Looking back on a few days prior, it’s a little odd to hear CNN commentators puzzled by Lieberman’s “attack-dog” speech on the DNC. Apparently, it’s beyond basic decency to criticize his “own party.” But that’s the problem: The Democratic Party is no longer the party of Joe Lieberman. This is a guy who agrees with Obama 95% of the time, and yet he was ran out of his own party! Did CNN just happen to forget that the neophyte Ned Lamont led the insurrection against Lieberman because of his Iraq record? That there was practically an ideological witch-hunt carried out against Lieberman (and other Democrats) by the so-called Netroots?

Look, if I were Joe Lieberman and I had served my party for so long and campaigned as its second-in-command in 2000, I’d show no mercy when it abandons me for sticking to my principles. Lieberman is not a bad man nor a bad Democrat - he broke from party doctrine on pretty much only one issue. In his eyes, and in mine (as a former Democrat supporter), he is probably completely justified in taking down the people who ran him out.

I apologize for sounding like a partisan hack these past few days, but I’m bewildered by the assertion that Obama is experienced and ready to lead because he won his party’s nomination and the confidence of “millions of people.” My first reaction is to point out how much that smacks of self-adulation on the part of liberals who presumably voted in the primaries (or supported Obama). I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t automatically take it as fact that a DNC consensus on someone indicates that that person is qualified for a position of power.

Secondly, I think people are misunderstanding the standards by which we judge qualification. Being a very popular politician does not make you qualified for anything. All it means is you can sell your image and your brand very well. By that standard, the left would have to concede that Bush was a more qualified candidate than Kerry in 2004 because he won the popular vote. They won’t, and I’m not saying he was or wasn’t, but it should be apparent by now that pointing out that other people’s confidence something is good or right or true does not make it actually so.

I have been meaning to post for a while, and topics include a meaty, searing indictment of JFK jr. Alas, I’ve been without internet connection for the past few days. So what’s new?

Well, there’s the whole “Bristol-gate”. Now, I haven’t been following along that attentively to be perfect on the details, but it seems this is the part where you really have to throw your hands up and admit that, if the media is not liberally-biased, it is certainly Obama-biased.

For example, if you haven’t noticed the free-ride Obama has gotten, the lack of scrutiny on the Change/Biden irony, the media pile-up against Hilary Clinton during the primaries - all things you should have noticed - then I point you to the media’s reckless insinuations towards Sarah Palin’s kids. From a Clintonite:

On Tuesday, the mainstream media, which never looked into allegations against John Edwards that turned out to be true and might have affected the race, splashed the personal life of Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter onto virtually every front page, including this paper’s — even going as far as to cloak the details in news articles about the vice presidential vetting process.

The debate should end there. But it seems neither Obama supporters nor New York Times commenters have any decorum or, you know, a sense of decency. For example:

But it was the candidate herself that put her children front and center, making them a part of her political identity and thus, it seems, open to questioning and fine. then dont bring bristol and her baby’s father to the convention.

So, people know it’s pretty unethical to put the children of politicians in a media war-zone, and yet they excuse themselves for doing exactly that because the woman brought her kids to her acceptance speech and because she’s bringing them to the convention? Last time I checked, when a politician achieves some kind of praise-worthy success, he/she is allowed to include his/her family in the celebrations. My god, what would we be saying if Palin had not let Bristol come to her acceptance? And excuse the french, but wouldn’t it be a bitch move to now hide Bristol from the convention? Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t, eh?

Which brings me to the actual issue at hand: Sarah Palin is a social conservative and a new light for evangelicals, and she has an unwed, pregnant 17-year old daughter. Yes, that sounds hypocritical, but only if your intent is to defame the woman. Yes, the fact that Bristol is pregnant shows a potential lack of parental judgment, but it shouldn’t in any way undermine her convictions or make her a worse leader. For one, parenting is hard, and as a young person who, you know, has a relationship with his parents, I can tell you first hand there isn’t always a direct link between the successes and failures of children and the efforts of their parents. Second, if Palin believes that pre-marital sex is a sin (we don’t know that, only that she is staunchly pro-life), she should continue believing in those principles and advocate for them. After-all, it was her daughter - a living, breathing, independentedly-minded human being - and not her who had the pre-marital sex. I mean, if McCain had a son who committed torture as an Abu Grahib guard, should that, you know, disqualify McCain from advocating against torture?

But perhaps conservatives and McCain supporters, and possibly even middle-America, will get fired up over the left’s low blows and flock to McCain with more fervor. I am, and I’m neither an evangelical nor a social conservative.

Over at Mises, blogger S.M. Olivia runs a series of criticisms of the Palin VP pick. Given that I think Obama has about as much experience (or inexperience) as Palin (Obama has one term in the senate, a good chunk of which was spent campaigning for president), I don’t think many of these criticisms have much weight. For example:

Rick Brookheiser of National Review presents a succinct argument against presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Heath Palin: “Either [John] McCain thinks the war on terror isn’t serious, or he thinks the vice-presidency isn’t. Since the former is obviously untrue, it must be the latter.”

