So, McCain is totally going to try and step on Obama's speech today by leaking the GOP VP pick tonight. I'm going to guess he does it during the speech -- something nice and classy.

There's been a lot of talk about who he could pick, and all have their faults.

Lieberman -- would enrage Rove and the GOP base, which is good. But he's pro-choice and makes McCain look charismatic. Nah-guh-happen.

Ridge -- Pro-choice, scummy business practices post DHS.

Graham -- File under "Loafers, Light in the."

Crist -- See Graham.

Hutchinson -- Pro Choice. Politico reported she wasn't vetted and doesn't want the job.

Huckabee -- Hates McCain. Is crazy. Busy planning for FOX News show and 2012.

Romney -- Religious nuts hate him. Too many houses owned.

Jindal -- THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELLS MCCAIN not to pick an exorcist running mate. Plus, if Nawlins gets flooded again, he's toast.

Giuliani -- The POW/9/11 ticket would be fun, but Giuli likes the ladies a bit too much. Can't dodge that baggage.

So that leaves only one person.

PAWLENTY!!! Now, my understanding of Pawlenty is that he's a middiling Governor with some support in his home state, little experience in hardball politics, and has exactly zero national exposure. He's okay on the GOP religious tests AND is likely not sleeping with teenage boys or anything. Which makes him an oddity.

I don't know how formidable he'd be. I've seen him advocate for McCain on news shows, but never face real questions.

Whatever.

The reason why I want -- nay DREAM -- that McCain picks Pawlenty is this:

Yes, if you look a bit closer you get this:

The dream of seeing this on cars throughout the country is just too great to be denied.

So please John Sidney -- please "trot" out Tim Pawlenty as your "number 2." Life is filled with so much sadness, please bring Team Diarrhea to life.

I was wondering how the Republicans are going to match the star power of the Democratic convention. Not matter what you think of Hillary and Bill Clinton, you have to admit that they draw viewers and give pundits something to talk about. The Republicans? It's a bunch of no names after the first night. Let's see if you can guess the names of the speakers if I give you their titles. Challenge your friends!

Edit: shortened the title

The GOP and it's leading spokespersons (well, Rush Limbaugh, but if it's all you got...) are all ready to make a huge fuss over the stage at Denver's Invesco Field.

Apparently there are columns in the backdrop.  Oh my.

What kind of hubris it would be to use columns in the background of a US electorial speech?  How assuming, how arrogant, gosh, how un-American can you get?!?

Here's a sneak preview:

If you read the reports about Barack Obama's historic nomination, the subtext is clear. America is less racist because Democrats chose Obama. The opposite was being threatened if he somehow was denied: "Democrats (and America) are still racist and a black man can't get ahead".

I reject this thinking as insulting to me as an African American, and to my great country.

It is also an affront to Martin Luther King's stated vision of America.

Obama and Clinton were never judged by the content of their character.  Instead, blacks, liberals, and some young people judged him by his skin tone and what they thought he represented.

They concluded he represented progress and the future.  
No one seriously thinks Obama is "change" in a real sense that will matter in our daily lives.  If so, how?

This is all about race.  Exactly what King said it shouldn't be about.

The question we must ponder is: If obama loses, is America racist? That was the implication in the Primaries.

Well let me answer:

America is not racist. This is true whether or not Obama won/lost the Democratic nomination.

America is not racist. This is true whether or not Obama wins in November.

It is fine and great for many people to reflect on the racist past of America and to celebrate progress, but it is not fine to attempt to emotionally blackmail our political system into choosing a person we wouldn't otherwise choose.

Many people have said Obama won not as a black candidate but one who just happened to be be black. That is a bold faced lie. Were Obama a white candidate he wouldn't have had the audacity to run for POTUS. If he did, he would have done just as well as John Edwards or Dennis Kucinch.

This election is a victory for the radical left and the African American community who basically threatened the Democratic Party with mass apathy and chaos if Obama didn't win.

Hillary's only chance was to prevent Obama from ever getting going. That was impossible because the same people above were guaranteed to give him a chance to get going. The liberal electorate was never going to pass up this chance to prove they "weren't racists" anymore.

So far from being above and beyond race, this election is all about race. Sometimes shamelessly as in the Obama campaign in South Carolina, other times in a sad way such as right now.

