much for "politics of hope."

I've listened to the media suggest that the McCain camp was going to dump Gov. Palin off the ticket because it "wasn't popular" since Saturday. Last night, even PBS was in on the game.

Are you serious?

McCain has raised $8 million with Gov. Palin in less than 72 hours. The republican hq around here has been lit up with requests for signs and volunteering. If you saw any of the RNC last night, you would have noticed that Gov. Palin generated larger applause lines than McCain did.

So McCain should dump her because Keith Olbermann says so? The dude got himself banned from ESPN's campus. I'm pretty sure he's a lunatic.

Since Friday, we've heard that:

• The baby with down syndrome isn't hers (a lie, and a shameless one. I won't even link to it. It's on dailykos.com)
• We've heard all about her pregnant daughter (who, according to people in the town, has been engaged for some time and openly pregnant, this was no secret. It turned into a news release solely because of the dailykos garbage). Further, watching non-conservatives try to explain that conservatives have a hard time with this is painful. It's not just about the pregnancy - It's about taking personal responsiblity for that pregnancy. Thats a hundred times more relevant to conservatives and at the center of what the party stands for as a whole -- personal responsibility. Also, I wasn't aware that she was running for office. Obama's reaction to this and the down syndrome baby rumor is 100% on the money.
  
• We've heard that she was a registered member of a secession movement in Alaska because she gave a video address to their convention (a lie, and the McCain campaign produced party registrations for her entire life, all of them Republican)
• We've heard that her Husband had a DUI two decades ago (when Obama was still 'experimenting' with cocain, according to his book. Oh, and, her husband isn't running for office.)
• We've seen Democrats violate federal law and release her DOB, home address and social security number on the internet.
  
• We've heard that the McCain camp didn't properly vet her and only talked with her once (both lies, according to people we know on the McCain research team and according to the McCain camp itself)
• The 'revelation' that Gov. Palin once received a citation for fishing without a license (ZOMG! NOES!)
• She tried to fire her brother in law after he made death threats against their family. We'll know more October 31st when the investigation is done.
• We've listened to self proclaimed feminists talk about her choice to run for the White House as being bad parenting - as if anyone ever charged JFK, Bill Clinton, John Edwards or any other male politician seeking the White House with being a bad father because of it. (update: Or heck, Obama himself.)
  

Excuse me, but... What. The. Fuck.

Obama has ties to the weathermen and Rezko, McCain's a member of the Keating Five, and Biden and his lobbyist son received boat loads of cash to help pass a bill benefiting MBNA.

And we're going to throw mud on fishing without a license, being a "bad mother," and firing her wife beating brother in law? Sorry, but I learned a long time ago that 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.' And frankly, none of this shit should matter. Over night, our entire country has turned into TMZ. In the midst of the "Who's yo' baby's daddy?" MSNBC and the like have been reporting on, we hit a major, major milestone in Iraq. I bet you can't tell me what it was, though.

We haven't even seen Gov. Palin talk on issues yet. The "politics of hope" campaign has turned ugly and it's turned ugly fast. Sen. Obama's on TV talking about how his campaign offers him more experience than her being a mayor -- conveniently ignoring the fact that she's a Governor of a state with 10x the employees, 10x the budget and 10x the power of his presidential bid. Oh, and more constituents than Joe Biden. Not to mention that her state controls the majority of our domestic energy -- a center piece subject of both campaigns.

The DNC and idiots like those on DailyKos have quickly led their party into the 'trap' that I felt the McCain campaign had laid. If Gov. Palin turns out to have teeth (which we'll find out more on tonight), McCain's gamble will have paid off big.

If it doesn't pay off for McCain, if Gov. Palin turns out to not be all that savvy, I think I've at least learned a whole lot about "politics of hope." It turns out its the same old tired tactics as before, just with a leftist lean.

Great.

When Obama was rumored to be picking Gov Kaine, we heard certain cable news networks talk about him being an outsider and enhancing the reform characteristics of Obama's ticket.

McCain picks Gov Palin, those same news networks talk about how its a desperation pick.

Both Palin and Kaine have similar amounts of governing experience. One just happens to be a female on a GOP ticket (omg its the wrong party!)

During the rally yesterday, MSNBC put in their ticker -- "How many houses does this ad to the McCain campaign?". Yeah, that's relevant and unbiased. Someone take the keyboard for the ticker away from Keith Olbermann, and stat.

