Obama for President

Senator McCain’s campaign staff did not want to run a presidential campaign based on the issues. Instead, they wanted to focus on character believing a Vietnam veteran war hero would defeat a suspicious candidate like Senator Barack Obama.

The McCain campaign insinuated Senator Obama associates with domestic terrorists, supports infanticide, and is a socialist.

Character is an important issue. Senator McCain’s staff is correct. However, Mr. McCain failed the character test. Mr. Obama has demonstrated superior character, and that is why I will vote for Senator Obama on Election Day.

Issues are not important. Campaign promises do not matter. Once elected, presidents are unable or refuse to act on promises made during a presidential campaign. For example, in 1993, with a Democratic congress, President Clinton failed to enact the national single payer health care plan.

Instead of focusing on issues, I try to find the candidate’s tell. A “tell” is a subtle behavior trait that gives me a clue about an individual’s mindset.

Senator Obama set out to run a different type of presidential campaign. He wanted to rise above petty bickering and personal attacks. Mr. Obama often said, “We can disagree on issues without being disagreeable.”

Critics complained that Senator Obama was running his presidential campaign like a classroom exercise. He was not angry enough. He was not tough enough. He was mockingly called Obambi by the media.

Senator Obama refused to be baited into a negative campaign during the contested Democratic presidential primaries. He was tough when he needed to be, but he refused to engage in the same type of negative, divisive campaign tactics Senator Clinton used.

In the general election campaign, Senator Obama has not hesitated to acknowledge Senator McCain’s service as a Vietnam War veteran and contributions as a senator. Often, he has admonished members of the audience for booing the mentioning of Senator McCain.

During the presidential campaign, Senator Obama displayed restraint. Another candidate, Mayor Giuliani, would have erupted in anger at being accused of associating with domestic terrorists.

Mr. Obama did not raise his voice, or argue with Senator McCain over the issue of consorting with domestic terrorists during the third presidential debate. He calmly explained his tenuous connection with Bill Ayers. He calmly expressed his disappointment with Mr. McCain.

In the first presidential debate, Senator Obama agreed with Senator McCain on several issues. The media stated it was a mistake, but Mr. Obama demonstrated the importance of civility in a presidential campaign. Senator Obama does not believe it is a mortal sin to agree with an opponent.

In the general election campaign, Senator Obama managed to avoid several traps. When the media reported Governor Palin’s seventeen-year-old daughter was pregnant, Senator Obama declared Mrs. Palin’s family issues should not be exploited for political purposes.

During the third presidential debate, Senator Obama was asked if Governor Palin was qualified to be president. Mr. Obama said it was an issue for the voters to decide, but Mr. Obama acknowledged Governor Palin’s selection excited the base of the Republican Party.

Strategically, Senator Obama has run a smart campaign. Senator Clinton wanted to secure the nomination by February. She was not prepared to campaign for the nomination after February. To defeat Senator Clinton, Mr. Obama understood he needed to run a fifty state campaign.

Senator Obama was able to transition smoothly from a primary campaign strategy into a fifty state general election strategy after he secured the nomination. Mr. Obama is campaigning in states that previous Democratic nominees ignored.

Senator Obama’s general election campaign is very disciplined. He is communicating the same message without deviation – we cannot afford four more years of Republican rule.

Senator Obama’s selection of a running mate reflects his good judgment and self-assurance. During the Democratic presidential debates, Senator Biden was asked if he thought Mr. Obama was ready to be president. With Mr. Obama by his side, Mr. Biden answered no; he was not ready to be president.

A lesser person, someone with a temper who holds a grudge, would have condemned Senator Biden to political purgatory. Mr. Obama proved he was not a petty man. He was not afraid of selecting someone who was critical of him.

Senator Obama is a gentleman. He is efficient, calm, organized, smart and disciplined.

In contrast, Senator McCain has run a terrible presidential campaign. Unstructured and undisciplined, Mr. McCain is trying to win the presidency by destroying Senator Obama’s character.

Mr. McCain had the unique opportunity of conducting a presidential campaign based on the issues. Mr. Obama would not have run the same type of campaign President Bush ran in 2000.

The Bush campaign derailed Senator McCain’s nomination with a smear campaign in South Carolina, insinuating Mr. McCain fathered a black child out of wedlock.

