If ever the world would have forgiven a man for not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, it would have been now. No one would blame Barack Obama if he focused exclusively on the economic crisis, pushing the foreign policy in-tray to the back of his desk. After all, there’s only so much even a Messiah can handle.

For all that, the new US President has crammed a slew of foreign policy moves into his first six weeks, any one of which would have made big news in normal times.

Instead, in the age of global economic meltdown, they have had to fight for more than fleeting media attention.

Most visible have been the big declarations, whether announcing the beginning of the end of the Iraq war, avowing that “the United States of America does not torture” or ordering that Guantanamo be closed.

In just the last week, we’ve had the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, dispatching officials to Syria as well as inviting Iran to talks on the future of Afghanistan – extending a hand to two states previously consigned to outer darkness.

The start of the month brought the revelation that Obama had written a secret letter to his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev, hinting at a deal in which Moscow would lean on Iran, urging it to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons, in return for the US scrapping its planned installation of a missile defence system in Russia’s eastern European backyard. A gesture to cap it all: the Obama Administration has moved to ease trade and travel restrictions with Cuba.

The question – 50 days into the administration – is:

is there a common thread of logic running through these moves, one that we might describe, however prematurely, as the Obama doctrine?

The first unifying theme, sounded minutes after he took the presidential oath, is a repudiation of the legacy of his predecessor. Obama is determined to signal to the world that he is the unBush. Some on the left and right alike have suggested that this is more symbolic than real, that in fact the basic lineaments of US policy remain in place.

Obama will keep rather a lot of troops in Iraq until the end of 2011, just as the Bush administration planned; he has intensified US involvement in Afghanistan, sending 17,000 more troops; and Robert Gates, George Bush’s defence secretary, remains in this post under Obama.

Put that to the Obama team and they don’t wholly deny it. The US did not become a different country on January 20, they say; its interests have not changed overnight.

What no one denies is that there is a clear advantage for the US in the rest of the world believing that a profound change has come about. Which is why the declaration by the Vice President, Joe Biden, that the US is pressing the “reset button” has become the current catchphrase of US diplomacy.

A benign assessment of the Obama record so far would see two other early traits.

The first is a readiness to speak the truth. Asked by The New York Times last week whether the US was winning the war in Afghanistan, he replied tersely: “No.”

After the Bush years, when those who followed the evidence were dismissed as dullards imprisoned in the narrow-minded confines of the “reality-based community”, such candour is a relief!

Second, there are some signs of imaginative thinking. Deploying the veteran of the Northern Ireland peace process, George Mitchell, to the Israel-Palestine conflict is one of those ideas that seems obvious – but only because it makes so much sense. The same goes for allocating the Afghan-Pakistan, or “Afpak”, file to the hardball maestro Richard Holbrooke.

But plaudits surely go to Obama’s direct appeal to Medvedev, with its echoes of the former US president John Kennedy’s resolution of the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Just as JFK agreed to remove US missiles from Turkey if the Soviet Union took theirs away from Cuba, so Obama implicitly made a similar offer to Russia: you get Iran to back down and I’ll remove my interceptor missiles and radar stations from Poland and the Czech Republic. If such an initiative were to work, the knock-on effects would be multiple.

Take one: Israel has long hinted that if its friends were to make the Iranian threat go away, it would respond by moving forward on the peace track. For a long while that was assumed to mean military action against Iran. But if Obama’s Russia gambit were to succeed – and the critics claim Gates started work on these lines a year ago – the goal of an Iranian nuclear freeze, with all its ancillary benefits, would be achieved without a shot being fired.

To be clear, this is not guitar-strumming hippie dovishness, as the escalation in Afghanistan confirms – though one administration official warns against overinterpreting that move. It is a “time-buying exercise”, he says, ensuring things don’t get worse on the ground while the White House undertakes a strategic review of the entire Afpak region, from where, it argues, every major al-Qaeda attack since September 11, 2001, has emanated.

I’m told this was the thrust of Biden’s message to NATO’s North Atlantic Council in Brussels this week: not some kind of “wussy multilateralism”, with lots of cosy meetings and platitudes, but a “results-oriented” desire to get things done – and the belief that that only happens when the world acts in concert.

To be sure, these are only the early signals in the early days. But from a President with his hands full, they are encouraging.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, barack obama, george w. bush, President

With his first month as President in the bag, Barack Obama is receiving an unparalleled level of support from the American public in regards to his ability to handle, and in this case fix, the shattered economy. In fact President Obama has the largest lead over opposition party in overall trust to handle the economy as any U.S. President has had in over 20 years.