Or, one could say: “Either Obama thinks the war on terror isn’t serious, or he thinks the presidency isn’t. Since the former is obviously untrue, it must be the latter.”

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a pillar of the new establishment media, wrote, “The most important thing about a Vice Presidential candidate — as with a Presidential candidate — is fitness to be President.”

Of-course. But in the case of Obama, maybe the truism is that, “The most important about a presidential candidate is fitness to be president.”

Now, I don’t think Obama is unfit to be president, just as I don’t think Palin is unfit to take on the job in the case of a McCain death. But if the doubters and haters are going to play the Palin inexperience card, I might as well dish some of their own medicine back at them.

I have never really put much stock into the whole experience question when it comes to presidential politics. Neither Reagan nor Thatcher had that much prior experience before becoming two of history’s greatest political executives. I myself have only brought up the issue when criticizing Giuliani, who tried to play the “national security hawk” role during the GOP primaries when it was quite evident the only national security experience had had was being mayor of a big American city and that McCain, the veteran of all things national security, was being absurdly overlooked by the press.

As a Republican, I play along with the McCain campaign’s allegations that Obama is not ready. Obviously, there is some merit to this charge when Obama is standing next to McCain, so I don’t think it’s so off base that I would balk in disgust, as many Democrats have done. At the same time, I feel it’s necessary to put the fears of an inexperienced Palin a “heartbeat away” from the presidency to rest. Michael Levy writes:

What does McCain’s pick say? I am not sure, and at first blush it makes little sense.

Palin’s selection eliminates—or at least greatly reduces—the effectiveness of the chief charge against Obama–that he’s not ready to be president, that he’s too inexperienced.

How can the Republicans make that case when their vice-presidential pick–someone who is a heartbeat away from the presidency–has less experience than Obama? If Obama’s not ready to be president, then surely Sarah Palin cannot be either. Palin’s youth and vigor will also stand in stark contrast to McCain, who is the oldest non-incumbent ever to secure a major party’s nomination for the presidency.

The way I see it, Palin serves as a tacit reminder to Americans of what position the Obama campaign qualifies him for: vice-president. Given that she has about as much political experience as Obama (two year governor and one term senator makes little difference in my eyes) and arguably more governing experience than any of the three men in the race combined lends credibility to this message. Yes, the whole experience theme goes out the window as a political attack ad, but now McCain can focus on Obama’s other weaknesses while subliminally keeping it alive. Palin also serves as a trap for any Democrat who dares to question McCain’s age. The standard “should McCain die, we’ll have Palin as president!” line won’t work because anybody with sense  will point out that Obama, who is as inexperienced as Palin, would occupy the presidency anyways!

In other words, I’m back. I won’t be posting as frequently over the course of the next two days because I’m moving to Toronto for school, but once I get settled in the work will continue.

As of now, here are my thoughts on the Veepstake picks (incidentally, my first election post):

- I’ve always been weary of Obama as some kind of agent for change (more to come later), let alone a messianic figure in America’s future history books, but I have to say that the selection of Biden blunts the campaign’s own “change” rhetoric. I mean, here is an old Washingtonian democrat who has been with the establishment for 30 years. If I were an impartial foreign observer, I’d say “here’s another old, white, male institutionalist.” I’m guessing the standard justification for Biden’s selection would be his foreign policy experience, but when you’re as young as Obama, you don’t really need to worry about dying in office and having a ready-made successor. Rather, this just highlights Obama’s own insecurity about his foreign policy experience (for dems tired of another Cheney-style “imperial vice presidency”, this doesn’t bode well).

- Should I even comment that Biden has zero cross-over appeal? In terms of electoral strategy, Clinton or Webb would have both been better picks (not that I’d enjoy the thought of those two people a heartbeat away from the presidency).

- Biden should not mention that he is a good friend of McCain’s. It just makes the insults he hurls at McCain - that he’s “out of touch” and insensitive to economic issues, or that he’s the clone of Bush (that hurts when you’re McCain) - sound pretty outrageous. I have liberal friends I disagree with all the time, but I don’t start questioning their character in public. NB. This adds insult to injury when Biden already has a record of badmouthing Obama before becoming his VP.

- Can I say that I really like Palin? The opportunist in me certainly likes her appeal among angry clintonites. But my positive opinion of her is not entirely manipulative. For one, she consolidates McCain’s pro-ethics, anti-subsidy, maverick reputation: double down on your hidden strengths. She also lends credibility to McCain’s energy plan because, well, if anyone in a presidential and vice-presidential debate knows anything about Alaska/ANWR/Offshore drilling, it should be the former governor of the state.

- Bill Kristol once noted on Fox News that Bobby Jindal would have been the perfect VP pick because he’d challenge Obama on the “change” theme and more importantly, make him his equal/belittle his presidential standing relative to McCain. Palin does just that - she is female, young, and just as “inexperienced” as Obama (though she has more executive experience than both candidates combined). She would, in effect, put Obama on her level and make voters realize that both are equally qualified - to be vice president.

- Last but not least, Palin is a milf. Seriously. Whoever said “D.C. is a hollywood for ugly people” was right. Clearly, the hot politicians reside in Alaska.