Hillary's camp has long accused MSNBC of favoritism towards Obama. Hell, Mathews doesn't care if Obama gives him chills up and down his leg, he wants the world to know! You'll start hearing the republicans lobbing the same criticisms towards MSNBC. It'll be interesting to see if the Clinton's back off their statements now that he's "their guy."

Lot's of emotion on the Palin VP pick by McCain, if you've been following my twitter stream you know I think it was a fantastic pick. I'll do my best to explain it in a non-partisan way. (I do, however, hold a conservative view of the role of gov't.. it doesn't really factor into this though). I'm also talking strictly strategy -- I'm positive Sarah Palin has a lot of credentials that justify her amazing, though fairly short, political career. I'm just not familiar enough with them to build a case on it. So, forgive me for strictly talking about the gender/outsider aspects to all this.

McCain needed to go bold. A traditional pick would have left a boring ticket vs. an exciting ticket and played right into the narrative the democrats have created -- change from the status quo. There were only a couple people who had picked Palin, a few more that suggested KB Hutchinson. Past that, the thinking really was that it'd be Pawlenty or Romney or Huckabee or some sort of "obvious" choice. A 'safe' choice, but certainly not exciting.

There are obvious questions/concerns with the Sarah Palin pick. Experience is the obvious one -- if McCain kicks the bucket, is she ready to take over? And will women feel this was a contrived pick and that they're being pandered to?

The experience argument is an interesting one. It may invalidate McCain's attacks on Obama, or at the same time, it may highlight the fact that the inexperienced candidate on the Democrat ticket is the one on the top, not the bottom. In this way, it could be a trap for the DNC. We'll have to wait and see.

The bigger trap though, is the female vote within a democrat party desperately trying to move past the primary. The first aspect to this is regarding the contrived/pandering points. I hear ya, but let's be real. If John Kerry can pander to southerner's by picking an inexperienced John Edwards, and Obama can pander to the working class by picking Biden, why can't someone pander to women? Politics is about appealing to the widest amount of supporters possible, and frankly, women are a demographic that have largely been ignored. Shouldn't they be allowed to be pandered to, when every other group is? Heck, George Bush was sold as a guy's guy constantly.

The second aspect to this is the more deadly trap the DNC could fall into. When you really dig down into the HRC hold outs, there are a lot of lingering feelings of sexism within the party. A inexperienced male was able to beat the "proven" female candidate, but only because the party itself threw out two of the biggest states "won" by the female candidate.

If Democrats attack Palin for inexperience, after justifying Obama's inexperience -- whats the difference between the two candidates? Once again, it's gender. One's a male, one's a female. The sexism argument doesn't just go away, it moves to the forefront.

A lot of my democrat friends have pointed out that HRC supporters won't support a pro-life female. That might be true on the whole, but it's not about winning over the majority of HRC supporters. It's about winning over Hillary supporters in states like Pennsylvania, where Obama was beaten handedly.

Females from working class, catholic, families.

In other words, females from working class, pro-life, families.

The stage has been set. The DNC is busy running off a script prewritten for any republican opponent -- bush, bush, bush, bush, no bush iii, bush. Fairly quickly, McCain is separating himself from the way the GOP brand is currently perceived.

It's a risky pick, but given the nature of the race, I think it's truly brilliant. I'll be busy trying to read up on her background to see if she can hold her own politically outside of the strategy aspects. Hopefully I'll like what I see.

Biden as the VP pick has sparked some interesting conversations surrounding campaign narratives and how the "story" factors in to the presidential race. Just like business, having a quality story is central to the 'sale'.

McCain's is obvious. He was a POW that turned down early release because it was based on who his father was and not how long he had been a prisoner. It's been echoed so many times in so many different ways that there's probably no one left in the world who doesn't know it. Mix that with "Straight Talk," and you've got a solid pitch.

Obama's is one "that can only happen in America." A son of a white lady from Kansas and a black man from Kenya. He's a Washington outsider who can bring hope and change to a broken system. His judgment is strong and that's more important than experience. He voted no on Iraq when everyone else was quick to pull the trigger. He's young, vibrant and articulate. With an unpopular war and a even less popular outgoing republican president, it's an appealing story.

There are flaws to each one though. With McCain, he's not very conservative. I know, you're probably screaming "McSame!" and "it's four more years of bush!", and that's fine -- just remember that the people who started those chants are the same folks who asked him to be the Democrat Vice President to John Kerry only four years ago. The fact that he was considered, has gone against the party on numerous issues, has his name all over McCain-Feingold -- these things don't sit well with the republican base.