Even sky high approval ratings, President Barack Obama still has some undeniable challenges in front of him in regards to the post-partisanship government he spoke of so often throughout his long and hard fought presidential campaign. Nonetheless Obama clearly holds the upper hand, both in overall approval and on the dominant issue of the day. He leads the Republicans in Congress by 61-26 percent in trust to handle the economy, the biggest such lead for a president in ABC News/Washington Post polls since 1991.

Obama’s overall approval ratings are definitely strong, in both the literal and historical sense, currently hovering at 68 percent of Americans approving of the job he has done so far. However when you look closely at the polls internal findings you will find that the partisanship is as glaring as ever with 90 percent of Democrats approving of Obama’s performance thus far, and only 37 percent of Republicans happy with the newly elected President. This sharp party line divide among American’s is nearly identical to the numbers that accompanied George W. Bush in his first term which was hot off the heels of the controversial 2000 election and its subsequent outcome.

As mentioned above, the partisanship divide is as clear cut as ever before, but with that said it also becomes important to point out that many American’s are giving the President credit for his attempts at bringing the two sides together. More or less, a healthy majority of American’s recognize that while it may not be working yet, Barack Obama is undoubtedly attempting to forge a healthy middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans:

While President Barack Obama cannot be happy with the ultra-partisanship we are currently seeing, regardless if he is being recognized for trying to bring the two political factions together, it begs the question; how bad is this split for Republicans? According to the same ABC News/Washington Post poll — the hyper partisanship appears to be a bigger downfall for the Republicans, whose party remains on life support after what the majority of Americans fee was a disastrous Bush presidency. Below are the numbers – and it won’t take long until you see that if anyone is hurting from the inability to work together, it is the elected officials of the right:

• The Democratic Party leads the Republicans by 56-30 percent in trust to handle the country’s main problems. That has slightly improved from 56-23 percent in December, as congressional Republicans found a unified voice in opposition to the stimulus. But the December number was the Republicans’ worst in ABC/Post polls since 1982; they still have far to climb.
• Fifty percent of Americans approve of the way the Democrats in Congress are doing their jobs, while 44 percent disapprove – if hardly a barn-burner, still the Democrats’ best in two years, since April 2007, just after they regained control of Congress. And their Republican counterparts are a good deal weaker: 38 percent approve, 56 percent disapprove. (Democratic gains have come mainly in two groups: among Democrats themselves, and among liberals. Seventy-seven percent of Democrats now approve of their own party; just 55 percent of Republicans feel the same about theirs.)
• The Democrats are holding the edge in partisan affiliation they’ve built since 2004, when the public soured on the Iraq war and the Bush presidency in turn. Thirty-six percent in this poll identify themselves as Democrats, just 24 percent as Republicans. On average in 2003, by contrast, the parties were at parity, 31 percent apiece.

I have also attached a graph that pretty much reinforces the bumbers cited above — You will see just how much the public’s trust level in terms of the economy has dropped off for Republicans starting back in 2005 and plummeting at a fairly steady rate ever since:

Some constants have remained throughout this first month. For instance,young people still support Barack Obama at an unprecedented rate. Among young adults, or as they are being referred to nowadays, “Millennials” (those between the age of 18 and 30) his overall approval rating peaks at a startling 84 percent, compared with 59 percent in his weakest age group, seniors (this was a trend we saw throughout the primaries and general election as well.) There are income gaps here as well; among people with incomes less than $50,000, 66 percent approve of Obama’s handling of the economy; among those in $100,000+ households, this drops to half. Two possible reasons: Better-off Americans are more apt to be Republicans. And they’re in Obama’s cross hairs on taxes — and their awareness of it.

If you are interested in seeing the entire ABC/Washington Post poll regarding Obama’s first month in office you can do so by clicking here. It is really quite interesting and unfortunately, familiar to what we have seen throughout the past couple of years. The main difference  is that now it’s Republican’s who are in the doghouse, and many would say it’s rightfully so.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Breaking news, Breaking political news, Breaking Politics News, Democrats, george w. bush, GOP, latest Polls, Latest Presidential Polls, Obama

WASHINGTON – The Associated Press is reporting that President-elect Barack Obama, on Wednesday, joined others calling for Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to resign, distancing himself further from the unfolding scandal over allegations that the governor schemed to barter Obama’s vacant Senate seat for personal gain.

“The president-elect agrees with Lt. Gov. (Pat) Quinn and many others that under the current circumstances it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois,” Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said in response to questions from The Associated Press.

Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday, accused of seeking money or other favors to influence his choice in picking Obama’s replacement. The governor has authority to appoint the replacement, but top Illinois lawmakers have said they are preparing to call the Legislature into session as early as next week to set a special election to choose Obama’s successor.

