But seriously now, with today being McCain’s 72nd birthday, and with his history with cancer, it is fair to consider whether a candidate for Vice-President would be ready to assume the the presidency should something tragic occur. In her remarks this morning introducing herself to the country as McCain’s Vice-Presidential pick, Palin emphasized her role in fighting corruption, as a reformer, and in taking on the “good ol’ boys” network. That’s all well and good, but fighting corruption in Alaska (population 670,053) is a lot different than tackling it in the United States overall (population 299,398,484).  But if Rudy Giuliani believes that you can’t be President without executive experience, then with her 20 months as Governor, he must believe she is more qualified for the Presidency than McCain.

As David Gergen said on CNN this morning — if McCain claims that the most important issue and challenge facing the next President is the fight against global terrorism, then this pick makes no sense. This pick takes the experience issue out of play for McCain, though he may not “get it” yet. And in the Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden, we can guess who is going to come across as more ready to tackle foreign policy issues.

The choice of Palin is transparently an aggressive grab for the disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter. And it may work with a few of them.  Palin herself, in her remarks in Dayton, mentioned the “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” that Hillary Clinton made with the number of votes she received. But will those Hillary supporters be swayed when they learn of Palin’s staunch anti-choice record? Or her unwavering support for personal gun rights and against most gun control? Or that while running for Governor she supported the teaching of creationism in public schools? Hard to say.

The dynamics of the race now favor Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  Last night’s acceptance speech was glorious in tone and presentation.  Obama took John McCain on when it comes to national security issues, and said

If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament and judgment to serve as the next commander-in-chief, that’s a debate I’m ready to have.

With the selection of Sarah Palin, McCain may have decided he doesn’t want that debate.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign spokesman, Bil Burton, on the Sarah Palin pick:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.”

First Bill had business to take care of — he had to leave no doubt of his support for Obama. He did that simply and it brought the House down:

Hillary told us in no uncertain terms that she’ll do everything she can to elect Barack Obama.

That makes two of us.

Actually that makes 18 million of us — because, like Hillary, I want all of you who supported her to vote for Barack Obama in November.

To be honest, reading it does not do it justice — it was his emphasis in delivery that did the job, and probably the Obama team, and good Democrats everywhere, exhaled with that line. In the Hall it was greeted with exhuberancy. Next he placed what is at stake in this election into two different categories:

Our nation is in trouble on two fronts: The American dream is under siege at home, and America’s leadership in the world has been weakened.

What is so simple about this categorization is that it covers everything — Whatever your definition of security, the Republicans are screwing it up. Bill then describes the problems being faced by average Americans and by America in the world in very basic ways:

Middle-class and low-income Americans are hurting, with incomes declining; job losses, poverty and inequality rising; mortgage foreclosures and credit card debt increasing; health care coverage disappearing; and a big spike in the cost of food, utilities, and gasoline.

Our position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation; a perilous dependence on imported oil; a refusal to lead on global warming; a growing indebtedness and a dependence on foreign lenders; a severely burdened military; a backsliding on global nonproliferation and arms control agreements; and a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy, from the Middle East to Africa to Latin America to Central and Eastern Europe.

Clearly, the job of the next president is to rebuild the American dream and restore America’s standing in the world.

There is no nuance, no long explanation, just a very basic description of the reality of the problems the country and its citizens are faced with at this time. It is both an indictment of George W. Bush and the Republicans who controlled all of government from 2001 through 2007, but it is also a list of the challenges faced by the next President — a list that favors Democratic solutions to Republican status quo.

Bill then “pays witness” to Obama, explaining why he is qualified to be President. Part of this section reads:

He has a remarkable ability to inspire people, to raise our hopes and rally us to high purpose. He has the intelligence and curiosity every successful president needs. His policies on the economy, taxes, health care and energy are far superior to the Republican alternatives.

Bill continues this list that not only explains Obama’s qualifications, but how it is necessary that THIS man be President. Again, the phrases are simple, yet bear more than their words. He did a nice job of stating that with the Choice of Joe Biden as the VP nominee, Obama “hit it out of the park,” with his first presidential decision, once again adding to Obama’s legitimacy to the reins of judgement and qualifications.

