James Carville called it “a bad night to be a Republican”. Candy Crowley checked down a long list of what Hillary Clinton needed to do, and did. David Gergen called it “a home run”. I call all that nonsense.

No one, the most hopeful Republicans included, expected Hillary Clinton to do anything short of go out on that stage last night, give a speech that was filled with Democrat themes, suggest her party needed unity, and charge that Barack Obama would be preferable to John McCain in the White House. But last night’s speech, in it’s minimal praise and maximum flaunting, was hardly a heartfelt endorsement of her old opponent’s candidacy.

Such mention of the name “Obama” was sparring. Clinton only mentioned the name Barack Obama 10 times throughout the speech, cushioned on either side by a laundry list of what she had accomplished and stood for in her life, making not a single reference to how Obama’s was equally as worthy. Make no mistake about this folks, this was a campaign speech for 2012.

Clinton relished in statements such as “this is why I ran for president”, over and over again, citing her character and reasoning for a life spent dedicated to certain principles. But never once, throughout the entire speech, did Clinton suggest the same of Obama’s resume.

Likewise, never once did she suggest his character was sound, or that his experience in life was relevant for the job he seeks. Never once did Clinton admit her recent opponent a better man than she had faced once, grown into a capable individual who would make a great president some day. Not… once.

No, Clinton rather stuck to generic themes of Democrat vs Republican, of how we can’t take another four years of Bush, and of mild criticism, at best, of her friend John McCain (the term, “friend”, was only extended to McCain of course).

Democrats will spin this, because they have to, because they have no other choice. Anything shy of a unified party would have been suicide for their party last night. So they’ll take the mere gesture of unity, the call for Democrats in the White House on the part of Clinton, without any real endorsement of Obama’s ability to lead as Commander In Chief. Virtually none of the worries of average American voters which are tied to Barack Obama were answered last night on the party of Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats know they have a problem with Clinton supporters who feel shafted from a scandalous, race-baiting Obama campaign, fueled by media bias at the expense of their golden girl. And that problem lives on in my opinion.

For the sake of we Republicans having to find something to do all week… I’ll throw another veep name out there for debate.

If you paid attention to politics back in 2003-04, you’d know that in conservative corners, from National Review and beyond, that Colorado Governor Bill Owens was seen as presidential material. In fact, National Review had coined Owens “America’s Best Governor”. In my own circles, it was widely believed Owens was the guy we should pass the torch onto post-Bush.

A governor from an important western state, Owens passed all the tests, from tax cuts he passed to social issues he believed in, and likewise made his mark as an ardent foreign policy buff, touring the world discussion panels. His trademark is Russian policy by the way.

But then came his marriage. After 30 years of marriage to his former wife Frances Owens, the two decided to call it quits in 2005, making their divorce final in 2008. Owens chances at a presidential run were seen to be gone as early as ‘05.

But today I pose this question: Do Americans care if a running mate is single? It certainly hasn’t stopped us from speculation on Condoleeza Rice. Nor does Charlie Crist’s shotgun engagement raise any red flags for our wondering if the Florida governor would join the ticket. I may not like the divorce rate in America, but the fact is, it’s pretty high. Would Americans shun a divorced man as a psychological abandonment of their own sins, or embrace their equal? So I ask, not out of endorsement but for honest discussion, why not Bill Owens?

He’s qualified. Bill Owens governed a large state like Colorado for two full terms. Before that, he was Colorado’s Treasurer for four years, which isn’t a bad resume builder in tough economic times. He’s electorally smart. Owens won reelection in 2002 by a 64%-32% margin, the largest gubernatorial landslide in Colorado history. It’s an offensive play. Colorado is one of two major red states Obama needs to win, and it could be said that Owens, a man who was governor just last year, could deliver his state. He’s savvy on foreign policy. Despite state-level governors often slipping in this category, Owens understands the challenges abroad as much as anyone.

Owens should be in play if you believe his bachelor status wouldn’t hurt him. Whether it would or not is a question, quite frankly, above my pay grade : ). But after serious consideration from the Republican Party on names such as Crist and Rice, two individuals I suspect most conservatives wouldn’t think twice on, it should be noted that regionally, by resume, and by talent… Gov. Bill Owens plays as well as any other available option.

While I suspect Obama camp’s numbers will rise throughout the week of their convention coverage, the first national poll out since Obama-Biden became official presents bad news for the candidate if he expected any type of VP bounce.

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) — It’s a dead heat in the race for the White House. The first national poll conducted entirely after Barack Obama publicly named Joe Biden as his running mate suggests that battle for the presidency between the Illinois senator and Republican rival John McCain is all tied up.

In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator.

“This looks like a step backward for Obama, who had a 51 to 44 percent advantage last month,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

“Even last week, just before his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate became known, most polls tended to show Obama with a single-digit advantage over McCain,” adds Holland.

I hadn’t thought of this angle yet in my long pondering this weekend of how to sabotage the newly joined odd couple in Obama-Biden, but as always, Michael Medved shares an interesting statistic, one which I believe cuts right to the core of Biden’s supposed “experience” on foreign affairs, which Republicans could exploit.