Asked whether Obama supports a special election, Gibbs said Obama believes the General Assembly should consider how to fill the Senate seat and:

“put in place a process to select a new senator that will have the trust and confidence of the people of Illinois.”

Aides say Obama is refraining from stating what that solution should be.

If Blagojevich resigns, Quinn would become governor and have the right to appoint Obama’s successor. That would avoid a special election, which can be costly, and speed up the appointment of Illinois’ junior senator.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iCtBc8FTmM&fmt=22

Over the past two days since Blagojevich’s arrest, Obama and his aides have largely refrained from commenting on the scandal. When Obama has spoken about the case, he’s been cautious.

In brief comments to reporters Tuesday, Obama said “like the rest of the people of Illinois I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the U.S. attorney’s office today,” but he didn’t go so far to condemn Blagojevich’s alleged actions.

He did add about Blagojevich’s process of considering a successor:

“I had no contact with the governor or his office, and so I was not aware of what was happening.”

Obama reiterated that point in an interview published in the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday by stating:

“I have not discussed the Senate seat with the governor at any time.”

But Obama wouldn’t answer a question on whether he was aware of any conversations between the governor and his top aides, including incoming White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:

“It’s an ongoing investigation,” Obama said. “I think it would be inappropriate for me to … remark on the situation beyond the facts that I know.”

And, aides didn’t say whether Emanuel, a Democratic Illinois congressman, was ever approached by the governor’s emissaries involved in allegedly corrupt schemes. Nor did they say whether Obama is investigating his own ranks to determine whether any of his staffers had contact with the governor or his office.

Technorati Tags: chi-town, Chicago, Chicago corruption, Gov. Blagojevich, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Illinois Governor, Obama and Blagojevich, Obama asks for resignation, Obama demands Governors resignation, Obama fires Governor, Obama resignation, Obama statements, Scandal, windy city

In the wake of the first square-off between US presidential contenders John McCain and Barack Obama, a furious argument has begun about who won the debate.

The campaigns have gone into overdrive in an effort to influence the public perception of who triumphed in Friday’s encounter.

The Obama campaign worked overnight to release, early on Saturday morning, an advertisement criticising Senator McCain for failing to say middle class.

It was unclear whether Senator Obama’s campaign was spending money to broadcast the spot, or whether it was directed more at the opinion leaders who would be appearing on the morning talk shows yesterday or writing about the debate in their columns for the next few days.

The McCain campaign had already released an internet video citing several instances in which Senator Obama had said he agreed with his rival’s positions.

There were also instances where Senator Obama claimed otherwise.

Was Obama claiming correctly when he said McCain was wrong?

Here is a video put together by Jed Lewison for our friends at The Huffington Post:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG1aOORf8Pc&fmt=18

Obama spoke with greater clarity and force.
He was collected and knowledgeable and put issues in a larger context of America’s role in the world.

Numerous times McCain lit into Obama on foreign policy issues with comments such as:

“what Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand…”

and saying he was “naive” on those issues.

But Obama won big on those foreign policy arguments. Especially on Iraq and Afghanistan, tapping deeply into misgivings about the wars, and questions of strategy and tactics and ultimately prevailing on the key question on judgment as to whether Iraq should have been fought in the first place.

But there is a belief that many viewers base their judgment not on debate performance but on what they read and see in the days afterwards.

A majority of US commentators called it a narrow win to the Democratic candidate because the 47-year-old first-term senator held his own against the five-term 72-year-old Republican who is well known for his foreign policy expertise, the debate’s topic.

Time magazine’s Joe Klein wrote:

“Towards the very end of tonight’s debate, which was quite a good one, I believe John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the ‘knowledge and experience to be president’. The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that – but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy.”

But the website Politico.com and the Wall Street Journal gave it to Senator McCain, arguing that if no leeway was given to Senator Obama’s rookie status, Senator McCain was more sure-footed on foreign affairs.

CNN tried to measure it with a poll taken straight after the debate. According to its survey, 51 per cent of those polled thought Senator Obama did the better job, while 38 per cent said Senator McCain did better.
Women voters tended to give Senator Obama higher marks.

Mostly the candidates declined the moderator’s offer to attack each other, and CNN’s audience tracking device, “the worm”, turned down any time either candidate was unduly combative.

Back on the campaign trail in Virginia on Saturday, an energised Senator Obama used Senator McCain’s answers on the economy and his failure to address the struggle facing the middle class to hammer his opponent.

Senator Obama said:

“In 90 minutes, John McCain had a lot to say about me but had nothing to say about you,”

The next debate, between the vice-presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin on Thursday night, is being eagerly awaited because it will be the first time Mrs Palin has appeared in such a forum.

