Let me start by saying I have long admired John McCain. It takes a lot of guts, honor, and patriotism to voluntarily imprison yourself for seven years in a Vietnamese prison camp, waiting patiently for the last of your comrades to be granted freedom. I admire his independent streak, fighting his own party on issues too important to be lost to partisanship; issues such as torture, incompetence in Iraq, campaign finance reform, a patients bill of rights, and the surge in Iraq he championed long before it was implemented, long before it was vindicated, and long before it was popular. The Arizonan Senator was quoted as saying, “I would rather lose an election, than lose a war.” For much of the Bush administration, John McCain kept our government working. He set up a compromise on federal judges to break the stalemate in the Senate. He worked with the liberal lion Ted Kennedy on comprehensive immigration reform, fighting his own party on an issue that almost cost him the Republican nomination. For much of his career, he has put country ahead of of any political party and ahead of even his own ambition.

But sadly, that is not the John McCain we see today. Indeed, McCain has had to compromise so many of his principles in order to clench the nomination that I wonder if he sees the same person when he looks in the mirror. From his abandonment of his own comprehensive immigration bill to his cozying up to religious nuts like John Hagee to his nonsensical energy plan, I question whether the McCain of 2000 – the maverick, principled, label-defying McCain – would recognize himself today. I wonder if he would like himself. I wonder if he would vote for himself, only eight short years later. 

I find that every single time I think of a good reason to support McCain, I look to his past, not his present. In my previous post, I argued that Barack Obama may say the right things, have the right ideas, but he hasn’t demonstrated that we can trust him to accomplish or even try to accomplish them. He simply has no record to show for his rhetoric. Paradoxically, McCain finds himself with the opposite problem. While Obama has good ideas without a convincing record to back it up, McCain has a fine record that he’s quickly abandoning by espousing bad ideas.

Not only has he drifted further towards Bush-Rove policies but he has made many major gaffes that lead many to question his strongest asset, his experience and knowledge regarding foreign policy. He has confused Sunni and Shia (in fact he was quoted once saying that the Sunni and Shia had no historical differences or animosity towards each other). He has also made Bush-Cheney-like remarks tying absolutely non-related things to terrorism. Asked what the greatest threat to the world economy was, McCain replied “Islamic Extremism.” To give him some credit, McCain has admitted in the past (a fact he now strongly denies) that he knows much less about the economy than he should. The economic policies he has put out this campaign consist mainly of extending the tax cuts he once opposed (because he thought they were too skewed towards the rich) and cutting government earmarks. Furthermore, his most trusted economic advisor, Former Senator Phil Gramm, recently opined to a editorial board that our economic troubles are all in our heads, that we are “a nation of whiners.” While I don’t dispute that Americans do whine a great deal, I doubt that high gas prices, a mortgage crisis, and major problems at our most esteemed financial institutions are a national delusion.

The fact is that on the two major challenges facing Americans today – Iraq and the economy – John McCain and George W. Bush are virtually indistinguishable. Yes, he supported the surge long before Bush, a policy that is now succeeding (a fact I would like Obama to acknowledge). But on the question of what do we do now, McCain’s policies, ideas, and rhetoric bear striking resemblance to the current occupant of the White House. So therein lies our choice. Do we choose a hopeful, charismatic, and bright young Senator full of promise and potential, but untested and untried, or do we choose the old, independent maverick, a man once billed the Republican Party’s conscience, a man who’s served this country well, but a man that has seemingly lost his way on his quest to the top? Which is the greater risk?

A President McCain poses the same questions that a President Obama would pose. Would he be the independent, moderate, principled, yet pragmatic McCain, or would he fall victim to the tired Republican doctrine of years past? In the end, we don’t know and we can’t know what kind of President Obama or McCain would make. So what’s more important? Do we trust what they say or what they’ve done? Do we believe the rhetoric or the record? We have three more months to decide.

I have been an avid supporter of Barack Obama for over a year now. I’ve read his books and I’ve volunteered for his campaign. I’ve dismissed most criticism about him that I’ve heard, focusing on the importance of his intellect, his oratory, his skin color, or the rush of history that makes me feel that perhaps, this time, this election will be different. But I saw this comic the other day and suddenly things began to click. Articles I’d read but willfully dismissed, facts I’d seen but seemingly forgotten began to resurface in my mind. A recent article, by Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker confirmed and gave meat to those thoughts and suspicions previously locked and guarded tight within the recesses of my mind. I come to you today with a bigger picture, a fuller view, finally unblinded by wishful thinking, by devotion, by hope.

