Her staff, it seems, cannot get over calling an Obama-Clinton pairing “The Dream Ticket”.

Fortunately, it seems that Obama supporters are a bit more intelligent than all that and have been strongly advising that Obama select a more appropriate partner to take on the Republicans in Novemeber – Sam Nunn (D-GA), and Obama’s latest PR coup Sen. John Edwards.

Nunn is an excellent choice. Though he has been out of politics for a couple years heading up the Nuclear Threat Initiative – which he co-chairs with billionaire Ted Turner – he has a strong record from 24 years in the Senate. Nunn is both moderate and true to core Democratic values.

Given the option between the two gentlemen that have been forwarded by Obama’s congressional backers, I would certainly opt for Nunn. What Obama lacks in experience, Nunn makes up for in spades.

But, would Obama-Nunn qualify as a “Dream Ticket?” Probably not. But I think it is solid and could certainly lead Ol’ Blue to a win in November; if it does that then it is functionally a dream ticket to me…

It is virtually impossible to put into words what Senator Kennedy’s perseverance in politics has meant to the Democratic Party. Presidential campaigns cost him and his family both John and Bobby. He has been vilified by the right, and lived with the specter Mary Jo Kopechne and the greatest screw-up of his life for more than half a century. Still, his dedication to what is fair, what is democratic, and what is in the best interest of America have compelled him to saddle up every day, withstand the slings and arrows, and fight for a brighter future for all of us.

While I would definitely not expect Hillary to read this for the sign that it is and to gracefully bow out (if that’s even possible at this point), this endorsement could help bring Obama the support that he needs with working-class voters and middle-America.

I know it’s too much to hope for, but maybe this and a couple swings in these next primaries could be enough to put this dog to bed. It’s time to get on with winning the White House back.

Spector, who is up for reelection in 2010, is the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the committee’s ranking member, he controls a minority of the committee budget and can therefore fund congressional action.

With everything going on in the world today does it really matter that the Patriots may have videotaped signals from the Eagles and Steelers and used the information to beat them a couple of years ago? So what if there is a formal investigation, it’s not like scores or titles are going to change is it?

Sure, there is some oversight interest because of federal anti-trust exemptions, but seriously, is this really important enough to be spending the Senator’s time and budget on?

This all, of course, reminds me of the ridiculous hearings about steroids in baseball. (Thanks again Sen. Mitchell (D-ME). How exactly was that representing your constituents? Maine doesn’t have professional sports teams.) Which took a lot of time, money, energy, and attention and resulted in the pastime possibly being a bit cleaner, but little else.

This is one of those things that always kills me. How is it that a Senator who rails against the Federal Government putting its nose where it doesn’t belong – like business and environmental regulations, and welfare, and health care, and federal guidelines for education – has the contortionist ability to suggest that monitoring professional sports is a critical mission for the limited exercise of Federal oversight? Especially at his age?

“Barack Obama can’t even win West Virginia, how can he win the country?” they say.

The simple answer is that the country itself is not 95 percent white, with less than 30 percent attending college. In the last election WV was solidly in the Red column. I can’t help but think that between WV and KY (both at 55-60% Republican) that there are better states to be bellwethers for the Democratic Party.

Of course, as a loyal member of the Democratic Party, I have absolute confidence in our ability to put up a candidate who cannot win a General Election.

We’ve done it with great regularity for the last 25 years with only one notable exception. Which pinpoints what we, as a party, are missing when it comes to selecting our candidates: Bill won because he was adept at being the Smilin’ Southern Son while at the same time utilizing his incredible intelligence to make someone opposing him look simpleminded. He was smart and like-able.

We have lost plenty of elections with ‘smart’, but we are doing pretty well in the last few decades when we can find ‘like-able’ (Clinton and Carter?).