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election, barack obama, debate, john mccain, politics

The cool crowd at the New York club didn’t have to wait for the result of their hero Barack Obama’s debate with John McCain — bloggers were already doing the job.

For hipsters sipping martinis between water pools and industrial-style walls at the Galapagos Art Space underneath Brooklyn bridge, this was a debate watching party with a high-tech twist.

Instead of a traditional broadcast, giant screens showed Current TV, a user-generated channel teaming for the night with messaging service Twitter, so that viewers could post instant analysis.

As Obama, a youthful 47, crossed swords with McCain, 72, viewer comments known as “tweets” flickered continuously over the images.

“Obama is just rocking.” “Obama is killing. McCain is drowning.”

Not all tweets were pro-Obama – “Barack needs to relax. He’s in his HEAD. We need HEART and SOUL” – but only anti-McCain contributions got laughs.

Young, creative, internet-savvy, the 300 people squeezing into the Galapagos mirrored the demographic group underlying the hottest support for Obama’s bid to make history as the first black president.

“We’re educated people, professionals, people with passports, people who are published,” said writer Christopher Boswell, 37. “McCain is much too much out of touch. Obama connects.”

Not surprisingly, he and almost everyone else in the club thought Obama had come out on top during the debate.

Every time Obama scored a point, a loud “yeah!” erupted.

A huge cheer came when McCain attacked his opponent for having “the most liberal voting record in the US Senate.” That, to the Galapagos crowd, was the greatest possible compliment.

When McCain later returned to what opponents consider the overly repeated story of his captivity in the Vietnam War, the Galapagos crowd jeered with even greater force.

“We want someone we can identify with, someone who makes us proud,” said Barbara Cleveland, 24, a website photo editor.

Ian Bourland, a 26-year-old history professor with a thick beard and glasses, joked: “We just want someone who can read and write.”

Critics say Obama can preachy and overly cerebral – the antithesis of in touch. But Allison Ioli, an aspiring journalist of 23, said there was still no contest.

“McCain uses the typical political jargon, but Obama uses our vocabulary. I saw him in person in Seattle and when you see him close he doesn’t seem pretentious. He actually tries to speak to us in a way we understand.”

Boswell, who is black, said the glaring generational divide in the contest would outweigh even the issue of race — and win Obama the presidency.

“Ageism will trump racism,” he predicted.

AFP

Technorati Tags: 2008 Election, barack obama, debate, john mccain, politics

Over the past 48 hours I have heard right wing commentator after right wing commentator, as well as just about every single news outlet in general wet their pants over the latest nationwide polling numbers which show John McCain ahead of Barack Obama. The glee in their voices, and contrived aloofness (“how can this be?”) promptly followed by over analyzing every aspect the shows time slot allows them to are both annoying and petty. Unfortunately for these so called “political experts” the polls they are clamoring over are flawed in more ways then just one.

So you may be asking yourself what is it that makes the latest polls, the ones showing McCain up by a handful of points invalid? And too that my answer is simple – the pollsters conducting these lopsided studies are simply sampling a larger republican population in a way that leaves the results numerically impossible to show anything less then a McCain lead.

Earlier today Seth Colter Walls published a piece over at the Huffington Post which sheds some light on the tampering going on in regards to the pollsters overall sampling sizes which of course hinges (in a macro sense) on ones Party Identification. The pollsters (for reasons unknown by myself) are flat out oversampling Republican voters, and in some cases, are doing so at an obnoxious rate. Walls explains this phenomenon in great detail, stating:

“In a year in which Democrats have a lead of 11 million registered voters over Republicans, and have been adding to that advantage through a robust field operation, are pollsters over-sampling Republicans?

Despite a raft of advantages in the electorate for Democrats, in September’s first Gallup tracking poll, an equal number of Republicans and Democrats were surveyed (including “leaners”) from Sept. 3-5, compared to a 10-point Democratic identification advantage two weeks ago. That partisan makeup of the polling pool resulted in a 5-point lead for McCain in Sept. 5 tracking poll. Meanwhile, the new CBS poll features a 6-point swing in partisan composition toward Republicans, which plays some role in the poll’s two-point lead for McCain. Finally, the latest USA Today poll, which claims a four-point edge for McCain, was arrived at after a 10-point swing in partisan makeup toward GOP respondents.”