For Obama, with all his post-partisan, reformist rhetoric, is a man of very little accomplishment. The suave 46-year-old Senator from Illinois may also be the most gifted, viscerally adept politician of our generation, the same way the marketing hire in the comic above is so good that he is his own proof of greatness. He reminds me of the great salesman and showman, P.T. Barnum. I was watching the third season of the West Wing where Bruno Gianelli is explaining to Toby how he can sell (and spin) a bad story for the President: that a new poverty calculation formula is about to give America 4 million additional poor people.

Bruno says, “Same way P.T. Barnum sold a truckload of white salmon: by sticking labels on them that said: ‘Guaranteed not to go pink in the can.’ “‘Are you telling me this formula’s been broken for years and the other guys haven’t fixed it?’ Like that.” Bruno mutters to himself, “Truckload of white salm–” Then he calls out to Toby, “You ever even heard of white salmon?” Toby has not. Bruno walks away muttering, “Guy could sell anything.”

Obama is like that in the sense that he is also selling a brand, an item, that doesn’t exist. He is selling us hope, vague platitudes, and abstract ideals with nothing to back it up. He often cites his work in the Illinois State Senate reforming the death penalty and criminal interrogation programs or expanding healthcare coverage in Illinois. What most don’t know is that prior to these bills being passed, Obama had already began planning his run for the U.S. Senate. He approached the President of the State Senate, Emil Jones and told him that he “could make a U.S. Senator.” When Jones asked who, Obama replied, “Me.” Jones proceeded to give Obama credit for every major bill that had already been waiting in the wings to be passed, leapfrogging senior senators and dedicated legislators. 

In his years in the United States Senate, Obama while talking the talk of bipartisanship, has steered clear completely. He has voted almost entirely straight down the party line. He was notably absent in the Gang of 14 compromise on judges and while taking credit for the bipartisan bill on immigration reform spearheaded by Ted Kennedy and John McCain, Obama acquiesced to the labor unions and worked to destroy the bill from the inside by voting for poison pill amendments designed to make the legislation unacceptable.

As a man running as a reformer, he has consistently not supported fellow reform candidates running in Illinois, instead standing consistently with the corrupt machine politics that defines Illinois. He publicly eviscerated special interests while depending on them for reelection so he could collect from both sides. He has consistently railed against the old, corrupt politics while simultaneously taking full advantage. Even his infamous anti-war speech in 2002 reads as though it was meant for a much bigger audience, on a much bigger stage. The media talks as if they are afraid he’s too green, too idealistic, too naive, but in reality he is anything but. He has always looked towards the next step, the next race, the next office. Every move he has made, from what church to attend (to maximize his voter base), to what neighborhood to live in, to even redrawing his district to encompass his most loyal constituents, has been to advance himself further up the political ladder. This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise to you. You don’t become a nominee for President at age 46 without that sort of dedication.

To quote from an article by Cooper Union Professor Fred Siegel, 

Obama has, in a sense, represented a new version of the invisible man, a candidate whose colour obscures his failings.

That is because Obama, in the imagination of many of his fans in the public and the press, is both a deduction from what was – the failures of the Bush administration and the scandals of the Clintons – and an expression of what should be.

The ideal, the aspiration, is so rhetorically appealing that it has been assumed to be true. They remind one of Woodrow Wilson’s answer when asked if his plan for a League of Nations was practicable: “If it won’t work, it must be made to work.”

In short, Obama has spent his life running for office, not governing in office. Because of that, he has become a very good politician, but one with no record to stand on. While his speeches and his words ring true, flowing over the audience, soothing them, placating them, and exciting them, they keep them from looking deeper, from looking closer at what he really is. For once that extra step is taken, we see that there is no proof of good intent, no scars from battles fought or storms weathered. There are only words, just words. And when we ask ourselves, truly, what kind of President would Barack Obama be, what would this young, charming Senator from Illinois do as President, we are left with no response.

And if we have that answer, we soon see it for what it is. Unsatisfying. Uninspiring. Just words.

