"Obama's VP Highlights Weaknesses, Not Strengths" - Duh

I saw a headline in Yahoo! News about how Obama's choice of Biden for his running mate only emphasizes Obama's own weaknesses, and does nothing to highlight his strengths.

I thought that was a pretty lame idea for an article.

Obama is the candidate for change because he's new. And being new, he has a much shorter list of experience than the other guys. That means that we don't know what his strengths are.

If Obama were an economic expert, then Biden would emphasize Obama's financial prowess by providing contrast with his own military background.

In fact, anything that Obama has a strength in, that Biden doesn't, would automatically be highlighted by choosing Biden. People would say, "Obama chose Biden because Biden's good at X, and we all know Obama's good at Y."

It makes perfect sense to balance out the team's strengths. The only reason taking that action would ever highlight weakness is when the team captain doesn't have any strengths to be contrasted with.

So then, any new expert teammate just highlights how Obama isn't an expert in that teammate's specialty.

The point is, Obama could have chosen pretty much anyone, and that headline about "highlighting his weaknesses" would still have applied.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Obama in Afghanistan: The Real Story

I got this email forwarded from the wife of a soldier:

From: Shapiro, Bonnie A Civ USAF ACC 23 WG/SEA
Date: 7/25/2008 7:45:35 AM
Subject: FW: Obama in Afghanistan

Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass
along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on
his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the
area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here
at Bagram.

As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and
didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the
General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell (pretty
much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work
out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing
basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to
thank them for their service.

So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back
home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are
going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank
those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the
Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to
be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how
anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that
he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and
our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to
know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news
is all fake.

In service,
CPT Jeffrey S. Porter
Battle Captain
TF Wasatch
American Soldier

---

That message was provocative. But it's so easy to check online to see if it's accurate.

After quick search I found that CPT Jeffrey S. Porter later retracted his email, saying, "After checking my sources some of the information that was put out in my e-mail was wrong."

Snopes.com features accounts of other service men and women who met Obama and can attest to his friendly behavior. There are pictures backing them up.

There is also a "Department of Defense video [which] shows Senator Obama meeting, talking, and eating breakfast with U.S. troops in Afghanistan":




Wikipedia and the Army Times say pretty much the same.

According to Snopes, "Tales of prominent Democrats snubbing or acting rudely towards military and security personnel ... have been a common form of political rumor over the last few decades."

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

Globetrotter Candidates

I think Obama has set a precedent that future Presidential candidates will seek to repeat. In traveling abroad, and apparently campaigning internationally, Obama has opened up a new era encompassing all nations in the consideration of America's next President.

I believe that after most mentions of Obama's trip in the media, the reporter or anchorman would add that McCain had done something similar a few months ago. And yet Obama got major coverage for it! It makes him seem like the hero of the world. But some people still believe McCain knows more about leading the country.

Last night while channel surfing, I saw Obama's face on at least 7 different networks. Pretty much within a five-minute period. Maybe he said something really important. But it struck me as possibly evident of a polarized media. ...Nah.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

New McCain Ad: Nicely Done

I saw an ad for the McCain Campaign the other day, and it hooked me. The music was great, the background information was solid, and the images were moving. The narrator was fantastic.

At the end, it said something like, "Don't hope for a better tomorrow. Vote for one. McCain."

Then the McCain logo came together swiftly. It was a pretty neat effect.

I enjoy seeing well-made advertising on television, especially when so many commercials seem pretty stupid.

Obviously the "Don't hope, vote," message was a swipe at Obama and his Hope-based platform. But based on the difference in speech quality between Obama and McCain, and the fact that Obama seems to prefer generalities while McCain deals in specifics, the ad seemed completely justified in its jab.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

McCain Rules!

I was watching a speech by John McCain the other day. I noticed something. Something big. Huge, even.