After declaring that “Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States, Bill then goes into how the world would be better off with an Obama Presidency:

He will work for an America with more partners and fewer adversaries. He will rebuild our frayed alliances and revitalize the international institutions which help to share the costs of the world’s problems and to leverage our power and influence. He will put us back in the forefront of the world’s fight to reduce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to stop global warming…

Again his descriptions are basic, but by placing Obama as the cure for America’s ills, he is also defining those ailments. Then Bill ties the global issues with domestic ones:

Most important, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are strong at home. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.

The turn of phrase there seems so obvious when he says it, but it goes to the core of what the election is about — the core of the choice that is to be made between the Democrats and Republicans. Do we lead by example, or by force?

Then Bill paint the picture of Republican America:

Look at the example the Republicans have set: American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They’ve worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-quarter as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage. I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other severe conditions who told me on the campaign trail that they couldn’t afford health care and couldn’t qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well-connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

America can do better than that. And Barack Obama will.

But first we have to elect him.

The litany of Republican failures and excesses is well known, but again, the Clinton ability to make every sentence a potential news sound bite is still impressive. And he again ends this section with Barack Obama as the solution. In the final section of his speech, Bill does a basic, but potent, contrast of John McCain’s America with Barack Obama’s. After the seemingly essential acknowledgment of McCain’s service and sacrifice, Bill explains:

As a senator, he has shown his independence on several issues. But on the two great questions of this election, how to rebuild the American dream and how to restore America’s leadership in the world, he still embraces the extreme philosophy which has defined his party for more than 25 years, a philosophy we never had a real chance to see in action until 2001, when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America if the policies they had talked about for decades were implemented.

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 1/2 million falling into poverty — and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all the evidence, their candidate is promising more of the same: more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will swell the deficit, increase inequality, and weaken the economy. More Band-Aids for health care that will enrich insurance companies, impoverish families and increase the number of uninsured. More going it alone in the world, instead of building the shared responsibilities and shared opportunities necessary to advance our security and restore our influence.

This beautifully ties McCain to Bush and then he delivers the kicker:

They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more!

This should be the theme of the rest of the election campaign: That the Republicans actually believe that they deserve another four years. That is a phrasing of the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama that would truly make swing voters think about their ballot.

Bill’s final task is to match Barack Obama’s background with his own and McCain’s to show that he is qualified to be President and tie Obama to the Clinton years:

Together, we prevailed in a campaign in which the Republicans said I was too young and too inexperienced to be commander in chief. Sound familiar? It didn’t work in 1992, because we were on the right side of history. And it won’t work in 2008, because Barack Obama is on the right side of history.

His life is a 21st century incarnation of the American dream.

Again, Bill Clinton can frame the debate of an election and the debate for our country better than anyone else. By the end of his speech, everyone in the Hall was a true Bill Clinton fan again, and the cheers he got were sincere as he was basking in a role that he loves more than anyone else on teh planet.

So it looks like it will be the “Trust Fund Ticket” for the Republicans — who will continue the Republican ideology of, if you got it, you should get even more. If you don’t have it, well either you didn’t marry right or didn’t have the right connections.

Another item Geoff Garin came up with is the national security issue. As he said, “John McCain’s answer to international problems is always to send in troops.” Garin pointed out that when the Clinton Administration started bombing Serbia from the air, McCain denounced this tactic destined for failure and said that the only way to solve the issue was to send in massive ground forces. Well since he was drastically wrong, as the air campaign led to Serbia’s surrender and withdrawal from Kosovo, this example paints a frightening picture of what a McCain foreign policy would be like. It also questions McCain’ judgement.

Garin’s examples show that if used intelligently, McCain’s own record can be used to counter the maverick, wise, bipartisan identity that he is trying to carve out for himself.

Looking around the convention floor before her speech, I saw a lot of Hillary delegates wearing her campaign buttons, but many of them also wore one that said “Hillary is for Barack Obama, and So am I.” Many wore their Hillary for President buttons next to a variety of Obama buttons, so for the most Hillary supporters, lastnight was their way of saluting her and then going on to the next phase of the race for November.