Hillary Clinton wants you to believe that she is the most electable candidate in the race. Democrats seem to be buying it. In a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll, 62% of Democrats said the candidate with the best chance of being elected President in November 2008 is Hillary Clinton, compared to just 15% for Obama, and 14% for Edwards. Senator Clinton seems to have successfully convinced the public that she is the most electable Democrat, and that argument is becoming a self-sustaining one: the more people believe it, the closer it comes to being true.

The thing is, we’ve been through this before. In 2004, Democrats picked Senator John Kerry overwhelmingly because they believed he was the most electable candidate. Kerry was cautious, measured, and seemed more presidential than the loud, raucous, yet courageous Howard Dean. We all know what happened next. When the general election rolled around, the electable, war hero John Kerry became the flip-flopping, wishy-washy John Kerry. While Howard Dean wasn’t a great candidate either, Kerry’s loss should have shown us that predicting electability is a horribly fickle affair.

History is repeating itself. Clinton’s main argument just like Kerry’s is that she is the most electable and the most likely to defeat the Republican candidate next November. Like Senator Kerry, she is a northeastern Senator who has been accused of hedging and flip-flopping. In fact, as her now infamous debate performance in Philly showed us, this behavior (not to mention triangulation and aversion to answering questions) makes John Kerry’s clarity and conviction look comparable to dare I say, our unflappable, steadfast President, so steady in his beliefs that he’s riding his favorability ratings into the ground.

Historically, Democrats tend to overvalue the importance of policy positions. (Republicans tend to go for the candidate they like and trust in their gut – see George Bush.) Hillary has tried to position herself in the center on every issue by being mostly vague and using “on one hand on the other hand” legalese. Sure, overall policy direction matters a great deal, but among the candidates within a single party, general policy goals rarely differ a great deal, if at all. As two subsequent elections of George W. Bush has taught us, Americans value clarity of conviction, political courage, and honesty and integrity much more than a candidate’s specific positions. And in the areas of honesty and integrity, Hillary Clinton trails Barack Obama by a significant margin.

Let’s also not forget the unpredictable effect of likability. People may not admit it all too often, but we are irrational. Most of us would like to believe that we choose a candidate for the office of leader of the free world based on a rational process of weighing policy positions and leadership qualities but in the end, many of us succumb to the effect of what I like to call “The Living Room Voter.” Who do we want to see leading our country on our television sets, sitting in our living rooms for the next four (possibly eight) years? Hillary Clinton is losing the fight on this front. Less than 50% of the American people rate her as likable, compared to over 70% for Senator Obama. It remains to be seen how much of an effect this will have next November, but it always does, and surely it’s another knock against her electability argument.

We should choose a nominee for President not by this fickle and unreliable quality that is electability. I am making the crazy, insane argument that we should actually choose the candidate that we like, the candidate that we believe will be the best person to lead this country and the world for the next four years. If we vote for a candidate we don’t really like, believe in, or trust, chances are a lot of other people feel the same way. Maybe it’s time Democrats lifted one idea from the Republicans and put a little more trust in our gut.

Rudy Giuliani has been steadily chugging along as the national frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. Most pundits, myself included, assumed he would fizzle out once conservative voters found out more about the former Mayor of New York. The conventional wisdom was that once conservatives (specifically religious conservatives) found out about his pro-choice, pro-gun control, cross-dressing, thrice marrying ways, they would abandon him, if not throw him to the proverbial dogs. But we underestimated the effect of his glowing 9/11 image. Rudy has essentially been running solely on his leadership on that September morning. And it’s working.

Ask any Republican, who do you trust to handle the War on Terror, and their response will undoubtedly be Rudy Giuliani. But I have been asking myself, Why?

First of all, 9/11 happened on Giuliani’s watch. Sure, his response to the attack was admirable, but how does responding well to a terrorist attack have anything to do with preventing one? Before 9/11, Giuliani did little on the terrorism front, despite being elected shortly after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. His response to it was competent and laudable but those sets of managerial skills befit a Mayor (which he was) or a FEMA director or Homeland Security Secretary.

Secondly, Giuliani is considered bulletproof on issues of national security. Most Americans trust him with national security and foreign policy. A poll was conducted in which participants were asked whether Giuliani has any foreign policy experience. The response was overwhelmingly yes. The truth is, Rudy Giuliani has never served in any position that could be considered foreign policy experience. In this crowded 2008 field, he is the least experienced in foreign policy of all the major candidates, Republican or Democratic.