McCain was citing all kinds of ways he planned to fix every conceivable problem this country is facing. He rattled of solution after solution. And he almost hit the charisma peak that we all want to see. But not quite.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to make bland promises, without really saying how he hopes to accomplish his (and really, our) goals. But he is one heck of a speaker. He can rally up the crowd. But is that what we want? All bark and no bite?

So what if McCain doesn't have super charisma and the energy of youth? He's got experience, knowledge, and well-defined plans for how to make this country greater than ever.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

McCain vs. Clinton vs. Obama vs. Homeless People

I recently heard on The Daily Show that Democrats come up with no ideas, while Republicans come up with bad ideas, which Democrats then make worse.

I just got a political email dealing with something similar. In it, a Republican comes up with an idea, a Democrat copies it, and a second Democrat does nothing but speak about change.

Here's the full text:

"The Difference

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama were walking down
a Washington DC street when they came upon a homeless man.

John McCain gave the man his business card and told him to come
to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it
to the man.

Hillary was very impressed, so when they came upon another
homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to him and
gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into
John McCain's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her
administrative fees and gave the homeless man $5.

When they came upon yet another homeless person, Barack told him
to "have hope...change is coming..." and gave him nothing.

Now do you understand the difference?"

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.

SNL vs. Hillary Clinton

I saw a 3-week old episode of Saturday Night Live a couple days ago, featuring the Indiana Jones Shia LaBeouf (as opposed to the Transformers one).

In that episode, Amy Poehler again portrayed Hillary Clinton, and really slammed her pretty hard. Poehler, as Clinton, talked about how Obama simply wasn't up to her standards. The qualities that Obama lacks, but Clinton possesses are apparently those of a sore loser with no ethical standards, and racist supporters.

Poehler-Clinton said Hillary was spiteful enough that if she didn't win, she wouldn't be super gung-ho about helping Obama win the General Election. But if she did win, Obama would be glad to help her, according to Poehler. Also, Hillary apparently stops at nothing, like playing the Gender Card, while Obama refuses to play the Race Card. Lastly, people who support Clinton are all racist (according to Poehler), but those who support Obama aren't.

This was really weird. I didn't know SNL favored one candidate over another. I thought they'd make fun of all equally. Even the audience seemed to look past Poehler's jokes and see her speech for what it really was - an endorsement of Obama.

But what really struck me as interesting was how most of what she said could have been flipped around and applied in reverse direction. She could have said that all supporters of Obama are racist, that Obama has played the race card in some fashion, subtly or not, and that he would be a sore loser. After all, speculating about a candidate's potential future actions leaves room for any conclusion. You could argue, "Oh, Hillary's no good because if she was ever in a hostage situation, and a crocodile was pointing a gun at her, she'd use the nearest child as a human shield." The point is that just because Poehler says Hillary won't (future tense) support Obama, doesn't mean that would happen.

It's so weird. I see stuff in different places highlighting one aspect of one candidate, when the other candidate seems to have (or likely has) the same characteristic. And yet the article or story treats their issue as being incredibly important. Like Yahoo.

Yahoo said, "Oh, wow, look everybody, Obama planned for the long haul, but Hillary didn't!" I would assume both candidates did pretty much equal planning, and just because a reporter doesn't get answers, doesn't mean those answers don't exist.

Like, "Hillary and co., did you guys plan way far ahead?"

"No comment."

"Hey everybody, she said, 'No!'"

I'll bet Hillary had some guy somewhere working on a long-term plan just in case any short-term fast-win goals didn't get met.

I keep hearing about why Obama is better, but it's not really concrete stuff. It's more like, "He's better because the general consensus says so, and here's some soft evidence." I'd like some hard evidence, and that's rare. It really comes from hearing each candidate speak, and seeing their actions. But most of the stuff has all been hearsay. I'm kind of tired of it.

And SNL's point seemed to be, "Hey, Hillary's bad, so who you gonna vote for? Only 1 option..."

Oh, guess they mean I can't vote for McCain...

If you liked this post, please subscribe to my RSS feed.