Mr. McCain could have engaged Mr. Obama in a spirited contest over ideas. Which political philosophy is best for governing, conservative or liberal, free market or protectionist, more regulation or less?

Mr. McCain could have conducted a clean presidential campaign. Instead, Mr. McCain decided to run a negative campaign using distortions, falsehoods, rumor and innuendo.

Instead, the McCain campaign has conducted a dishonest campaign, not just accusing Senator Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” During the campaign, Mr. McCain said Mr. Obama wants to establish a state run health care plan. Not true.

Senator McCain argues Mr. Obama should not be elected president because he will raise taxes and will increase spending.

Mr. McCain said Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on individuals with incomes below $42,000 per year. Not true.

Mr. Obama made a comment about Mr. McCain’s economic plan. He said it was like putting lipstick on a pig. Mr. McCain accused Senator Obama insulting Governor Palin by calling her a pig. Not true.

The McCain campaign accused Senator Obama of interfering with an active investigation in Alaska. Governor Palin was accused of firing a state employee for personal reasons.

In the third debate, Senator McCain accused Senator Obama of being directly involved with ACORN, an organization under investigation for submitting fraudulent voter registration forms. Not true.

Senator McCain has exhibited dishonesty about energy issues. Mr. McCain argues we should be drilling for oil in the United States. The result will be reduced gas prices. Also, we will import less oil from the Middle East.

Experts disagree with Senator McCain. Drilling for oil will not reduce current gas prices. It will take 10 years for oil drilled in the United States to reach consumers.

Senator McCain argues drilling for oil will have a psychological effect on gas prices. Oil companies will reduce gas prices in the present because in the future we will import less oil from the Middle East.

Senator McCain argues he has better judgment that Senator Obama. It is difficult to discern whether someone as dishonest as Mr. McCain possesses good, sound judgment.

In fact, Senator McCain’s judgment is questionable at best. Mr. McCain is regarded as experienced in foreign affairs. During the campaign, Senator McCain, on more than one occasion, said Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending terrorists back to Iraq. Once, on camera, Senator Lieberman corrected Senator McCain.

Iran is predominantly Shia. Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi sect that believes Shia are heretics and should be put to death. It is unlikely Iran is training its enemies to fight the United States.

Senator McCain boosts he is a maverick, someone who is independent, who will speak truth to power. The United States needed a maverick in late 2002.

The Bush Administration was determined to launch a war against Iraq. With dubious evidence, President Bush argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace. The United States needed someone to stop President Bush from invading Iraq. Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd argued against the Iraq War resolution.

The self-proclaimed maverick agreed with the Bush Administration’s assessment. In fact, during an interview with David Lettermen, Senator McCain claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the anthrax attacks in the United States.

During a speech in mid September, Senator McCain said the fundamentals of the economy were strong. The stock market plunged later in the day.

Senator McCain attempted to extricate himself from the gaffe by redefining the term fundamentals to mean the American workforce was the most productive in the world.

Senator McCain used poor judgment in declaring a strong economy. In addition, he was being dishonest when he redefined “fundamentals of the economy.”

Senator McCain’s poor judgment is most obvious in the selection of Governor Palin as his running mate. His first choice for vice president was Senator Joe Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman was a Democrat, but is currently an independent. Mr. McCain’s campaign staff argued selecting Senator Lieberman would cause dissention within the Republican Party.

Senator McCain’s second choice was former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge. Mr. Ridge was rejected because of his pro-choice position on abortion. Mr. McCain’s campaign staff did not want to alienate the Conservative Christians and the Right Wing who are vehemently opposed to abortion.

I do not believe Governor Palin was Senator McCain’s choice for vice president. He only met her once, “in February at a governors’ convention in Washington… The second time was at his Sedona, Arizona ranch on August 28, just four days before the GOP convention.”[i]

Conservatives never trusted Senator McCain. Mr. McCain needed to appease the Right Wing of the Republican Party even after a successful primary campaign. The Palin selection was like an arranged marriage. He needed an anti abortion, conservative, Christian on the ticket.

Governor Palin saw an opportunity to serve as vice president. As the vice president, she would be the favorite to secure the Republican presidential nomination in the future.

In selecting Governor Palin, Mr. McCain nullified his strongest argument against Senator Obama. Mr. Obama’s political opponents argued he was inexperienced. However, Senator McCain selected a vice presidential nominee with less experience than Mr. Obama.