THE OBAMA-BIDEN TICKET IS THE FIRST TICKET OF EITHER MAJOR PARTY IN SIXTY-EIGHT YEARS IN WHICH NEITHER THE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT EVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY!

At a time of war, the Democrats give us something the nation hasn’t seen in more than two generations: a ticket where neither of the the running mates ever wore a uniform of any kind.

Shouldn’t Republicans make a big deal of this?

His piece is here, which includes some interesting timelines too. But I’ll go on with more information:

But the Democrats, at a time of war, offer us a modern first: a national ticket with two candidates who never served a day in uniform in any capacity.

And why didn’t Joe Biden serve? He’s a year younger than Dick Cheney, so even more subject to the Vietnam draft. Remember how Democrats reamed Cheney for his “five deferments” during the height of the war as he pursued his education.

So what about Biden? He graduated from the University of Delaware in 1965, just as the war began to escalate intensively and he would have been exposed to the draft. Instead, he attended law school (at Syracuse University) graduating in 1968– the very height of the war and the Vietnam draft.

And why didn’t Biden go to war — instead beginning the practice of law and his political career?

If he were a Republican, the press would be all over this one… remember what they did to Dan Quayle because he served “only” in the National Guard.

Meanwhile, whatever Biden’s story of draft avoidance (I’ve told my own tale in that regard, very candidly, in RIGHT TURNS), you know that if he were running on a GOP ticket the press would be grilling him already on his lack of service.

The sad fact remains that for the first time in 68 years we see a national ticket for a major party where neither the Presidential nominee nor the Vice Presidential nominee spent time in military service of any kind.

Chalking it up to what may be a 7-point max gain, here’s what Gallop peeps are saying about it:

The initial evidence is that Biden won’t hurt Obama in the election, but with only 14% of voters saying they are more likely to vote for the ticket with Biden on it, and 7% less likely, he is not positioned at this point to help Obama much either.

Actually, the real question here isn’t “does Biden help you”, it’s “does Biden help you win either Virginia or Colorado eventually, since this election will ride down to those two states inevitably. I can’t see Biden making a difference there specifically, which couldn’t be said for men like Gov’s Kaine (Virginia) and Richardson (bordering Colorado).

There’s an emerging Democratic talking point which now aims to hit back against McCain’s celebrity charge of Barack Obama, which is to suggest such claims are ridiculous, considering John McCain is richer than Obama is (and has more houses).

Well… such charges are kind of ridiculous, and so is this recent “7 houses” thing too. But, that’s politics. Anything to seize a soundbite.

But as a reminder to the Democrats, before they go talking about McCain’s personal wealth as a response, they could at least get the charge right before counterpunching us back. Celebgate isn’t about making fun of Barack Obama’s financial means, it’s about making fun of the cult movement surrounding him.

Here’s the real charge: Barack Obama, while speaking to thousands of screaming fans at his rallies, is riding a wave of sheer likability and speech-giving capability. Not any serious credentials, not some great accomplishment in life, not any personal experience that’s given us a glimpse into his soul, not any deep thought-out views which have been published in great books he’s written, just pure pop culture status, and looks.

It’s not that we care if Barack Obama is rich or poor, for remember, we’re the party that wants everyone to get rich, it’s about our belief that Barack Obama is an extremely shallow man, hiding behind his marketing team, without an ounce of ability to perform five feet beyond his scripted podiums and advisors. He sucks in any ad lib interview forum, gets beaten at every debate, and hasn’t a single major accomplishment in his short time in the US Senate in Washington.

We ask, quite simply, what makes this man qualified to be president exactly? And that’s the point of celebgate. In a fun way, we compare Senator Obama to the Paris Hiltons of the world, or folks who trounce around with their chic friends, never having accomplished much in life, but soaking up all the limelight all the same because people like their look.

Sure, Obama should be admired for his ability to make people like him. But beyond that… let’s get real here folks… this guy hasn’t proven a wit that he’s up to presidential par. And in times of serious consequence thus far, he’s done just the opposite.

Clinton supporters just can’t let it go. But, for the sake of supporting anything that hurts Barack Obama’s chances, I’m completely in favor of Gov. Ed Rendell’s recent outburst at the media:

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell was supposed to give “closing remarks” during this afternoon’s Shorenstein Center-sponsored panel discussion with all three Sunday show moderators — NBC’s Tom Brokaw, ABC’s George Stephanopoulous and CBS’s Bob Schieffer — but instead, he opened up a can of worms about bias in 2008 election coverage

“Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing,” said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver’s Brown Palace Hotel. “It was embarrassing.”

Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network.

“MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign,” Rendell said, who called their coverage “absolutely embarrassing.”

Chris Matthews, Rendell said, “loses his impartiality when he talks about the Clintons.”

Full Piece

If there’s one guy I listen to on matters dealing with John McCain it’s Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard editor and now NY Times columnist who has always courted an inside ear with the Arizona senator.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Kristol made a statement which scared me a little in regard to the future prospects of McCain’s running mate selection. Taking note of the experienced Joe Biden, Kristol suggested that McCain camp may be worried about “putting someone with no foreign policy experience on the ticket”, in reference to the debate they’ll have.