I did, however, find one pod of Hillary supporters in one of the state delegations that insisted on holding up “Hillary for President” signs throughout the evening, and chanting her name rather than Obama’s. Now I would have expected such behavior out of the New York delegation, and there it would have actually been understandable — but this pod was actually in the Texas delegation. Now most of the Texas delegates were full-throated in their support for Obama, and this was at the most 10% of the delegation, but it was interesting to see their stubbornness in the sea of Obama-mania.

The convention planners did well last night to distribute thousands of white “Hillary” signs that looked nothing like her own campaign logo. It was a wise way of saluting Hillary without conflicting the purpose of the event itself. However the Texas Hillary pod continued to hold up their campaign signs, and when Hillary asked the convention “Who do we need to be President?” they seemed to be shouting out “Hillary!” Tall, blue signs with “Obama” or “Hillary” on one side, and “Unity” on the other, were distributed throughout the arena, about 5 minutes into Hillary’s speech. As her speech went on, the sea of cardboard mixed these unity signs with various Obama placards and those white Hillary signs, which were understandably most prevalent in the New York delegation. But the Texas Hillary pod was persistent, though their own material was bloked out by the 90% of the Texas delegation that was with the program.

After Clinton’s speech, I saw CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux interviewing one Hillary delegate, an African American woman from Washington State, who still could not commit yet to Obama. The news networks are always going to look for conflict, and in a Hall filled with what must have been over 40,000 people they will be able to to find that story of conflict. (I am curious to see how they will cover Ron Paul delegates in St. Paul next week). But if the heart of the “Hillary or Nobody” movement is in Texas, a state that Barack Obama will not win, then I think they will not have much of an impact on the national election.

Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) gave some signals as to what the strategy will be as part of a panel on “The Politics of Green” sponsored by The New Republic.  For the twelve years that the Republicans controlled Congress and did nothing about fuel mileage standards, alternative energy and a host of other energy issues. The rhetoric of the Republicans for the past year, however, has been to say yes to everything — better fuel efficiency, alternative energy research and development, tax credits for hybrid vehicles — but they then vote against these proposals (or filibuster them) saying that they want oil drilling to be included. That is they want all options, or it seems, none. Well, Markey explained, this September they will get the chance to vote on an “all of the above” bill and then we all will see what they will do.  He called it the most critical debate of this Fall and one that could define the issue for the campaign.

What exactly the “All of the Above” bill will be is still unclear.  As the Congress was about to go on recess, a group of ten Senators from both parties met and came up with a compromise plan to address the gridlock in the congressional energy debate. This “Gang of Ten” — Five Democrats, Five Republicans — put forth their proposal that could be the “all of the above” plan that Markey was talking about.  The proposal includes:

• A Goal of having 85% of all new vehicles running on non-petroleum-based fuels within 20 years;
• Providing billions of dollars in research and development to help automakers develop these new vehicles;
• Up to $7500 in tax credits to consumers who buy vehicles that run on renewable fuels;
• Requires the federal government to open up some new areas of the Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling and exploration, and;
• Allows offshore oil drilling at least 50 miles off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, but only if those states give their permission.
• The bill is paid for by canceling tax breaks for big oil totaling $30 billion and by getting some royalty revenues from Gulf of Mexico oil drilling.

So will the congressional Democrats allow some offshore oil drilling in order to get some other energy gains as well as turn the energy issue around for the November election?  That is unclear. But what is clear is that the five Republicans in the Gang of Ten have gotten hell from a lot of conservatives. They do not like the removal of the big oil tax credits and the subsidies for research that would decrease the power of Big Oil. There is also the sense that passing this bill would basically cut off future debate about drilling in ANWR, which is a critical element to the oil industry’s demands from the Republicans. And John McCain doesn’t seem to be embracing the plan.

The odds are that even if this plan passed the House that it would not pass through a Senate filibuster — but if it did wouldn’t it be fun to see Bush squirm as to whether he should veto or sign a bill that does contain some offshore oil drilling? Signing it would mean that the issue would be removed from this year’s election. Vetoing it would mean that he is an utter and complete shill for the oil industry, not that that is anything new.

But in the end, the Democrats may need to decide which pill is worse — some offshore oil drilling or losing the issue to the Republicans, at least in teh short-run.