I am not here to bash Rudy Giuliani. I’m not even going to go into the controversy regarding how he handled 9/11 regarding the recovering of the dead, bad radios, toxic fumes, placement of the command center, and others. He has some qualifications and qualities that could make him a decent President. My point is that he should campaign on his real record instead his actions on that one fateful day. For if you look closely at his 9/11 rhetoric and think about it, trusting Rudy Giuliani to prevent terrorism is like trusting a fireman not to put out fires but to stop them from happening altogether.

So Rudy, why don’t you stop running on your “impeccable 9/11 experience and national security credentials” because sooner or later, people will figure it out. But the real question is, what else are you going to run on? While you may have had some success fighting crime and fixing up New York, many of those accomplishments in hindsight have been shown to have other possible causes (read Freakonomics). So after your facade of national security, terrorist beating bravado is stripped away, what else is left but the caustic, confrontational, egomaniacal mayor with a hero-complex who tried to change New York law so you could run for another term? So I guess you have no choice. Cue your $9.11 fundraiser.

I’m sure a bunch of you are like “What the hell man? Obama Girl: Hot or Not?” Well I’m pretty sure we can all agree that Obama Girl is damn hot. But is that why the video has gotten so popular? Is it just a spectacle? Is it curiosity? Are the one million people tuning in because it’s a hot girl singing and dancing or because they like Barack Obama? I sense that it’s a little of both.

Strangely enough, I don’t care either way. It’s pretty much a given based on what we see on TV each day. From “The Real Life Wedding Crashers” where people sell their souls and crash their own weddings for a little air time on TV, to “I Love New York” (i don’t even want to describe it), we have been reduced to watching those people whom I can only hope used to be real get marketed as a spectacle for our viewing pleasure.

I guess it was inevitable that it would spread to politics. It seems like the only way candidates get attention from the general public is by gaffes (see George Allen of macaca fame, he’s currently unemployed) or by acting crazy and taking three whole minutes to throw a big rock into a pond (see Mike Gravel). I hope this is not the way Barack Obama, an intelligent, charismatic U.S. Senator from my home state of Illinois, will be remembered.

But hey, in an age when more people vote on American Idol and on the site Hot or Not? than for President, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. Maybe he will be the first President elected by a hot girl, a funny video, a catchy tune, and a revealing beach photo published in People magazine. Even though that’s not the way I would have wanted it to happen, I’ll take it. We’ll have to wait and see but in the meantime I’m having a pretty good laugh with “I’ve got a crush…on Obama.”

Intelligent design is not only not science, it is essentially an anti-science. Not only does it counter an established scientific theory, it tells us to stop looking, to stop learning, to stop studying. Imagine if 600 years ago or at any point in the long history of our dominion on this Earth, we had just said, “Fuck it. It’s magic. It’s God. There’s no explaining it.” Would we have electricity today? Would we have cars, trains, or planes? Would we have landed a man on the moon? Would we have a cure for polio? Would we be searching for cures for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, or Cancer? Would we even know what those diseases were or would we just resign millions of deaths to the fate of God?

You can see where I’m going here. I believe that intelligent design is a dangerous component to be adding to science. And it’s downright frightening to teach our children in a science class. The proponents argue that it’s teaching all the viewpoints on the issue, as if it was good for education, as if it broadened their minds. What it actually does is teach our children not to think, not to question, not to learn, not to discover. Intelligent design tells our next generation to never investigate those most important questions that scientists and thinkers have been asking for thousands of years.

Furthermore, if you really did want to teach all the points of view, why aren’t our kids learning Scientology? Or to take that a step further, what if there was a cult who believed that instead of gravity, there were millions of little microscopic people that jumped on everything to keep us grounded to the Earth? Should that be taught in our schools in the spirit of teaching all points of view?

I don’t mean to disparage anyone’s faith. I am merely arguing that intelligent design is not a matter of science, it is a matter of faith and should be treated as such. If intelligent design is to be taught in our schools it should be taught in a religion class. Since there is a defined separation of church and state in our country, not only is intelligent design a counter to education and science, it’s unconstitutional. So unless your child attends the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry (in which case, congratulations), I’m afraid all they’ll be learning in science class is science. And that’s the way it should be.