Look back at the Democratic contenders of the last 25 years – Mondale, the Duke, Gore (admittedly now very like-able, but not so much on the campaign trail), and Kerry – there’s not a truly like-able person in the lot. Compare that to the successful Republican tickets in those races, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 – none of them barn-burners in terms of intellectual prowess, original thought, or in once case even the English Language. But they all had winning smiles, an easy demeanor, and even kissing scenes with Hollywood starlets in one case.

This brings me to key point #1: John McCain is not really like-able. I am not saying that he doesn’t have friends, or that his mother doesn’t love him; I’d be reasonably certain that both of those statements are incorrect. I am saying that he doesn’t make you feel at ease – like you could sit down with him, tell him your problems, get a sympathetic ear, and then throw some darts and drink a beer. Sen. McCain’s empathy probably couldn’t fill a shot glass. He is smart, and assertive, heroic, occasionally persuasive, and hard-working as all get-out. You have to respect the guy, but he’s almost impossible to like.

But, Sen. McCain is the Republican nominee; which brings me to point #2: Democrats can win if they put up a like-able candidate.

There is already a fantastic tide that has mounted against Republicans. Despite the fact that Democrats have had the Congress for the past couple years and blown any chance of putting Bush on the defensive and getting good things done, they are still not the party of the President. Which is such a good thing by now – after almost eight years of veritable incompetence – that their ineffectuality has been largely ignored. Add to that, a candidate from the Republican party that is only slightly more like-able than Dick Cheney, and you have the perfect recipe for the Democratic takeover.

But we need someone like-able to ensure that.

So here it is again. As posted yesterday. Hillary (D) = Dick (R).

Or, in less mathematical terms – no one actually likes Hillary. At this point, I would almost bet that Bill is in that category too. Again – like McCain – you can respect her, agree with her, admire her tenacity, want a woman in the White House, support her, even get your hair cut like her; you just can’t really like her.

It seemed like there was a chance once. Do you remember a while back when she cried. (I think it was the first and last time ever, so it’s easy to denote.) She got a great bump in the polls. People thought for a second that she might be human, and that the iron maiden bit may not be the whole story… Of course given the way that everything has gone since then I would be more likely to believe that it was a contrived stunt; something she was test-marketing to see what she could get out of it and the numbers didn’t pan out.

Of course, Sen. Obama is not cuddly, not plain-spoken, not folksy. He isn’t your traditional Republican version of like-able. But he is the kind of guy that you could shoot a round of eight-ball with while drinking a beer and complaining about your job. He’d roll up his sleeves, toss the tie in a ball on one of those elevated benches that seem to be in every pool hall. He’d sound like an Ivy-Leaguer, but he’d listen and engage you. Heck, if you’re lucky Obama Girl might even show up and you could get a picture with her to make all your buddies jealous.

“Great,” you say. “But you sound like a high-school kid with a C average trying to explain a very complex process.”

True, but that’s why I’m right. And I have proof.

Well, calling it proof may be going a bit far. But I have two Reaganite-Religious Right-Republican parents. And they both voted for Obama in Illinois, and both are considering him in November. Neither one of them would cast a vote for Hillary under pain of death.

Coming from “The Flyover States” (I always thought that label was great), I can say with reasonable surety that while Hillary can grab registered Democrats in key districts and states, but that she doesn’t have the appeal that will bring in enough swing voters, independents, Republican housewives, and all the other micro-niches that you need to break your way to win a tight election. They don’t want her to win. They may want her ideas, or her gender, her name (almost like another term for Bill), or a host of other things that she represents to win, but they don’t want her.

As additional support for this argument, I note the early opinion polls that came out when Hillary was first announcing her candidacy. Among registered Democrats her favorables were 35 percent. As far as I know the only candidates to win their party’s nomination and the presidency with opinion ratings that low when they announced their candidacy have been complete unknowns – governors of small states or other obscure party members. The problem is that EVERYONE knew Hillary and they still didn’t choose her.

