Watching Sports
With McCain, Obama?

This burns my bacon. A poll found that people would rather watch a football game with Barack Obama than John McCain.

Who cares? And more importantly, it makes my skin crawl to know there are some people who believe this really matters.

Because do you know there are some people out there who actually will vote for a candidate because he seems like a good guy to watch a game with? Or there are some people who will vote for McCain or Obama because they live in the same state as the candidates, or the same age, or even have the same skin color?

It’s times like this that those radical right-wing militia groups actually make a lot sense by hiding out in the woods and wait for the American government to collapse on itself.

You know what? I could care less if Obama enjoys kicking little old ladies down some stairs or that McCain likes to watch naked farm animals in his underwear. I don’t care if they both have secret sleepovers with each other and watch the Philadelphia Eagles get creamed as they polish their toenails.

Because it doesn’t matter what these people’s personalities are. I don’t want these people to be my friends. I want them fixing the economy and blowing away terrorists before they attack Americans or other innocents first.

But no, nothing is practical anymore. We have to have candidates that appear to be our friends to make us interested in them. Sure, it would be great if a candidate is naturally polite and nice, but that doesn’t mean he can get the job done.

There are so truly mean S.O.B.s out there who know what they’re doing and they’re good at it. They don’t get all touchy, feely and ask how your weekend was, but they make damn sure the company doesn’t go under.

Folks, can we just stick with picking the guy who knows what he’s doing, or at least appears to be, instead of choosing a guy who might make a good drinking buddy? We’re only talking about electing the leader of the free world, after all.

NY Times Attacks McCain
For Defending Himself

I want to say this burns my bacon, but to be honest, it explodes it.

The New York Times’ editorial board wrote an opinion piece about Barack Obama accusing John McCain and President Bush of using or planning on using racial scare tactics. But while many would think that they would go after Obama, they instead attack John McCain for firing back at Obama’s false accusations.

First, they claim that McCain’s attack ad of comparing Obama with drunken celebrity Britney Spears was a “racially tinged attack” on the Illinois senator. How they make this great leap of illogic, The New York Times makes a weak case for it.

While there has been no real evidence that McCain has or will use race against Obama, The New York Times decides to paint him guilty of racial attacks anyway by associating the Arizona senator with a few dirty Republicans who allegedly used a racial attack on black Senator candidate Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. The ads against Ford “juxtaposed” him with white women, according to The New York Times.

However, the only ad that I could find that’s against Ford isn’t a racial attack at all and it’s still a weak comparison with McCain’s ad, because if you’re going to sleazily compare a presidential candidate with an airhead celebrity, who better than Britney Spears? It seems like a good case of The New York Times seeing things that aren’t there.

Is John McCain's political ad a racial attack against Obama? The New York Times seems to think so.

And instead of attacking Obama for his obvious and false racial assault on not only McCain but President Bush, The New York Times goes after McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis when he defensively said, “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.”

Now, it’s interesting that The New York Times doesn’t have a problem with, “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” but they’re having kittens over what Davis said.

Because according to The New York Times, Davis’ statement conjures up a “loaded racial image” of Robert Shapiro during the famous O.J. Simpson murder case when he said, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”

The Joker deals from the bottom of the deck. Is he a criminally insane racist?

But isn’t that what Obama did? He blatantly played that card and it was from the bottom of the deck because it was a low thing to do to accuse our nation’s president and another politician of using racial scare tactics and don’t offer any solid proof.

The New York Times not only kicked John McCain when he was down after being falsely accused of being a racist by his political opponent, but they stomped on him for trying to defend himself from Obama’s baseless attacks.

It’s bad enough that they turn a blind eye against Obama’s despicable statements, but they also made a feeble argument that McCain will use racial attacks simply because he is guilty by association because of what fellow Republicans allegedly did in Tennessee.

This sadly certainly gives credence to what many McCain supporters have been saying about Obama: He’s a Teflon candidate that the media simply loves too much to be objective with.

But more importantly, The New York Times just destroyed its own credibility when they attacked a victim and not the attacker.

What Does An Obama-Clinton Ticket Mean?

According to recent news reports, the junior Illinois senator beat the junior New York senator for the Democratic Party’s title of presidential nominee.

And now, people in Hillary Clinton’s camp are saying that she is considering to “withholding a formal departure from the race partly to use her remaining leverage to press for a spot on the ticket,” according to the Associated Press.

How well will this settle with Americans, particularly the Democrats? Some Democrats have despised Clinton so much that they would rather see someone else to be Barack Obama’s vice president. Some listed other Democrats for the spot, such as New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, just to name a few.

And with the never-ending attacks between Obama and Clinton during the campaign trail, it would be a hard sale to Democratic voters and Republicans, who are not pleased with presumed GOP nominee John McCain, by these two juggernauts. After all, how believable would it be for these two to tell America that they are the right choice for this country after the backstabbing that they have done towards each other?

Sure, they’re not the first candidates to fight and kiss up and share a ticket, but this is certainly one of the dirtiest races that is burned into voters’ recent memories. How do they expect the average voter to forget their never-ending battles? Apparently, some calling for Richardson or Sebelius to be Obama’s vice president aren’t going to forget any time soon.

Another problem with an Obama-Clinton ticket is that some voters from both parties can’t see past skin color and reproductive organs, certainly a sad thing, since we’re in the 21st century. However, this is a clear contrast from other voters who see a ticket like that as an ultimate dream, that the races and sexes are finally equal.

But there are too many negatives for an Obama-Clinton ticket and the Illinois senator must realize this. Obama might do better with selecting a candidate with real global experience in a leadership role, like Richardson, who was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations in 1997, until he was appointed as U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1998.

As I wrote about before, even former Sen. John Edwards might be a good person to consider. He has the experience of running as vice president and has learned some important lessons from that. He has worked for homeless causes and for education, among other things. Clearly, Richardson and Edwards have more to offer than Hillary Clinton, who has only held one elected leadership title in her professional life.

Although, an Obama-Richardson ticket would be a double shot of minorities for some voters who can’t get beyond race. But a ticket like that would make many have an honest concern on how they would address the illegal immigration debate that is gripping this nation, because of their stance on the issue.

Clearly, Obama has some very tough decisions ahead of him in selecting his vice president. It’s an important job that should not be taken likely. However, choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate would be like shooting himself in the foot. There is too much emotional and political baggage for weary, war-torn voters to take.

What Obama needs is a candidate that will not only help him on his weaker experiences and also shares his policies, but also has the charisma and promise that he himself has, which has seemingly led him right into the arms of a welcoming Democratic Party as presumed presidential nominee.