This practice is not new to electoral politics, however it is arguably receiving more attention, or in this case scrutiny, due to the fact people can look into the raw data taken into account for whatever specific poll is in question. The reasons they do this are simple – to create a “close race” with the dramatic “ups and downs” which subsequently leads to a peaked interest in the weekly/daily numbers which then spikes the overall demand for their product – the polls:

Norman admitted that the GOP identification in the latest survey has spiked. “The party ID in our most recent poll does show a shift away from what Gallup has been getting in earlier polls, going all the way back to 2005,” Norman said. “But previous conventions — the Republican one in 1988, the Democratic one in 1992, the Democratic one in 2000 — have also shown shifts in party ID toward the party that had the convention, and those shifts seemed to last, to greater or lesser degrees, though the election. Further, I’ve been told by Gallup that their tracking poll has shown a similar shift in party ID since the Republican convention. … I guarantee you we will be watching closely in all of our polls between now and election day to see whether there are further shifts in party ID in either direction.”

Still not convinced? Well don’t just take my word on it, here is what Adam Abramowitz, a world renound political scientist who is currently a professor at Emory University has to say about the latest gaggle of polls we saw released over the past two days:

Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz is highly skeptical of the new Gallup, USA Today and CBS polls. About the latter, which showed a statistically insignificant two point lead for McCain, Abramowitz said: “One reason for the dramatic difference between the two recent CBS polls is that the two samples differed fairly dramatically in terms of partisan composition. The first sample was 35.2% Democratic, 26.2 percent Republicans, and 38.6 percent independent. The second sample was 34.9% Democratic, 31.1% Republican, and 34.0% independent. That’s a change from a 9 point Democratic advantage to a 3.8 point Democratic advantage. That alone would probably explain about half of the difference in candidate preferences between the two [CBS] polls.”

So with the argument laid out quite clearly, I think it is important that we look at a handful of other polls, which are being released by major publications. Granted they don’t offer the same “excitement” factor the other trumped up ones do, they seem nonetheless to be a tad more accurate – at least in the sense of their sampling ratios:

• American Research Group (ARG):

• Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll:

• NBC/Wall Street Journal:

It is clear that John McCain has made up some ground in the polls, I am in no way refuting that. I am however pointing out that the grossly negligent numbers that showed McCain leading by as many as 10 points were in fact doctored to appear how they did.

So before you (and by you I am talking to the Republicans who have had a nonstop orgasm the past 2 days) go on with your gloating please take into account the fact that the polls in which you are bragging about simply overloaded the sampling with GOP voters.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Battleground, Breaking news, Cbs Poll, doctoring the polls, ELECTION, Gallup Poll, joe biden, john mccain, John McCain ahead in polls, john mccain leads in the polls, new polls, new presidential polls, obama ahead in the polls, Politics News, Poll Madness Mccain Takes Lead, polls, President, Presidential Polls, Sarah Palin, unfair polls, USA Today Poll, Vote, ]

Sarah Palin just wrapped up her highly anticipated Vice Presidential acceptance speech at the Xcel Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. Palin was the Convention’s second night’s main event, serving as the “cherry on top” in what turned out to be a rather ugly, substanceless and downright tacky parade of GOP maniquens. I must admit that I found it somewhat difficult to focus on what Sarah Palin was even saying, my attention kept being averted to her infant son Trig, who might I add has down syndrome, being passed around like a bowl of chips at a super bowl party.

Let’s get one thing straight – whether you are a Republican or a Democratic, if you have any sliver of common sense in your body, you would have to admit that tonight was one of the most desperate, far-fetched, and completely free of anything to do with actual policy and plans on implementing it.

• FACT: McCain/Palin reform is just … well, there’s nothing. It’s an overused phrase but it is all rhetoric. Not only has their party been in power for 8 years. But every policy pushed by John McCain is the one embraced by George Bush. Economic policy, tax policy, Iraq policy, social issues, Bush style politicking, everything.
• FACT: Sarah Palin continues to lie through her teeth about opposing the historically attrocious”Bridge to Nowhere”. Tonight, for the second time in a week, Palin stated:

“I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere.

If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged – directly to the people of Alaska.”

This is a lie. It’s really that simple – there is no truth whatso ever behind Palin’s claim. Making the lie worse is the fact that Palin worked hard to push the project through, doing whatever she could to sure up every last pork barrel cent for this callamity of a ear mark:

“Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

How long until she gets called out for this? I mean there isn’t even a shred of truth behind her declaration of opposition – it is a bold faced lie. Yet she keeps on repeating it without any recourse or blowback. You gotta love the double standards here.

• FACT: ON Monday CNN’s Campbell Brown practically begged McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds to answer one simple question. Brown repeatedly plead with Bounds; “Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard?” Bounds didn’t answer the question, and he didn’t answer for good reason – she hasn’t:

“Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard?” CNN journalist Campbell Brown asked Monday while interviewing McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds. “Just one?” Bounds couldn’t, because Palin has never personally ordered the state guard to do anything.

The governor has no command authority overseas or anywhere in the United States other than Alaska, said Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, the service commander of the Alaska National Guard.