Barack has the stuff. He’s smart, well educated, articulate, etc. He’s everything that a Democrat really wants in a candidate regardless of small particulars on some issues. He’s become a cultural phenomena to the point where I’m just waiting for the HopeMan action figure to come out (don’t worry, he’ll have freaky pecs and biceps in doll form so as not to too look odd among the other figures).

And if you’re looking for middle America, look no further than the Oprah show. Oprah loves the guy.

Obama really can win the General. Clinton probably can’t.

A couple years ago my convoluted cranium concocted a new standard with which to judge Presidential candidates. It occurred to me in a moment of despair where Pres. W. was once again making a mockery of logic, intelligence, and American society by speaking in public. For some reason I wondered how many secret service agents Pres. W. travels with. I imagined that it must be more than the average President – being as we are at war, and he’s a fairly heavily despised man in many parts of the world where bumping off politicians is something that you do to work up an appetite before breakfast.

And then I began thinking about Secret Service Agents – I’d had a run-in with them myself and found them to be quite exceptional people (more on that some other time). These Agents are unbelievable. To be on the Presidential detail you have to be very smart, very strong (or at least able to subdue anything that head’s in POTUS’s direction), and very forget-able – both able to blend in and stand out in any crowd to provide appropriate protection. (I can only suspect that W. has not yet applied the same unwavering demand for mediocrity that he applies to other governmental positions to his security detail.) More than that, these agents are the epitome of honor and integrity. Their compensation amounts to a few dollars and the pride of doing something that is incredibly important incredibly well.

The be-all/end-all of serving as an Agent on the Presidential Detail is this: When the bullets start flying your job is to be a human shield. Knowing that these people put themselves in harm’s way regardless of their belief in the President’s politics, in defense of the office and the sovereignty of our nation.

Which leads me to the formulation of my new standard.

If people of such honor and integrity are willing to sacrifice their lives for you, you damn well better be worth it. This standard s not partisan, and it doesn’t care the slightest bit about about smoking marijuana in college, infidelity, or ability craft a coherent sentence. The measure here is whether you spend every day that you are in office serving and protecting the people who need it most.

I dare say that W. doesn’t quite measure up, and that we really should do better next time.

So there it is, I think I’m the first to say it: Hillary is the DNC’s Dick Cheney. I’ll also go right for the jugular from the start – is there anyone who has seen her public appearances lately that thinks she is not capable of shooting someone in the face? Yes, I jest, but it still doesn’t feel that far off, does it?

There are lines that should not be crossed in primary politics. It seems like there has been a (pardon the phrase, but) gentleman’s agreement that primary politics should be based on substantive differences in the candidates rather than the slugfest of a general election. Hillary began her campaign in a traditional and genial manner, but once it looked like the Obama train was leaving the station, she took off the gloves and tried turning this primary into a bloodsport. (Is it, then, any surprise that in a state where a shotgun is home decor, situated just south of the Mason-Dixon line, that Clinton is the overwhelming favorite?)

I’ll end this with little brain-dump with what got me thinking about this in the first place. On Sunday morning my wife showed me a video clip that opened Saturday Night Live this past weekend – “A Message from the Next President of the United States.” In this sketch ‘Hillary Clinton’ lays out an eloquent argument about why she should be the Democratic nominee, the three cornerstones are: 1) She is a sore looser, 2) Her supporters are racist, and 3) She has no ethical standards. Tell me that they couldn’t have just put Dick in the same sketch if he was running…

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/candid-admissio.html

Bush the First was called a wimp more times than any US President in history, but, whether you like his politics or not, he certainly did not actively defile his Office.

Then we get to his son. Never before has a world power been represented by such a – please pardon me, but – dolt. And I have to look for the bright spot, it’s hard, but it’s there – George W. has proven without exception that the romantic theory “Anyone can be President” is patently untrue. Hopefully people will keep that in mind in the future when bashing “educated elites” and other candidates who bring a certain gravitas to the table.

Maybe we will change, as a nation, our distrust of someone ‘too smart’. Maybe we will tarry our fascination with ‘plainspoken’, and maybe we will realize once and for all that the ‘guy you would want to grab a beer with’ may not be be the most important qualification for the nation’s top job.