My point is, if God was really intelligent, isn’t it possible that he devised a system (ahem evolution) to do his work for him? Are we really so arrogant that we claim to know all of God’s methods and intentions? Maybe the story of the world being created in six days was a simple metaphor for our ancestors 2000 years ago who at that time still thought the Earth was the center of the universe and that leaving a rotting sandwich out on a table for a few days would produce mice.

God is far more intelligent than you or I. Science is slowly trying to answer these questions using a proven scientific method. Those guys who clamor and shout that science must be wrong because it goes against their existing beliefs aren’t pious: they’re arrogant. I’m sure God has many more mysteries in store for us to discover. It’s time we get to work.

In the end, I can admit that this could all be complete crap. It is only my theory. I can admit I don’t know. These are a few words a couple people might want to try out.

Yes.

But the question really doesn’t matter. In the end, it’s all about the odds. There really are just four possible outcomes. I’m going to pretend that I’m a global warming doubting idiot for some of these cases so bear with me.

Case 1: We do nothing and there is no global warming. In this case, we’re all fine. Everyone’s happy (at least when it comes to rising sea levels and drought) and Al Gore looks like an idiot. Result: We win. Gore loses…again…sort of.

Case 2: We act to prevent it but there is no global warming. In this case, even in the worst case scenario that the naysayers predict, our economy tanks temporarily. Jobs are lost. There is a worldwide recession. Result: We’re all a little poorer for a little while.

Case 3: We act to prevent global warming and we succeed. In this case, we all live. Perhaps, there is still some warming but we’re managing it and there is no worldwide collapse. Extreme Result: We all live. Al Gore is greeted as the conquering hero. Conservatives scowl. I can live with that.

great point from waywardspirit that’s infinitely more likely:

“We act to prevent global warming, and we succeed and because we have succeeded, people dont realize that we narrowly missed doomsday and Al Gore loses, again“

Case 4: We do nothing and global warming is real. In this case, we’re screwed. In the worst case, the doomsday environmentalists were right on the money. Massive drought, wars over natural resources, rising sea levels, millions die, and there’s still a worldwide recession from the war, drought, death and famine.

The only thing we can control is what we do. Worst case if we act, the economy takes a hit. Worst case if we don’t…well you know.

So why not act and do the right thing? Even if you disagree, don’t you think it’s smart to hedge our bets?

What do you think?

There is a real vacuum today in Washington. Not one of politics but one of action. Today, it is the mayors and governors of these United States that are leading the way on the issues of the day: global warming, immigration, health care, education. Ahh-nold has passed the first global warming bill in the US to raise fuel efficiency standards for California and is actively being sued by “fellow Republicans” for going too far and too fast. They fear that Detroit, God forbid, will have to make more fuel efficient cars for California while making the same ol’ cars for the rest of the country. Well, here’s an idea, MAYBE, just maybe, Detroit could make the new more fuel efficient cars not just for California. The rest of the country might just benefit from cars that consume less gas and carbon emissions at a time when gas is nearing $4/gallon.

Led by these men, hundreds of mayors and governors have joined together to support and implement the Kyoto Protocol and other cap and trade carbon trading efforts to help stop global warming in their cities and states.

Bloomberg and Schwarzengger are both self-made millionaires and billionaires that honestly don’t need politics. They were elected without the help of special interests. They are doers not just talkers and that is exactly what we need. They remind us that we don’t have to wait for others to accomplish what needs to be done. We can do it ourselves. When groups of people band together to get something done, be it mayors, governors, or citizens like us, results happen.

The next presidential election is only a short year and a half away. My point is, vote for someone with political courage, someone who is willing to propose something truly revolutionary and risky, someone who will have the guts to tell us that to achieve what we need (energy independence, universal health care, a better education system) we will need to sacrifice. From driving less SUVS or driving less altogether to a mandatory national service program (not only military, maybe take a year or two to teach in inner city schools), we need to be inspired again.

It seems that we are inspired only when we are called to give something back, to contribute. It has been over forty years since Kennedy gave his infamous and all too often repeated speech to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Perhaps that’s what is needed today to end the apathy and disinterest. The politicians in Washington don’t act because they know we don’t pay attention. It’s time to change that. Instead of asking what we get, lets ask what we can give. Instead of asking why nothing gets done, let’s ask what we can do.

I feel like over the past seven years, we Americans know when politicians are being insincere and talking out of their ass. The time for platitudes and high, lofty words are over. The time for action is now.