Where Obama is having problems seems to be with the white working-class voter with whom Bill Clinton did so well, as well as a minority of Hillary supporters who still do not want to back Obama — with some of those two groups overlapping. Recent polling has Obama being assured of “only” 80% of the Democratic vote at the moment. There seem two be two issues that Obama has to address head-on in order to get the voters that should be easily drawn to the Democrats this year: Economic Security and National Security/Patriotism.

Pollster Stan Greenberg, drawing from a study he did of Macomb County, Michigan Voters, explained that these voters want people to address their economic problems from their own point of view, not that of an outsider. To these voters, Obama’s plan is not getting through because he hasn’t connected with them in a way that shows them that he understands their lives. Rather he is viewed as an outsider, whereas Bill CLinton seemed like one of them.  Joe Biden might be able to help a little when it comes to addressing economic issues with these voters, but it Obama that still bears the burden.

At the same National Journal panel where Greenberg presented his findings, SEIU President Andy Stern explained that while Obama is “totally good” on the issues, he has work to do when it comes to salesmanship. How should Obama sell himself?  Stern offers good, down-to-earth commentary, “People are angry that they have done everything they have been asked to do, and not only are they not getting ahead, but they are falling behind.”  Obama needs to show he understands that plight.

The other side is the national security/patriotism issues which Greenberg explained were intricately intertwined.  For those for whom race is an issue, there is nothing that Obama says that could change their mind.  But for these voters, the hardest thing to get over is Obama’s association with Rev. James Wright and the G-d Damn America” speech. With the viral emails and Fox News rumors about Obama not holding his hand over his heart and saying the pledge of allegiance.  Some voters, while not certain if these rumors are true, don’t want to take a chance. And this is tied to National Security since if these voters aren’t absolutely sure of Obama’s allegiances, then they aren’t certain that he would defend the USA.  Obama seems to have an opening with working class women, though men who have already determined that Obama is not trustworthy on the patriotism issue are probably lost for this election.

One bright sign is with women overall.  Emily’s List President, Ellen Malcolm, described Planned Parenthood’s  survey  which showed that when women learned that John McCain is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, they left him in droves.

What Obama needs to do to attract these voters is to not just offer policy initiative, though that is important, not just offer hope, though that is important, not just show that he understands their condition, though that is important, but to appeal to people’s aspirations — explain to these voters how they will win with an Obama presidency.  What he needs to do, as Andy Stern explained, is to ask these voters what they think is in store for not just their own future, but that of the children and grandchildren.  Do they really believe, he should ask, that a John McCain presidency will secure their future?

There are three Seminal bloggers covering Denver:

Red Wind will explore how the Main Stream Media is covering the events in Denver and elsewhere.  He will also look at the message being broadcast by the Democrats and how it matches up with their actual policies and actions.

Josh Nelson will be covering Environmental and Energy issues, tech issues, and just generally try and cause a ruckus with his video camera.

As for myself, Ian, I plan on looking at voter strategies in terms of messaging, electoral targets and GOTV.  I will also cover some environmental/energy issues, as well as some takes on globalization — as well as whatever else comes up.

If there are any issues/topics you wish to have us cover or comment about, please leave your thoughts in the comments.   We hope you all enjoy our coverage.

Thank you. Thank you.

I bet you are surprised to see me here. For one thing, eight years ago I was actually the Democratic nominee for Vice-President of the United States along with Al Gore. Boy it is a good thing you guys stole that election from us. Just think — Al Gore as President. If he were President the U.S. probably never would have invaded Iraq — and where would be now? Four years ago I was still caught up in the thrill of Democratic politics and actually endorsed John Kerry for President. Thank goodness my endorsement carried no weight whatsoever, as John Kerry lost both Ohio and Florida, and thus the election. If Kerry had been elected he would most likely have done something reckless, such as remove troops from Iraq. What a wuss.

What the Democratic Party doesn’t understand, and why I had to leave it, my primary loss notwithstanding, is that we are at war with Islamofascist terrorists that would do anything to take away our security and threaten our freedom. That is why we had to invade Iraq and remove that tyrant Saddam Hussein, who didn’t respect the rights of his own people, and invaded Kuwait in 1991 without any provocation. There are those who argue that we should not have invaded — that there were no weapons of mass destruction, no immediate threat, and no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. But these critics would rather just sit back and wait for Saddam Hussein to welcome in Osama bin Laden and his terrorist friends as they worked together to kill all freedom-loving peoples everywhere. We can not wait and see what the terrorists will do — we must attack them before they even think of their next plans.