“When members of the National Guard are federalized, they work for the president,” Campbell said Wednesday. “It’s not just overseas. They could be federalized to go to other states or they could even be federalized in the state.”

• FACT: Keeping with the theme of regurgitating lies in an attempt to pawn them off as reality, Sarah Palin stated:

“I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending … and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.”

Again, Palin completely disregards any figment of reality. The truth of the matter is that Palin, when Mayor of Wasilla, hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.

• FACT: Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body for multiple instances of her abusing her power. Firing people at will, and letting family issues (her sister’s divorce) dictate decisions that affected the city she was supposed to be looking out for.

“The one moment that stays with me tonight, oddly enough, was not Palin’s speech. It was a line from Giuliani, a New York mayor with a young second third wife and gay friends, mocking a “cosmopolitan” who was brought up by a single mother. It was that Barack Obama’s rise could “only happen in America.” And it was designed to mock him, the first African-American candidate for the presidency of the United States. I won’t forget that.”

“Mitt Romney seems to use the word “liberal” in a randomly pejorative fashion. I half expect him to say “I was eating breakfast this morning, and my hash browns were all liberal. I sent them back and told the waitress to bring me some good, conservative hash browns.”

“Since her name was announced as John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin has generated more US-based internet search traffic than Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Michael Phelps and Barack Obama combined:”

Technorati Tags: Ap On Republican Convention, Associated Press On Republican Convention, Fact Check Gop Convention, Fact Check Republican Convention, Gop Convention Attacks, Gop Convention Palin, john mccain, Palin And Republican Convention, Palin Pick, Palin Vp, Piper Palin, Piper Palin Photos, Piper Palin Pictures, Politics News, Religious Right, Republican Convention, Republican Convention Attacks, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Convention Speech, Sarah Palin RNC Speech, Sarah Palin Speech Reactions, Slideshow

Now that the jubilation of the Democratic Party convention in Denver has peaked with Barak Obama’s acceptance of the party’s nomination, the question arises of what to do with Hillary Clinton.  Defeated for the nomination and ignored for the Vice Presidency, how can she be best used by the Democrats in a future Obama administration?  Or indeed is there a substantial role for her inside an Obama cabinet?

Hillary of course is not a pawn on a chess board to be moved around at will.  Despite her loss she is an immensely powerful political figure in her own right with a strong grip on her New York senate seat and membership of powerful senate committees.  Unlike many other candidates, her campaign has not left her in political limbo.  She could run again for President with a strong chance of victory if Barak Obama fails in his campaign or even if he succeeds and serves two full terms.

The risk for her in such a scenario is that time will pass her by as new faces emerge.  She would undoubtedly become a stalwart of the senate and a Democratic Party icon, not unlike Ted Kennedy, but would never rise again to successfully reach for the main prize, the US Presidency.  That achievement in itself would be no mean feat and would represent a significant political career.  But would it be enough for Hillary?

With this in mind would she accept a role offered by Obama?  I doubt if she would.  Undoubtedly she would make a fine Secretary of State, but she wouldn’t be the first woman, only the third, so there would seem little chance she would demean herself to accept that role when she can happily interrogate an incumbent in a Senate sub committee.

To me the only role in a future Obama administration that might appeal is Secretary of Defence.  And not only because she would be the first female to head that department but also she would have responsibility for the military in a time of war in Afghanistan, the disentanglement from George Bush’s Iraq misadventure and the ongoing management of the worldwide fight against the terrorist threat.  As vital as this role will be in the next administration, I’m not sure Obama will offer Hillary that or any other job in his administration or that she would accept it or anything else for that matter.

The only other role that might intrigue a defeated Presidential candidate with an outstanding resume, is an appointment to the US Supreme Court.  While this would be a high profile vindication of her talents, such an appointment would remove Hillary from the main game of Washington politics.  It seems unlikely that she could ever again contemplate a run for President from such an arcane institutional base.  Still, who knows?  She might be tempted if the offer were to be made.  After all it would cement her place in US history quite apart that is from her current significant achievements.

For Hillary, I have no doubt, her achievements to date, for right or wrong, still smack of her husband’s influence.  She needs to be vindicated as a historical figure in her own right.

If Barak Obama goes on to win the Presidential election in November the future career of Hillary Clinton may be one of the most interesting developments to watch.