By the way, I'm under no allusions that Hillary wouldn't do the same thing in reference to gender if she were allowed to. But the media's Clinton fatigue, plus the fact that race trumps gender in politics never permitted it to happen. Witness her "crying moment" in New Hampshire. The media was cynical from day 1 (As they should have been). Contrast that with the "Rev. Wright--I could no more disown him than my own white grandmother speech". The media accepted the bogus template completely.

I will vote for Obama in November because

- I'm a yellow dog dem and I want my party to rule the country
- Obama will appoint better judges than McCain
--Obama will work to make the criminal justice system more effective than McCain will.
-Obama supports a strong government to give people a fair chance to succeed and so do I.
-Obama supports gun control and so do I.

The policy reasons go on and on, but that's not why Democrats chose Obama and why he is being celeberated today.

It is sad that Democrats have chosen because of his race.
Many white Democrats saw/see this as their opportunity to solidify their black vote for the rest of their life and they have taken it.

This was the wrong way to make history.  It has been done numerous times the right way:

Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court
Jackie Robinson in MLB
various ceo's in business(we couldn't name them all if we tried)
Colin Powell in the military

The proper way to break a barrier like this was to run a qualified African American, win fair and square based on the issues, and then recognize the achievement afterwards.

Once again, Obama can change all of this tonight, by acknowledging the above, and saying he should be judgeed on the merits.  Either way, he and Michelle (yeah right!) will still love this country as a fair place and the best place to live.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

Gay rights pioneer Del Martin, wife of Phyllis Lyon, passed away yesterday at UCSF Hospital in San Francisco.  Together for 55 years, but married for only two months, Martin and Lyon were a shining example of the longevity and stability that same-sex couples are capable of.

Martin and Lyon first met in Seattle in 1950, and purchased a home together in San Francisco in 1955, where they lived together until Ms. Martin's death yesterday.  Martin and Lyon were amongst the founders of the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB) in 1955, the first lesbian rights organization in the United States.

In addition to the DOB, the list of firsts attributable to Martin and Lyon is both lengthy and impressive.  Between, they were the first two editors of the publication Ladders, the monthly magazine of the DOB, which championed women's issues long before NOW existed.  Lyon and Martin were the first women to insist on receiving a couple's discount on the NOW membership, and Martin was the first out lesbian on the NOW board.  They helped to found the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club, and Martin was a tireless advocate in the fight against domestic violence.

Three days down, one to go, and so far it's looking pretty good.  The Democrats had a few minefields to avoid in the convention - they had to defuse the infighting, get people excited for November, knock down McCain a few pegs, and do a good job presenting Obama to the people just tuning in.  So far so good.  There's still one more task to do tonight, but at least it plays to our strengths.  Barring an incredible choke, Obama should be able to deliver a good speech.

How do we know that the convention has been going well (and yes, I'm knocking on wood every time I type that)?  What issues are the conservative bloggers trying to raise?  They can't bring up riots or PUMAs or anything other than that the half built scaffolding looks a little pretentious.  Well as long as you don't look at the Republican VA convention or Bush in 2004.  That's all they have right now.

Meanwhile, McCain has his own crisis going on.  He has to try to find a way of getting his base to unite behind him while keeping the maverick image.  The VP issue is a huge problem for him to work around.  In a fun role reversal, Republicans are suddenly scared about the image they're presenting, "Sources also tell me that Karl Rove and other Bush White House operatives continue to push hard for Romney. But one wag told me there's a housing problem: Governor Romney has five; Sen. McCain and his wife have seven."  The housing silliness might end up causing McCain to irritate his base.  Good job there with pushing that.

Meanwhile, it sounds like the PUMAs might be doing some good, tempting McCain into a base annoying Hutchinson pick because he thinks that he has a shot of picking up most of Clinton's votes.  This is what happens when you don't understand the Internet.  You can fall for your own trolling.

The Republicans have a tough challenge next week.   Bush has to pass the torch to McCain to appease their base but if he's too blatant about it, he'll piss off everyone else.  Moreover, there's going to be a difference in viewer interest.  The Republicans really have a two day convention at most.  Their convention is going to open on Labor Day and the people who aren't busy barbecuing and drinking are likely to be more concerned with Gustav than watching Dick Cheney.  It could be the worst case scenario where the only ones watching are Democratic operatives who are looking for advertisement material.  Meanwhile Thursday is the opening of the NFL season.  Even if people turn in after the game to see the keynote (talk about an adrenaline drop off from the NFL to McCain), all of the buildup will be ignored.  