The McCain campaign attempted to enhance Governor Palin’s political resume by arguing Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave Mrs. Palin foreign policy experience. Also, Governor Palin is the Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is an oil producing state; therefore Governor Palin is an expert on energy issues. Energy policy is also a foreign policy and national security issue because the United States imports oil from the Middle East. Governor Palin has executive experience, having served two terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and two years as Governor.

Senator McCain constantly displays poor judgment, and is intellectually dishonest. Governor Palin is not prepared to be president of the United States.

The difference between Senator Obama and Governor Palin is that the former has been running for president since February 2007. Voters and the media have fully vetted Mr. Obama. Governor Palin is unknown. It is highly unlikely her candidacy would have survived the same grueling process Mr. Obama had to endure.

In selecting Governor Palin, Senator McCain pandered to the Right Wing of the Republican Party. He did not exhibit independence. His ambition to become the next president of the United States has clouded his judgment.

Conventional wisdom dictates that a candidate should attract voters from the base of the political party during the primaries. The winning candidate needs to attract independents and moderates after the nomination is secured.

Instead of attracting independents and moderates, Senator McCain has used time and resources to appease the conservatives in the Republican Party. Mr. McCain appeasement is a sign of insecurity. Maybe he believes conservatives will not vote for him on Election Day. That is the reason he continues to use campaign themes only conservatives would appreciate and understand.

Senator McCain does not like Barack Obama. This antipathy was on display during the presidential debates. Mr. McCain never looked at Mr. Obama during the first presidential debate, not even when they shook hands at the end of the debate. In the second debate, Mr. McCain referred to Senator Obama as “that one.”

There is wisdom in gangster movies. Michael Corleone warns his protégé about his temper in The Godfather III. “Never hate your enemies,” Mr. Corleone said. “It affects your judgment.”

Uncontrolled anger is a sign of weakness. It would be difficult for Mr. McCain to negotiate with out allies as well as our enemies if he is unable to control his anger.

In an interview, Mr. McCain said he would not speak with the prime minister from Spain. Mr. McCain may be holding a grudge against the Spanish government because the prime minister removed his troops from Iraq. Spain is a NATO ally.

Senator McCain has poor reading habits. During the current economic crisis, Senator McCain suspended his campaign in September in order to provide leadership in Congress regarding a proposed bailout package for financial institutions.

In an interview, Senator McCain admitted he did not read the Paulson bailout plan. Mr. McCain did not find the time to read a plan that was two and a half pages long.

During an economic disaster, Mr. McCain did not read a document containing the possible solution to the crisis.

President Bush also does not read. During his vacation in August 2001, he was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), “Bin Laden Determined to Attack inside the United States.” The PDB was a page and a half long.

President Bush did not interrupt his vacation. He did not having any meetings to discuss the implications of the PDB. I believe President Bush never read the PDB. Instead, someone was probably assigned to read it, and then report to the president. A month later 19 hijackers attacked from the United States.

We cannot accept a president who does not read important documents.

I once thought I could accept Mr. McCain as president of the United States. Dishonesty, insecurity, poor judgment, and anger. These are not qualities I am looking for in a president.

The next president of the United States will inherit two wars, a weakened economy and a divided country. Divided not just ideologically, but racially as well. There will be parts of our country that will not accept a black man as president, even if he is successful.

Senator McCain has contributed to the division in our country. He should not be rewarded with the presidency.

The United States could remain divided after the election. However, other nations will respect the United States if we elect Mr. Obama. Our collective sin of racism is common knowledge. Electing Mr. Obama president would send a message to other nations that we are willing move forward as a country. Senator Obama’s candidacy represents our collective growth and maturity.

The American empire is in danger of deteriorating. We cannot sustain military superiority during a period of economic decline. We can no longer bully the rest of the world. If the United States has reached a level of parity with Europe, Russia, China and India, then we will need a president who will be able to see our allies and adversaries as equals. We need a president who understands the need to coexist in order to survive.

Senator McCain does not have the judgment, or the temperament to lead our country in this new era. Mr. Obama does.

Senator Obama displayed foresight during the presidential campaign. He seemed to understand that the country wanted unity, not division, problem solving instead of finger pointing.

If you listen to his speeches, Senator Obama blames President Bush for all of our problems, but he does not blame the Republican Party. Mr. Obama understands he will need moderate Republicans in order to implement his agenda.

