The first decision is a telling one

When people run for President of the United States of America, they spend a lot of time making speeches, informing voters of their goals and their vision for America. They tell you what they are going to do in the future. Then the opposition usually takes it upon themselves to tell you what they have done in the past.

However, you can get a glimpse of the type of person the candidate is, and the type of decisions he (or someday she) will make, when confronted with choosing a running mate. You see what they consider important,and what type of person they want running with them.

In the case of 2008, apparently Senator Barack Obama considers it important to be connected to career politicians and seen as a Washington, D.C. insider. For a candidate to build his entire campaign on the words "hope and change" to then pick a running mate who is so clearly the antithesis to them has to be a bit... deflating for his followers. Senator Joe Biden has a long and distinguished career as an elected official - emphasis on the long, as he has been an elected official for 36 years. He's been a politician for longer than - 40%? - of the voting age population has even been alive. Apparently Barack Obama thinks he needs to reach out more to the liberal, white, upper-middle class, East Coast, straight-Democrat-ticket voters of America.

On the other hand, Senator McCain caught everyone off guard in his masterful pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Senator McCain, with his pick, told America this - I value women, I value blue collar workers (her parents were and her husband is). I value hard work, I value family (she has 5 kids!), I value Life, and I value the ability to stand up for what's right (her first act as governor was to put an end to the state of Alaska's participation in the ridiculous "Bridge to Nowhere," calling it a "waste of money.")

In other words, McCain showed America hope. And change. And he didn't resort to mere rhetoric, but demonstrated it through actions.

Like I said, the first decision is a telling one.

Do you know enough?

Angst

There's been a lot of hand wringing and angst amongst my fellow conservatives over the rise of John McCain as the presumptive GOP nominee. Some have even seen his rise as the death of conservatism.

Do these people really think so little of our cause? Our beliefs? Their fellows?

I understand where the angst comes from - but I'm not here to argue about whether a "good" conservative can vote for McCain or if one who does is actually a "bad" conservative (or, as is implied in many quarters, not a conservative at all).

My beef with these arguments, at the end of the day, is how demeaning and belittling they are to those of us who are in the conservative "movement" (whatever THAT even means).

How in the world can people imply, with a straight face, that conservative beliefs and ideals will fly out the window with the election of John McCain? How in the world can they think so little of the various causes and supporters of those causes in America, to think they would just *poof* disappear?

So on Wednesday, November 5, the pro-life movement will cease to exist? The tax reform movement will cease to exist? The home-school network, the private property rights, the defense of marriage, the kill-the-death-taxers will just crumple and die? They will just curl up into a fetal position and take whatever whipping given to them by the Moderate Establishment President John McCain and the RNC?

Give me a break. Anyone who tries to make that argument, in my opinion, simply doesn't have a real working knowledge of these groups, the people running them, the members and most importantly the passion that drives them.

I don't know if John McCain will be good for the conservative movement. Maybe (likely?) he won't be. But I'm not prepared to write the obituary for the conservative movement yet. Maybe, just maybe, we've been too fragmented and he'll accomplish something unforeseen - he'll unite us.

The importance of cross tabs

So many people look at a poll of public opinion and just see the top numbers. Candidate A has 55%, Candidate B has 45%. They never look into the particulars of where that support comes from (otherwise known as cross tabs) for each candidate.

That's why this quote from the March 5 edition of the New York Times is so intriguing:

"Mrs. Clinton maintained an edge over Mr. Obama among women, whites, Hispanics, older voters and those with less education. Mr. Obama continued to edge her out among men, blacks, younger voters and those with more education, according to an exit poll conducted statewide by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool."

So she has trouble with blacks and younger voters, and he has trouble with older voters. This is significant. If she gets the nomination, all his new support is disenfranchised and doesn’t go to the polls. If he gets the nomination, the old folks look to McCain because "he’s one of them."

Hmmm. While November 2008 is a long ways off, suddenly I’m thinking it might not be so bad to be a Republican.

I know he's brilliant, but it's nice to see other people know it too!

Jim Geraghty over at Campaign Spot on National Review, gives a shout out to my favorite blogger in the whole wide world: my husband!

:-)

Check out both links!

Time to reflect, not react

Hat tip: Right Cross Puns

I Heart Huckabee

Boo Hoo - Clinton can't have it both ways

I've been wanting to write about this for days - ever since it happened really - but real life and work seem to have a funny way of getting in the way.

Let's re-cap:

All the Democrats running for president were in a debate. A question came up about whether they were supportive of Governor Spitzer's (D-NY) plan to give legal, government-issued driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Each candidate got to say what they thought. Except Hillary. She was for it, sort of, against it, maybe, understood why he would propose it, I guess... In other words, she answered this question like all the others - she didn't. But this time was different - she wasn't let off the hook. The moderator (Tim Russert, I think) asked her to clarify her position. Her fellow candidates jumped on her for not having a "yes" or "no" answer. So finally she says she's for it.

Only to say the next day she wasn't. Or was it the other way around?

See, it doesn't matter. Because in typical "I want it all" Hillary-fashion, the next day she came out swinging. Or whining, actually. About how all the "boys" had ganged up on her.

What is appalling to me is not her stance on the issue (OK, it is actually, but it's not the point of this post) but on her immediate retreat to hide behind her own skirts. I got news for ya' lady - you think that the boys here in America are tough? Wait until you get onto the world's playground! You think the "boys" in Iraq, North Korea, Iran and China are going to treat you like a fragile little doll? If you can't handle debating with men who mostly agree with you, how are you going to defend America against the plots of the people who want to overthrow it?

It's completely offensive that the first words out of her mouth were about gender, and how she was essentially being picked on. Hard to imagine a real female leader crying like Hillary was. Bet you wouldn't have seen Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi pull that nonsense. They would put on their big girl panties and realize that they were leaders first, foremost and only.

Hillary can't have it both ways - she can't want to be the most powerful woman in the free world, and cry about how the boys are picking on her.

He gets this one right

I think it's well-documented (OK, well maybe not documented, but certainly well KNOWN) how I feel about Senator John McCain. But being intellectually honest means admitting when someone totally nails an issue on the head, even if you don't necessarily like that person:

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain made the following statement today: Senator Clinton said that believing General Petraeus' testimony requires a 'willing suspension of disbelief.' I think it willingly suspends disbelief to not repudiate an advertisement run by a radical left wing organization that impugns and dishonors the integrity of a man who has served his nation with dedication all of his life. If you're not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don't know how you're tough enough to be President of the United States.

Hat Tip: The Corner