Patrick Lawrence

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Barack Obama Vice President, Barack Obama VP, Barack Obama VP Pick, Biden For Vp, hillary clinton, Politics News

Fresh off what many are calling one of the better Democratic National Convention’s in recent memory, John McCain, his newly anointed Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin and the rest of the GOP kicked off their week long shin dig in one half of the twin cities, St. Paul, Minnesota. Well, kinda anyways. In what had to be one of the more bizarre Labor Days in quite some time, much of the RNC Convention was canceled due to Hurricane Gustav, all the while a firestorm seemingly spilled over regarding a laundry list of issues plaguing the 72 hour old VP candidate Sarah Palin. Serving as the “cherry on top”; anti-war protesters and law enforcement clashed numerous times throughout the day, subsequently ending in violence, arrests, tear gas and more bad press for the GOP.

In what was a perfect storm of “bad press” for the GOP, one thing is for sure: They will be doing everything in their power to put yesterdays events out of sight, and out of mind – this however may be harder said then done.

With no real convention story to cover, and a fading storm out of the picture by midday the media found themselves following lead after lead regarding John McCain’s surprise VP selection, former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.

To say today was a “bad day” for Palin just may be an understatement. Here is a rundown of what TPM’s Greg Sargent appropriately titled “The Palin Melt Down”:

• Palin’s previous claim to have refused the “Bridge to Nowhere” is revealed to be a falsehood:

“Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress” and opposed federal funding for a controversial bridge to a sparsely populated island. “I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that bridge to nowhere,” Palin said Friday in Ohio, using the critics’ dismissive name of the project. “‘If our state wanted a bridge,’ I said, ‘we’d build it ourselves.’”

While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess. And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste and lobbying documents.”

• Continuing to tarnish her “reformer” image, it is learned that Palin was heavily reliant on a earmark system that she now claims to be staunchly in opposition of:

On Friday, when McCain introduced her as his running mate, she said she “championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending,” the legislative technique used to slip projects into appropriations bills without rigorous congressional review.

But under her leadership, the state of Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year’s federal budget, according to the website of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

• It is learned that Palin had extensive ties to a “fringe” political outfit in Alaska whose main purpose was to push the idea of seceding from the United States:

“The Alaska Independence Party, which was formed with the goal of seceding from the union and establishing Alaska as an independent state, says that Palin addressed their 2008 convention. The AIP has posted video of what it claims is her address on its Web site.”

• We learn that Palin has just now decided to hire a lawyer in regards to her pending investigation surrounding multiple “abuse of power” cases that are currently underway in her home state of Alaska:

“MSNBC just reported that presumptive vice-presidential nominee and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has hired a lawyer in relation to the Trooper-Gate scandal. Alaska State Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Hollis French told TPMmuckraker that Palin has hired Thomas Van Flein, an Anchorage attorney at the law firm of Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness. French said that Van Flein has already been in contact with him, regarding the ongoing investigation of Palin.”

All of this in one day – yes, just one day. A mere 72 hours into her VP candidacy and this is what has surfaced. Of course this has everyone scratching their heads, asking themselves “how in the heck didn’t the McCain camp find any of this prior to her selection?”

• Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! host unlawfully arrested at RNC:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBjcqwQgF7Q

• Police Blast a Protester with Pepper Spray:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJZNkJbTpjA

• Police firing rubber bullets at protesters at incredibly close range:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OnnUTK7QjI

Reports coming from various news outlets late into Monday night, and carrying over to the wee hours of this morning seem to portray that the situation on the ground, between police and protesters is continuing to spiral further and further out of control.

That said, I am going to interject my personal opinion on the situation. Now I know a lot of people won’t like it, and that’s perfectly alright, so be it. The way I see it is that the protesters more often then not (they play the victims very well) are doing something against the rules whenever you see police act in the manner seen above. They are quick to claim “police brutality” and whine it up for the cameras, but for all constructive purposes they were dealt with, or became caught up in, police action that was being directed at stopping something or someone breaking the rules.

That is not to say that law enforcement officials are never to blame. Hell, half the time they are at fault for using excessive and/or inappropriate force. But you have to remember that they are facing highly emotional crowds, often which will go as far as they are physically able too without being refrained. With this mentality comes a high risk for riots, which would then in turn only produce an increase, at a huge rate none the less, of violence. It is this which makes the job of the police force somewhat difficult, and very unrewarding.

I should also mention that even though I am a proud Democrat, always have been, always will be, I have never been one who cheers on the side show antics of fringe groups on the outer realms of the left. In my opinion they do much more harm then good, and the only thing they really accomplish is the diminishing legitmacey of any argument they are trying to make.

Take a look at the “protesters” on the far left, and their irrational, and emotionalist actions throughout the 70′s. What did it produce? A whole lot of Republican presidents.

So in wrapping this thing up, I think it is fair to say Republican’s had a bad day, protesters had a bad day, and the media had a field day. That said, if Tuesday is anything like Labor Day, we are in for a ride, so buckle up, get some shut eye, and check back tomorrow – err, later today..