Regardless, it has been a profoundly trying seven years, but I find that I still revere the Presidency. Now all I can do is hope I don’t have to live through another administration which tests that sentiment like this one has…

My brother is also a democrat. He agreed that while he appreciated getting the check, it was a pathetic plan to spur on our otherwise flagging economy. So I have dubbed this generation of politicians in Washington “The Laziest Generation,” in honor of the most simple-minded plan to turn the economy around hatched this side of Nero.

For starters, it is not a lack of spending that has brought about this downturn. Americans do not seem to have shied away from spending their money – despite the fact that they probably should have. The issue is not an “if” we spend, but a “how”.

Americans are buying imported goods and shifting the balance of trade ever more in the favor of foreign markets. As a result the dollar has fallen to a low previously unimaginable. If someone had said on Jan. 1, 2000 that the American dollar would be worth less than the Canadian dollar before the end of the decade no one would have believed them. But here we are, in the last part of 2007 and until March of 2008, the US dollar was only worth about 98 Canadian cents – down from around a $1.40 five years earlier.

Relative to all currency of note, the US$ has lost badly over the past 5+ years. When introduced the Euro was worth less than the US$. Five years ago it was worth about $1.10. Now it will cost you $1.55 to pick up a single Euro. Giving every man, woman and child an extra $900 won’t change that. In fact if traditional spending patterns for disposable income are maintained, a large percentage of the money that is spent by recipients will be passed on to foreign manufacturers. And that certainly does not help our global position.

Our economy has remained fairly stalwart despite a few downturns over then past couple decades. Despite our dramatic trade imbalance, the US dollar has remained strong. What has changed recently that leaves us in this compromised position?

The answer is too easy. And despite the fact that I am a staunch Democrat, I will not pin this specifically on a President that bears a striking resemblance to Alfred E. Newman. Instead I would argue that it is a complicit bunch of politicians more interested in minding their career than our public best interest.

When President Clinton handed over the keys to Air Force One and the White House the national debt was about $5.5 trillion and shrinking. Over the previous three years the debt had shrunk for the first time in a quarter century and a quarter trillion dollar budget surplus was in place. In fact, like many responsible administrations before Pres. Clinton was able to shrink the percentage of debt to GDP by about 10 percent over an eight-year administration.

Much has changed in the last seven years. Our current national debt should top $10 trillion by a fair bit by the time President W is out of office. With a Gross Domestic Product of about $14 trillion that means that once again, as happened during the 12 years of Reagan/H.W. Bush our percentage of debt to GDP is on the rise and over 70 percent.

Given that it is an election year, I assume the fact that the US national debt is growing at an average of $1.46 billion a day becomes irrelevant. When you do the math that means with the current $9+ trillion debt every man, woman and child in the country (or at least those counted in the census), is on the hook for a little over $30K of debt – so I don’t see how a $900 handout is supposed to really stimulate anything.

This handout is nothing more than the power of incumbency gone awry. It is a bi-partisan boondoggle to effectively put cash in your pocket in the hopes that you’ll give your senators and representatives another chance in November. The likelihood that it will do anything to stimulate the economy is remote at best.

This criticism is not to say that stimulating the economy is easy and that if Washington politicians were not so selfishly motivated and lazy that they could do something about it without any real bother. National and Global economics are absurdly complicated. What I would appreciate is something better than pandering. Put some real thought into it. And that does mean that giving another tax break to the super-rich is out, because that has failed a couple of times already…

The thing to do is bring it up and then hit refresh on your browser over and over again. It’s crazy to see the national debt going up $17K per second. I own a small business, and I have to write $17K checks semi regularly – maybe twice a month. It still blows me away every time I do it. In theory the Feds are doing that 86,000 times a day. Every day. No taking the Sabbath off.

Is there anyone else out there wondering how Republicans got to be know as the fiscally-responsible ones?