And that is why I am here before you — a former Democrat who is endorsing a Republican — John McCain — for President of the United States. John understands that it is critical to our security that we first threaten our adversaries, not negotiate with them. What our commitment in Iraq has shown is that America is not afraid to send in our troops to fight, even when the consequences of our actions are not understood. With John McCain as our President, every country will have to consider whether or not the United States will invade or bomb them.

On Sept. 11, 2001, we were brutally attacked by Islamist terrorists who hate us more than they love their own lives; fanatics who are as great a threat to our security and freedom as the Nazis and Communists we defeated in the last century. Make no mistake: this war, like those earlier conflicts, is a war of values. And those who don’t share our values, the values of freedom and democracy, should live in fear. Our enemies reject our founding faith that every child on earth is endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty, and opportunity — rights that we must limit and are willing to curtail in this global war. To make America safe again, we need strong leaders who know when to use American power to destroy these Islamist terrorists. And John McCain is certainly not afraid of using that power. I have never personally served in the military, but I have no problem assuming that all of our troops don’t want to slink out of Iraq in defeat, but rather they want to stay and fight until victory is achieved.

Now many of you listening might wonder why I would endorse John McCain when we disagree on so many other issues. But I ask, what is a woman’s right to choose worth when she is facing the reality islamofascist terrorism? We can not worry about universal health care or saving Social Security when our security at home is threatened by those who hate us simply because of our freedom. I can put these issues aside as long as John McCain goes after freedom-hating groups and countries wherever in the world they may be. Our American values are only important if we are alive and secure so that we can live by them.

I am not endorsing John McCain for my sake, my fellow Americans. I am endorsing him for our children’s sake and grandchildren’s sake. They should not grow up and have their own families in a world where they fear Islamic fascism. And for that reason I am willing to leave to them the largest national debt in our history, for it is better to have to worry about paying off our debt than it is to worry about whether or not you will be killed by terrorists.

So today, as I address you, the Republican delegates and the American people, please understand, I am not compromising my principles. I am simply endorsing the candidate for President who I know is willing to send our brave young men and women of the military anywhere they need to be sent in the world, in order to protect us at home., whether that be Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, or wherever threats are perceived. I know Americans are tired of conflict, but we must not waver from our path of attacking the terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring nations where they eat, sleep and breathe. We have no choice, and those who follow a different path, who are willing to retreat, will make all Americans pay a heavy price.

I have known John McCain for years as we have served together in the Senate. He is an honorable American and has unparalleled service to our country. John McCain understands that we must allow our troops and their families to pay that price, so the rest of us can live comfortably and without fear. He is willing to use the military to go after evil wherever it may be and whatever shape it takes. And that is why we must go forward from this convention and make certain that he is elected the next President of the United States.

Thank you, and God Bless America.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is not known as an agency willing to take a strong stand on anything to do with politics or morality, but there is an argument to be made that could give them cover — the security of the athletes and the spectators of the Games.  You can see from the map below that Sochi is right near the border of the Abkhazia region of Georgia, one of the areas in which Russian troops have been sent in and where there has been fighting between the two countries.

If there were any brave members of the IOC, or thoughtful leaders of the industrialized countries, they could already be raising this possibility.  And if they want to protect themselves from the politics of it, they could simply explain that they are worried about the security of the Games. And there is no sign that the region will get less stable in the years to come. Sochi, for example, was once actually part of Abkhazia, until Stalin reassigned it to Russia, and could conceivably be wrapped into the crisis of nationalities that is taking place between Russia and Georgia.

I woudl hope that the IOC has learned from its China experience that despite any promises made by a host country, there is no guarantee that conflict and oppression will cease well before an Olympic Games.  If they really did care about the impact that their games have, they would seriously consider changing the fate of the Sochi Games.

Sochi, Russia is on the border of Abkhazia, Georgia and near all the regions of the current conflict