Technorati Tags: Amy Good, Bristol Palin, Bristol Palin Levi Johnston, Bristol Palin Pregnancy, Giuliani And Palin, GOP Convention, Levi Johnson, Levi Johnston, Levin Johnson Bristol Palin, Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell Alaska National Guard, Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell Palin, Mark Sanford Sarah Palin, Media News, Mike Wooten, Off The Bus News, Palin, Palin Brother In Law, Palin Family, Palin Giuliani Experience, Palin Trooper, Palin Troopergate, Police Republican Convention, Politics News, Protests GOP Convention, Protests Republican Convention, Republican Convention, rudy giuliani, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Daughter Pregnant, Sarah Palin John Mccain, Sarah Palin Scandal, Sarah Palin Trooper Scandal, Sarah Palin Vice President, Slideshow, St. Paul

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama selected Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware late Friday night to be his vice presidential running mate, according to a Democratic official, balancing his ticket with an older congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues. Biden, 65, has twice sought the White House, and is a Catholic with blue-collar roots, a generally liberal voting record and a reputation as a long-winded orator.

Across more than 30 years in the Senate, he has served at various times not only as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee but also as head of the Judiciary Committee, with its jurisdiction over anti-crime legislation, Supreme Court nominees and Constitutional issues.

In selecting Biden, Obama passed over several other potential running mates, none more prominent than former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, his tenacious rival in dozens of primaries and caucuses.

Obama’s campaign arranged a debut for the newly minted ticket on Saturday outside the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

Hundreds of miles to the west, carpenters, electricians, sound stage gurus and others transformed the Pepsi Center in Denver into a made-for-television convention venue.

Tucked away in one corner were thousands of lightweight rolled cardboard tubes, ready-made handles for signs bearing the names of the Democratic ticket – once the identity of Obama’s running mate was known.

While Obama decided against adding Clinton to his ticket, he has gone to great lengths to gain the confidence of her primary voters, agreeing to allow her name to be placed in nomination at the convention and permitting a roll call vote that threatens to expose lingering divisions within the party.

Biden slowly emerged as Obama’s choice across a long day and night of political suspense as other contenders gradually fell away.

First Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine let it be known that he had been ruled out. Then came word that Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana had also been passed over.

Several aides to Clinton said the Obama campaign had never requested financial or other records from her.

Other finalists in the veep sweepstakes were Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and Texas Rep. Chet Edwards.

Among those on the short list, Biden brought the most experience in defense or foreign policy, areas in which Obama is rated relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain.

While the war in Iraq has been supplanted as the campaign’s top issues by the economy in recent months, the recent Russian invasion of Georgia has returned foreign policy to the forefront.

In addition to foreign policy experience, Biden, a native of Scranton, Pa., has working-class roots that could benefit Obama, who lost the blue-collar vote to Clinton during their competition for the presidential nomination.

Biden was elected to the Senate at the age of 29 in 1973.

No sooner had word spread of his selection than McCain’s campaign unleashed its first attack. Spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement that Biden had:

“denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing, that Barack Obama is not ready to be president.”

As evidence, Republicans cited an ABC interview from August 2007, in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that Obama was not ready to serve as president.

Biden is seeking a new Senate term in the fall. there was no immediate word whether he intended to change plans as he reaches for national office. Biden dropped out of the 2008 race for the Democratic presidential nomination after a poor finish in the Iowa caucuses, but not before he talked dismissively of joining someone else’s ticket.

“I am not running for vice president,” he said in a Fox interview. “I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I’d rather stay as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee than be vice president.”

It was his second try for the White House. The first ended badly in 1988 when he was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

In the decades since, he become a power in the Senate, presiding over confirmation proceedings for Supreme Court nominees as well as convening hearings to criticize President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War.

Biden voted to authorize the war, but long ago became one of the Senate’s surest critics of the conflict.

Obama worked to keep his choice secret, although he addressed the issue broadly during the day in an interview.

“Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?” Obama told “The Early Show” on CBS. Second, he said, was: “Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?”

And, he added:

“I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policymaking.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo in Denver, Angela K. Brown in Waco, Texas, Glen Johnson in Boston, Randall Chase in Greenville, Del., Bob Lewis in Richmond, Va., John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., Scott Lindlaw in San Francisco and Jesse Holland in Washington contributed to this report. Pickler reported from Chicago.

Technorati Tags: barack obama, Barack Obama Joe Biden, Barack Obama Vice President, Barack Obama VP, Barack Obama VP Pick, Biden For Vp, joe biden, Joe Biden Vp, Joe Biden Vp Pick, Obama Biden, Obama Biden 08, Obama Biden 2008, Obama Biden Ticket, Politics News