In contrast, Mr. McCain and Governor Palin thrive in dividing the country in two. Small towns represent what is good about America, implying big cities are against America.

The Republicans mocked Senator Obama experience as a community organizer during the Republican National Convention. As a community organizer, Mr. Obama tried to bring different, competing groups together to solve problems in the community. He tried to reach consensus among competing interest groups.

Senator Obama’s experience as a community organizer represents his approach to governing. As president, he will use his this approach to governing to solve the multiple problems facing the United States. He understands the Democratic Party does not have a monopoly on solutions. He will reach out to Republicans. He will try to build consensus. He will put the country first, ahead of ideology.

Mr. Obama has run an honorable presidential campaign. He has earned the respect of voters in the United States and people throughout the world. Mr. Obama will usher a new era of hope and opportunity for millions of people. On November 4, I will proudly cast my vote for Senator Barack Hussein Obama.


[i] Kathleen Parker, “Something About Sarah,” Washington Post, October 24, 2008.

The Miseducation of the American Voter

Governor Sarah Palin is referencing a New York Times article in her attacks on Senator Barack Obama. Governor Palin argues Mr. Obama has been “palling around with terrorists.”

“Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” was written by Scott Shane. The article was poorly written. The article appears to imply a connection between Senator Obama and former Weathermen radical William Ayers.

Governor Palin is dishonest in her argument. She is merely reciting the talking point of the day. Or, maybe she did not carefully read the article.

Mr. Shane reports Mr. Ayers met Mr. Obama at a lunchtime meeting regarding school reform in 1995. He was no longer the 60’s radical who founded the Weathermen. At the time, Mr. Ayers was an education professor in Chicago.

Mr. Shane explains Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama’s careers overlapped. In the sixth paragraph Mr. Shane wrote, “But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers…”[i]

Buried deeper in the article, Mr. Shane wrote, “Since 2002, there is little evidence of their relationship.”[ii]

Mr. Shane implies Senator Obama “has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers.”[iii]

The seventh paragraph includes the standard campaign denial stating, “The Ayers relationship had been greatly exaggerated by opponents to smear the candidate.”[iv]

Mr. Shane’s article is unclear. He should have started with the following lead: “During the Democratic presidential primaries, Senator Hillary Clinton argued there was a link between Mr. Obama and 60’s Weathermen radical William Ayers.

“Senator McCain’s campaign also expressed concerns over Mr. Obama’s possible involvement with domestic terrorists.

“Conservative talk show hosts have expressed outrage over Mr. Obama’s possible association with radical groups.

“However, after a careful investigation, it can be concluded that there is no formal relationship between Senator Obama and Mr. William Ayers. Any relationship between both individuals is casual at best.”

From that point, Mr. Shane should have described the history of the Obama – Ayers relationship, which he did starting on page three of the article (the downloaded format).

Mr. Ayers was instrumental in winning a $50 million grant from Walter H. Annenberg, a billionaire philanthropist and former United Kingdom ambassador under President Nixon.[v]

“In March 1995, Mr. Obama became the chairman of the six member board that oversaw the distribution of the grants in Chicago.” Contrary to right wing speculation, Mr. Ayers was not involved in the appointment.[vi]

It was Ms Deborah Leff, president of the Chicago based Joyce Foundation, who suggested Mr. Obama “would make a good board chairman.” Also present at the lunch meeting was “Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation.” Mr. Ayers was not at that meeting.[vii]

From 1995 to 2000, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers attended six board meetings. Mr. Ayers briefed the board members on school issues.[viii]

In 1995, Mr. Ayers hosted a gathering in his townhouse. State Senator Alice J. Palmer was planning to run for Congress. Ms Palmer introduced Mr. Obama as her “chosen successor” at this gathering.[ix]

In 1997, during an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Mr. Obama offered praise to “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court,” a book written by Mr. Ayers.[x]

In 2001, Mr. Ayers contributed $200 to State Senator Obama’s re-election campaign.[xi]

From 2000 to 2002, Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers attendance overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, “a Chicago Charity that had supported Mr. Obama’s first work as a community organizer…”[xii]

That is the nature of the relationship between Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama. In conclusion, there is no formal or close relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers.

Perhaps if Mr. Shane’s article were clearly written, then Governor Palin would not be using it as source in her campaign speeches.