With Obama, "Washington outsider" can quickly descend to lack of experience for anyone not a governor. Washington is a tricky place and the ability to navigate it is a skill acquired over time (partly the reason the term limit discussion was so quickly abandoned). His 'I'm change/hope over the existing structure' strikes people as egotistical. Number one reason for Hillary holdouts not supporting Obama? Ego. What series of ad's have been so successful for McCain lately? The ones that paint Obama as arrogant. Working class whites, the demo Obama has struggled the most with, are largely turned off by that sort of thing. Race is, I'm sure, an issue (and sadly), but let's not discredit his negatives.

The point of all this is that the VP selection strikes me as critical to solidifying the narratives and addressing negatives. McCain hasn't announced his pick yet, but of the three short list mentions - Ridge, Romney & Lieberman- I think Ridge and Lieberman fit his 'story' the best. The problem is that neither speak to his negatives (boils down to them being pro choice, ultimately). Romney, despite not being trusted by many social conservatives, represents the best chance and has a strong economic resume (he'd be the only executive in the entire race!)

Regarding the possible creation of a cross party ticket with Lieberman (admittedly, a very long shot) -- can you imagine watching the DNC keep a straight face while attacking the person who broke Kerry's heart by saying no to VP running with the 2000 Democrat VP candidate, and then try to say that they represent 'change from the usual politics' when they have to start blasting them with attack ads? Some how, I really am drawn to that scenario, which pretty much means it won't happen ;)

Obama announced his pick would be Joe Biden. Biden was born in Scranton, Penn and should help with working class whites (and fans of The Office... ahem). What's interesting to me is what will it do to the narrative? Joe Biden is supposedly the person who pushed for McCain to be the Dem VP pick last cycle, he voted for the Iraq war and he's a Washington establishment (30+ years in the senate).

It was Obama who said it's not experience that matters, it's judgment. He used that line repeatedly to beat Hillary in the Dem debates. He has now picked the Dem foreign policy guy who is a quintessential Washington insider to be on his ticket. It's an attempt to address the lack of experience critique, but by labeling Biden as the expert, doesn't that nullify many of the arguments he used against Hillary? If the person he thinks is the expert on foreign policy voted for the war, then.... who had the better judgment given what was known at the time? Keep in mind that Condi-Bush have been busy negotiating an Iraq withdrawal. The foreign policy aspects to all this may end up focusing more on Russia than Iraq.

It'll also be interesting to watch the 'change' mantra after picking someone so seasoned. Biden hasn't been without controversy. In fact, there's quite a bit of it. Obama may have just given the Republicans the ammunition the need to run the 2000/2004 playbook successfully. Biden's also going to have to be the attack dog against McCain -- someone who, even recently, he said would make a great president. Surely won't help silence those silly 'flip flop' chants. Biden also has a notoriously large ego -- I'm sure we'll all see the "I guarantee that my IQ is higher than yours" c-span clip at some point. Expect more ego ads in the near future.

His pro's shouldn't be ignored though. Biden brings a *ton* of experience to the table, and for a lot of people, that's a really important thing (myself included). He's catholic and popular in Penn, demo's that may very well become in play this cycle. He's also a straight talk kind of guy which really addresses the appeal that McCain has to a lot of independents. Who knows. Of the options, maybe he really was the best. I really thought it'd be Kaine until he started talking so much, then I thought Evan Bayh.

Obviously, the "right" VP pick is the one that helps you to win. It's August and far to early, and I mean.. what the heck do I know. We'll all see how Biden performs. The question of narrative should answer itself at the convention soon enough. I'm curious to watch.

For McCain, I think the VP pick is a whole lot tougher. He may not have the "coattails" to withstand a poor choice. Unless it's leaked, we'll have to wait until Friday after the DNC to know who it's going to be. My guess is Ridge.

Enough about Obama. He changes his mind too much. McCain? McCain actually died in South Carolina back in 2000. That's just Bob Dole in an old man costume.

I'm voting for T. Boone Pickens, who as Gavin pointed out, not only looks Texan, but also has the best Texan name ever. Additionally, he seems to have a somewhat coherent energy policy. What more reason do you need? He's not shy about admitting he'll make a boat load of cash by it, but who cares? Someones going to make some coin and it might as well be the guy from the Simpson's.