Josh should be back at some point this weekend and probably has more to say about the Palin pick than I do.  My reflexive response to the news was to imagine all of the swing Hillary supporters collectively turn off the coverage of the Obama speech and have their pride swell up in making their decision to vote for McCain.  As if to say, we’ll show you Sen. Obama–nobody messes with Hillary and gets away with it.  What Hillary has to say at this point has little or no bearing, in my opinion, on how these political vagabond Clintonites will vote.  Being a Hillary supporter is not about political ideology, adherence to a set of beliefs or any particular issue.  It’s a worldview that is centered on stubborness, a sense of entitlement and populist delusions.   If McCain’s camp truly thinks that this is demographic that will make or break this election for him, and it just might, then he has thrown himself at their feet.

The amusing part is that some months ago, when Hillary was considered a potential VP pick, the worry was that it would energize the Republican base.  Now Hillary’s base might decide the election for McCain.  The Obama camp always harbored the fear of alienating Hillary supporters, but its a bit bizarre to think about the fact that it could cost him the election.  For Obama, its more or less a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation; no doubt had Obama picked Hillary, John McCain would have shifted his strategy and framed his campaing accordingly.

As for Palin, it remains to be seen how well she can attract swing voters.  Being Pro-Life isn’t exactly the vinegar that will attract the bees, but she’s a woman who can handle firearms, has five kids and shares many cultural experiences with the blue-collar Americans who Hillary made a lame bid to pass of to Obama this past week.  As many have pointed out, Palin is a high-risk high-reward type pick that reframes this campaign.  Now that the pieces are all in place, its time for the games to begin.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com discusses the apparent bounce that Obama has received in recent gallup polls. The Rasmussen poll hasn’t yet shown a commensurate effect, but polls that weight by political identification generally are not impacted by the conventions.

Ross Douthat has been mulling McCain VP ideas and is convinced that there is a huge opportunity to mitigate this bounce and maybe reverse it. Because Obama went with an “obvious” and “boring” option that did not energize the media (nor in large part his constituency) a surprise pick for the Republican VP could change the trajectory of the campaign.

For a few months now, I’ve inclined toward Sarah Palin as a gamble worth taking: She’s a charming unknown with a great story, both politically and personally, and the potential upside of having the media fawn all over her for a week or two might outweigh the risk that she undercuts McCain’s experience narrative and/or gets carved up by Biden in a veep debate…I suppose I’d be happiest with Tim Pawlenty or Eric Cantor, both of whom seem much more in sync with the broad thesis of Grand New Party than your average Republican pol, even if neither of them are running around screaming about wage subsidies or the weighted-student formula. So out of the options on the table, I guess I’m pulling for one of them. But from a purely political point of view, I think McCain could use a pick that sparks more media excitement than either Pawlenty or Cantor probably would; I’m just at a loss to come up with someone who fits that bill and passes my own ideological litmus tests.

Target just settled with the National Federation of the Blind for about 6 million dollars. Why you ask? Because their website is not sufficiently amenable to use by the blind.

Target and the NFB have agreed to a three-year relationship during which the advocacy group will keep testing the site to make sure it is accessible to the blind who use assistive technologies such as screen-reading software. NFB said it will certify the site through its own certification program once the improvements are completed.

The issue centres on the Americans With Disabilities Act, a 1990 law that requires retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target had argued that the law only covered physical spaces.

“We feel that it is a wake-up call to companies that have websites that are selling goods and services,” said Christopher Danielsen, a spokesman at the NFB. “They need to pay attention to accessibility. It is the right thing to do.”

It isn’t that I don’t think blind people ought to use computers–as technology improves there is little doubt that the blind will find it increasingly easy to use the internet. However, can Target reasonably expected to shoulder the burden of catering to every disability group with a resourceful lobby whose constituents have any level of difficulty using computers? I tend to agree with Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine on this one.

If so, this suggests that blind people either don’t buy much or generally seek assistance when they shop. Otherwise, businesses that catered to blind shoppers would have a competitive advantage over those that didn’t. Assuming there just isn’t enough revenue at stake to justify a complete Web overhaul, why should Target bear the cost of making its site accessible? If our legislators have decided that helping the blind and otherwise disabled is a Good Thing, they should have the guts to allocate taxpayer money for the purpose, instead of imposing unfunded mandates on businesses.

McCain is leading by a few points in many of today’s tracking polls.  Where is Obama’s convention bounce?  Nate Silver explains:

There is a lot of nervous buzz today about the national tracking polls. Gallup now gives John McCain a 2-point lead, the first time he has had an advantage of any amount since late May. Rasmussen, meanwhile, has the race converging back into a tie, after having shown Barack Obama ahead by 3 points yesterday.

This tracking polling will NOT reflect any convention bounce (or its absence). These polling firms concluded their interviews by mid-evening, before Michelle Obama’s speech and before network coverage of the convention began. So if there is a response to the events of Monday night, it will show up in the field on Tuesday, which means that it will be reflected in polls released on Wednesday. Moreover, our research has concluded that there typically is not any bounce until the third day of the convention. As such, this polling tells us nothing at all about the convention so far, and it probably won’t tell us a whole lot until at least Thursday or Friday.