I'm not overconfident by any means.  I'm both a Democrat and a Seattle sports fan so I'm always waiting for the disaster to happen.  However, barring something horrible tonight, we accomplished our task incredibly well.  Now it's the Republican's turn.  

Well, it's official that John McCain wins biggest asshole of the 2008 campaign. He won't announce his VP tonight, but he will "leak" it to the media late tonight. Keeps getting more desperate, huh? First we hear that he might wait to announce until after the DNC convention to kill the Dems' bounce. Then we hear that he will announce it the morning after. Now he's leaking it the day of Obama's speech.

Fine.

It's now OUR job to find out who it is and beat the hell out of this story to get it noticed. I'm sure other reporters are on the job, but most of them are probably in Denver. If anybody hears anything, let's pound the drum until we get heard.

One person at Kos thinks it's Rob Portman based on speaking locations, but I think we can infer from Obama's schedule that that doesn't mean anything. Someone at Kos said that their uncle told them that his security company was notified to expect Secret Service backup for Ms. Hutchison. I have to admit, I give McCain credit for actually picking a woman. It's a complete and total pander, of course, but kudos to him if it's true. Anyone near that area? Anyone wanna help me call CNN to ask where the house cameras are?

Quick question: Would older female voters vote for McCain, who opposes women's rights in most forms, simply because he picked a 65 year old female VP that he knows full well probably has no chance of ever making it to President? I suppose anything's possible, but I'd actually like to hear from the Obama haters on this one. I'd like to see them justify that stance.

EDIT: Thinking about it, if anyone is in a position to do so, why not float that it's the pick anyway? At worst, it just puts McCain on defense and makes him look worse if he picks Pawlenty or Portman.

Having observed the disconcerting willingness of the mainstream media to play along with the McCain campaign's aggressive attempts to undermine Obama's presumed fitness to lead the nation as Commander-in-Chief in recent weeks it seems we may have reached a turning point.  For quite some time the media has agreeably aired tendentious narratives with a very 'Gee whiz' insouciance as to the actual content, not to mention replaying videos purported to be 'campaign ads' which ran in very limited broadcast markets but received millions of dollars of free exposure with cable and broadcast news audiences.  One wondered how long this would continue and now perhaps there is a sign of some reluctance to doltishly play along.

Consider today's piece from Jake Tapper, no Obama loyalist, to say the least, on the McCain campaign's most recent effort (emphasis added throughout):

We, in the media, have given a lot of airtime to the TV ads of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week, starring, as they do, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

There's been evidence emerging that McCain's campaign isn't really running these ads anywhere, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

"These were basically video press releases," CMAG's Evan Tracey tells the Wall Street Journal.

OK, so that's kind of dishonest of the McCain campaign.

Jake Tapper - Did Obama Say Iran Is a 'Tiny' Country That 'Doesn't Pose a Serious Threat'? ABC 27 Aug 08

OK, there's a self-evident piece of punditry for a start.  Only about eight weeks too late, but never mind.  Second thoughts but no contrition on the part of the national media, but you get that.  But it gets better:

Today's new McCain ad -- "Tiny," which you can watch HERE -- crosses a new line into dishonesty, however, beyond whether or not it's actually airing anywhere.

The script reads: "Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.

"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat,'" the ad continues. "Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'? Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."

This is a dishonest representation of Obama's words.

Jake Tapper - Did Obama Say Iran Is a 'Tiny' Country That 'Doesn't Pose a Serious Threat'? ABC 27 Aug 08

Huh?  Did one read that correctly?  You bet.  I wonder if we are turning a little corner here, every little bit helps.  Jake Tapper continues, impressively, with a full quotation of Obama's original comments in his article and provides a video link as well, which you can see here.  Ironically, it's really worth watching.  And his conclusion?:

That is not even close to Obama saying Iran is a "tiny" country that "doesn't pose a serious threat."

Not even close.

Jake Tapper - Did Obama Say Iran Is a 'Tiny' Country That 'Doesn't Pose a Serious Threat'? ABC 27 Aug 08

Wow.  Simple, straightforward and unequivocal demolition of the McCain campaign's 'video press release' at first point-of-contact.  Bet they think twice about trying that again.  And let's hope this is an indication that the 'honeymoon' is over and the media, at least the print media, has woken up to the fact that they are being played like a violin by someone with a tin ear.

Incidentally, one usually includes a feedback link when the media drops a clanger so it seems only fair to provide one when they are actually doing their jobs, and let's hope to see more of the same for many cycles to come.  You may contact ABC here and show your support for genuine journalism.