But if the article were written clearly, then the Republican Party would have accused the New York Times of being apologists for domestic terrorists, and supporting Senator Obama.

Maybe the article was poorly written on purpose as a preemptive defense against bias, to protect the New York Times from attacks by the Republican Party.

The relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers has been in the public domain since the beginning of the 2008 presidential campaign.

Conservative talk show host Sean Hannity adopted the mission of exposing a connection between Senator Obama and William Ayers. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain willingly joined the crusade.

During a telephone interview with “This Week” host on April 15, 2008, Mr. Hannity suggested George Stephanopoulos should ask Senator Obama to explain the nature of his relationship with Mr. Ayers during a presidential debate.

Mr. Stephanopoulos complied. During the April 16, 2008 Democratic presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama about, “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers – he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that, and, in fact, on 9-11, he was quoted in The New York Times saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”

“An early organizing meeting for your state Senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[xiii]

It is worth repeating, Mr. Stephanopoulos said the Obama campaign admits Senator Obama and Mr. Ayers are friendly.

Senator Obama calmly explained that he served on a board in Chicago with Mr. Ayers, but was not “somebody who I exchanged ideas from a regular basis.” Senator Obama described Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.”

Mr. Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen conducted their domestic terrorist activities. Mr. Ayers was not a fugitive when he met Mr. Obama. He was not a convicted felon who was ostracized from society.

It is a story that will not die because the mainstream media continues to ignore the facts. The Mediacracy allows the McCain campaign to smear Senator Obama, and does not even attempt refute these baseless allegations. The mainstream media rationalization is that it is Mr. Obama’s responsibility to counter the charges.

The William Ayers controversy will not end after the election. If elected, the Republicans in Congress will demand the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the relationship between President Obama and Mr. Ayers, or with Tony Rezko, or with ACORN.

The Republican Party has proven they are unwilling to work with others. America will continue to falter because of their obstinacy.




[i] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[ii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[iii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[iv] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[v] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[vi] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[vii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[viii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[ix] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[x] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xi] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xii] Scott Shane, “Obama and 60’s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths,” New York Times, October 4, 2008.
[xiii] “Right Wing Radio Host Suggested Damn Good Question to Stephanopoulos Day Before Debate,” Media Matters for America, April 17, 2008.

Unsolicited Advice From A Stranger

“Better to remain silent and be thought as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,” President Lincoln said.

“Speak only when it improves the silence,” wrote Chris Matthews.[i]

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you… ,” is recited to alleged criminals every day by law enforcement personnel throughout the United States.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin cannot remain silent during the Vice Presidential debate. Everything she will say can and will be used against her in the court of public opinion by the pundit class.

Preparing for a debate is not like preparing for midterms in college. You either know the subject, or you don’t. Public policy cannot be learned in all night cram sessions.

Governor Palin is potentially facing the longest ninety minutes of her life if we prejudge her from the interviews with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and CBS News anchor Katie Couric.

Mr. Gibson asked Ms Palin about her insight into Russia. The governor said you could see Russia from Alaska.

Mr. Gibson wanted to know Mrs. Palin’s opinion of the Bush Doctrine. Governor Palin did not know what the Bush Doctrine was.

In the Couric interview, Governor Palin repeated the argument that Alaska’s proximity to Russia, and Canada gave her foreign policy experience.

Governor Palin’s inexperience, lack of knowledge about foreign and domestic affairs confirm she is unqualified to become the next vice president. A poor performance in the debate will strengthen the perception she is not ready to be vice president.

Governor Palin is facing potential embarrassment. To avoid embarrassment, she needs to remember particular rules.

Governor Palin should resist the temptation to say Alaska’s proximity to Russia’s automatically gives her foreign policy experience. It is a nonsensical argument. The sooner she forgets it, the better off she will be.

Furthermore, Governor Palin should concede Senator Biden is an expert in foreign policy. Senator Biden has more foreign policy experience than Governor Palin. She should avoid engaging Senator Biden over nuances in foreign policy because she will lose the argument.

However, if Governor Palin is forced to talk about foreign policy, then she should talk about it general terms. For example, “Senator McCain and I support democratic movements throughout the world. Hopefully these emerging democracies will share our values. These new democracies will be our allies in the war on terror.” It is the type of answer used in beauty pageants, but it could work with the public.

But Governor Palin should avoid talking about nation building. The war in Iraq has proven the United States cannot democratize a country through military action.

