Hillary will rise again!

I'm not surprised.  Biden has expressed his admiration of Obama.  As I remember, he said Obama was clean and articulate. LOL 

Seriously though, I wouldn't have  been upset if Biden had beaten Hillary for the nomination, as he does have foreign relations experience (lots), an area where Obama is completely lacking, but then Obama is lacking in every area, particularly in economics. I still can't figure out how anyone with an education above Eight Grade level could think Obama is qualified to be president..  I was truly surprised to find out how many Americans are stuck in the American Idol phase of development. However, we do have a precedent in Bush Jr., which really does prove that anyone can be president--not a good president, but president nonethless.

McCain was quick to put out an ad with Biden talking negative about Obama and praising McCain.  Shades of Hillary and those who said she couldn't take the spot because the Republicans would use her words against Obama.  I wasn't aware that Biden has said McCain would make a good president--that's the one McCain should focus on, as just about everyone said Obama wasn't qualified.  I suspect if Michelle were to tell the truth, she probably thinks so too.  So there's no big news there! 

And to say what I really think.  I'm glad Hillary was not chosen as I'm sure she would have accepted.  It would bother me to see a qualified woman taking second place to an unqualified male.  Apparently, it's still the way of the world, but I don't need any more reminders! 

I suspect it was, since it's so obvious.  I can't imagine why they would continue to dig, however.  Obama needs Hillary's voters to win, but again that overriding ego can't contain itself--'it is, therefore, it is.' 

Just did some reading on Biden and wasn't aware that he, like  Bush, was also a C minus student, and like McCain graduated near the bottom of his class.  And also that he was caught plagarizing in Law School, with the excuse that he didn't understand the correct way to cite material.  That excuse is a real crock. Well before law school, students are taught how to cite material.  I gave a two-day class every semester, teaching my students how to avoid inadvertent plagarism; believe me, he knew.  It was intentional, particularly since he did it more than once.  I had lunch recently with some very very liberal friends who are still teaching at the college level and when I mentioned Biden's name as a possible president, they jumped on me as though I were a mass murderer, and it was because of his history of plagarism. 

But that being said, most people don't care, and I still think Biden was Obama's best choice after Clinton.  I wonder, though, how he can be married to an English professor and still have plagarized.  English teachers hate that stuff!  Maybe she didn't know. 

For those of you who don't subscribe to the NY Times and want to know the candidates' positions beyond sound bites, here's a link to an interesting article in yestereday's Times concerning Obama's views on the economy.  It's too long for me to post, but it's worth reading.  It gives a little to each side, left and right.  I like his proposals on redistribution of taxes (80% of Americans will get tax breaks) although I don't believe he goes far enough.  He would increase taxes for those making $250,000; I would start at $125-$150,000. I'm less convinced by his proposals for stimulating the American economy.  Whistling in the dark, and I disagree with his ideas for getting health care to more Americans. His reasoning is completely off, but so is McCain's, so whichever one of them wins we'll be in the same place four years from now.  And that's a sorry thought!  However, I am happy (and surprised) to find that Obama has thought about this, and unlike McCain has some ideas beyond just lowering taxes for the rich.  Read the article; it's interesting.  

   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin 

Thanks Susie--I too was happy to hear Rendell give it to the media, in particular the Obama network.  Since I posted my fair and balanced piece of the day, here's my unbalanced piece:

I should rename this thread, "Women Rise Up!" Today I'm listening to the various cable news channels, particularly MSNBC discussing Obama's fall in the polls after naming Biden as his VP. (It's a dead heat right now: Gallup gives Obama 47% and McCain 47%.) The reason (and blame), of course, and always, is Hillary's. They all acknowledge that Obama didn't vet her for VP, although he said she was on his short list---oops, I believe he covered himself by saying "she would be on anyone's short list." Just not his! Remember Bill Clinton and the definition of "is."

Is the fall in poll numbers viewed as Obama's fault? Absolutely not! It's Hillary's fault, of course. Each analyst on NBC puts the onus on Hillary to bring her voters into the fold. So, as always, it's up to the woman to make the sacrifice, to make things right. And none of them get it, or more likely acknowledge it (the elephant in the room), that it's never been about Hillary, beyond the fact that she's very qualified to be president; it's about a very qualified, experienced woman candidate getting dissed in favor of a very inexperienced male candidate. And since it's not about Hillary, Hillary can't heal the rift.

It's interesting how everyone points out that the race of a candidate can throw polls off but neglect to point out that this may also be true with respect to gender, only in the reverse. The polls show that over 50% of Hillary's voters say they'll vote for Obama. I don't believe it's that high. Women, far more than men, tend to say what others want them to say. I suspect that many of those in the 50% who are women just don't want to hear, "Get over it!" and are lying to the pollsters when they say they'll vote for Obama. If I'm correct, I very much hope they'll vote Green.

(As an aside, I love the irony of it all.  Obama, back when, said that his supporters wouldn't necessarily vote for Hillary but hers would vote for him (one of his reasons why he should be the Democratic nominee and not Hillary).  It annoyed me to no end when he said this--so so smug--so I suppose I can legitimately enjoy seeing it come back to haunt him.  You can be sure he's haunted by the latest polls!) 

And speaking of the Green Party, it takes a 5% national vote for a party to get matching federal funds in the next presidential election. So if you're a disaffected Hillary voter and want to express your disaffection, consider voting Green rather than writing in Hillary's name, not voting, or even worse voting for McCain. If you vote Green, you'll be voting for a woman as president and a woman as vice president. 

Beth--yes, I did see it, and I wish she had gone another way. There are lots of ways to protest what happened to Hillary (and women) without voting for a Republican.  One, of course, is writing in Hillary's name, which is what Jaybird intends to do, or to vote for a Third Party, what I intend to do.  I had to decide between Nader and the Green Party, but it's a no brainer since the Green Party has two women running this year.

About Bill Clinton.  I heard today that Clinton is angry that he's speaking on national security night and not on the economy, which is his claim to fame.  And that alone is ironic, as during the primaries Obama had nothing particularly good to say about Bill Clinton, and in fact even praised Reagan as a way of denigrating Clinton--I can post the clip from an interview Obama gave in New Mexico if anyone wants me to verify the above.  Yet today Obama gave a speech which was mainly premised on how successful the Clinton years were for the economy. Does Obama ever say anything that's not poll-driven?  I have nothing good to say about McCain's positions but I do believe that some of the time he actually believes what he says--please note I did say, some of the time.    

I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton's but he was successful in growing the economy! 

I posted earlier that I thought the Obama camp was very foolish to focus on McCain's seven houses, that it would give the Republicans an opening to talk about Obama's association with Tony Resko's (sp?) and his questionable house deal.  And, of course, that's just what they're now doing.  The Texas Republican Party has just aired a very sleezy ad about Obama's half brother living in poverty in Africa--showing a picture of his brother's house.  It's an ugly ad but an inevitable one, and it also has the feel of Willy Horton about it.  If anyone thought the Democratic primary was negative I assume it's only because they weren't paying attention to previous presidential elections!