The war in Iraq could be a problem, but Governor Palin is immunized from the issue because Senator Biden voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. Mr. Biden could have problems trying to coherently explain his position on the war.

Governor Palin should not mention her opposition to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Senator Biden or the debate moderator will inform the audience that her claim is not true. She cannot afford to spend the rest of the debate defending a statement that is not true.

Governor Palin should talk about small town values, how those values shaped her life, and how those values will help her lead the country.

She should avoid talking about specific policy initiatives because she is not a policy wonk. Public policy is a difficult subject to fake your way through.

In an interview, Ms Couric asked Mrs. Palin if she disagreed with any other Supreme Court decision besides Roe v Wade.

“Hmm. Well, let’s see. Of course, in the great history of America,” said Governor Palin. “There have been rulings that there’s never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe our best held on a state level and addressed there. So, you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but…”

“Can you think of any?,” Ms Couric asked.

“I would think of any, again, that could best be dealt with on a more local level, maybe I would take issue with,” said Governor Palin. “But, you know, as a mayor and then as a governor, and even as a vice president, if I’m so privileged to serve, I wouldn’t be in a position of changing those things, but in supporting the law of the land, as it reads today.”[ii]

You find these answers in college essays, with the student hoping the professor did not notice the question was not answered.

Supreme Court decisions are studied in American history at the high school level. If she cannot remember what she studied in high school, then it is improbable she would learn trade policy, immigration policy, or foreign policy on short notice.

But if Mrs. Palin is forced to talk about policy, then she should talk about her opposition to flag burning, and support for the recitation of the “Pledge of Allegiance” in schools.

Governor Palin needs to avoid the constant repetition of the campaign’s talking points. Constant repetition will make her look insipid. She needs to be taken seriously as a candidate, but reciting talking points will undermine her credibility.

In the Couric interview, Governor Palin was asked if she supported the $700 billion bailout plan.

“I’m all about the position that America is in and that we have to look at a $700 billion bailout,” said Governor Palin. “At the same time we know that inaction is not an option and as Senator McCain has said unless this nearly trillion-dollar bailout is what it may end up to be, unless there are amendments in Paulson’s proposal, really I don’t believe that Americans are going to support this and we will not support this. The interesting thing in the last couple of days that I have seen is that Americans are waiting to see what John McCain will do on this proposal. They’re not waiting to see what Barack Obama is going to do. Is he going to do this and see what way the political wind’s blowing? They’re waiting to see if John McCain will be able to see these amendments implemented in Paulson’s proposal.”[iii]

This response was pure gibberish. It was delivered with the intention of “appearing” to be familiar with an issue, but in reality Governor Palin does not understand the current economic crisis. Governor Palin will not be taken seriously as a vice presidential candidate if she talks gibberish for ninety minutes.

Governor Palin should avoid lumping different policies into one answer. The debate moderator will ask the governor about the current economic crisis.

In the presidential debate, Senator McCain avoided answering the question by focusing attention on the budget deficit and earmark spending, unrelated to the current economic crisis. He can get away with avoiding questions because he is a Washington insider.

Governor Palin cannot. Any answer that deviates from the original question will validate the notion that Governor Palin is not qualified to be vice president.

Governor Palin does not need to memorize names of foreign leaders, countries, and important dates in world history. The moderator, Gwen Ifill, is a journalist with integrity. She will not try to embarrass Governor Palin.

Finally, Governor Palin needs to keep her answers brief, and to the point. She needs to avoid long-winded answers. Let Senator Biden pontificate about policy. The more he talks, the greater the possibility he will make a mistake.

If Governor Palin can manage to navigate the debate without major mistakes, and Senator Biden blurts out a gaffe, then Mrs. Palin will be declared the winner of the debate.

The Mainstream Media is Senator McCain’s strongest asset. The media will follow the McCain campaign narrative about the hockey mom from Alaska who defeated the mighty Senator from Delaware.

Hard to believe? Media coverage of Senator Obama was negative 72% of the time after he secured the nomination.[iv]


[i] Christopher Matthews, Hardball (New York, 1988).
[ii] CBS News, October, 2008.
[iii] CBS News, September, 2008.
[iv] “Study Finds Obama Fairing Worse on TV News Than McCain,” Center for Media and Public Affairs 2008 Election News Watch Project, July, 2008.