At the risk of this advice backfiring, and, God forbid, allowing McCain to think he’d be best served by making the awful selection of either Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, I’m going to give the advice anyway. Don’t fear the Joe!

First I’d ask, have bad matchups at Vice Presidential debates ever mattered? Consider the extreme to that situation, in 2004’s Vice Presidential debate between Dick Cheney, someone with decades of experience like Biden (even more so in fact), and Senator John Edwards, hardly a 4-year Washington senator who’s experience dealt with legal issues mainly. Can we seriously look back on Kerry’s loss and attribute it to Edwards poor performance against Cheney? I don’t think so at least.

Second, there’s a political angle that can be exploited against Biden if say… an outside governor were debating him. Assuming this governor could hold his or her own on domestic matters, with the right coaching, one could make the case that they could attack Joe Biden on countless bad decisions he’s made, from his opposition to the Gulf War, to his then support of the Iraq War, from his being against many of the Reagan military buildups against the Soviet Union, to his most recent boneheaded plan to divide Iraq up into 3 subdivisions by ethnicity. On all of these major decisions, Joe Biden wasn’t just wrong, he showed zero vision on what actually happened in the future. I’m confident your average smart governor could handle this part of the debate if coached correctly.

Third, if McCain were to pick the “correct” governor to debate Joe Biden, there are personality and psychological angles which could be exploited as well. Consider this… If you’ve ever seen Joe Biden debate someone on television, you end your experience with thinking he was incredibly smart, but incredibly pompous. In fact, you’d call Biden a downright jerk sometimes. What if Joe Biden were seen as being loud and abrasive to… say… Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

I believe, and many I’ve spoken with about this agree, that Biden’s potential behavior could not only get him in trouble with women, but with men alike who would be pressed to believe they’d want to protect Palin from the “evil abusive male type”. If you don’t believe this is true, go back and watch the press coverage after the Clinton/Lazio debates of 2000. Lazio, having walked over to Clinton on stage in demands of her signing a pledge, committed political suicide the minute he raised his voice to her. Call it unfair, but it’s a reality.

Of course, if there were ever a reason not to fear the type of experience Joe Biden has to offer, it’s in who was successful in the primaries themselves after countless debates, for I don’t recall Biden ever winning a state election. And doesn’t the nomination of Barack Obama, despite the comparison to the Bidens and Clintons of the world, prove enough that McCain can send in a lesser experienced surrogate?

John McCain should pick who he wants, not who Joe Biden dictates. Biden can be dealt with in intelligent ways, if done prepared. But we’ll be worse off if McCain believes this a time to abandon his momentum in the conservative ranks, by selecting someone like Tom Ridge or Mitt Romney out of fear.

Republicans certainly have their talking points, but no one works a tagline like the Democrats work a tagline. And frankly, this new one’s exhausting me.

In watching the Sunday shows this morning, and mind you it’s only 10:30am right now, I’ve already heard the words “Scranton, PA”, or… “scrappy Irish kid from Scranton, PA”, about two dozen times in regard to the life of Senator Joe Biden. He’s apparently not from Delaware anymore.

This is confusing you see, because for as long as I’ve known my US Senator Joe Biden, and I’ve been alive for 32 years (all of which he’s been in office), I’ve known a guy who lived in the ultra-posh section of northern Delaware known as Greenville, just miles outside of Wilmington (and incredibly more upscale than my hometown of Hockessin just miles away).

Greenville’s the kind of place where your average vehicle is a Land Rover or a Jaguar, where your neighbor is more likely to have the last name duPont, not McMillan, and where the average house size is likely 20-times that of your average Scranton, PA home. In fact, couple all of John and Cindy McCain’s various condos together and… well, you get my point.

My dad was a long time representative with the Steelworkers Union, largely dealing with guys from Scranton, PA and the surrounding area. I’ve met many a man from this region, and I can tell you for sure, Joe Biden isn’t one of those guys. So I looked it up, and turns out, Joe Biden did live in Scranton, PA for some time. The trouble is, he hasn’t lived there since 1952. That’s when Dwight Eisenhower was running for president by the way.

I know… the point is politics. It’s not cool to say that Senator Joe Biden is a rich guy with a small compound of land in Greenville, DE (with multiple houses on it). It’s not cool, as Chris Matthews emphasized this morning on his partisan hack show, to suggest that Joe Biden is a “Washington insider”. Nah. After all guys… he commutes back home every night for crying out loud! Give him a break! He’s always been an agent of change. Yeah…

The real point here is that Barack Obama, the guy at the top of the ticket, knows your average Scranton, PA voter wouldn’t pull the lever for a Chicago street organizer if he put a gun to their heads (whether or not they’d be clinging to them at the time is debatable), and thus, needs some mythical Scranton, PA hometown hero to come and save the day.

Well, guys like Obama may think those folks are dumb enough yet, but he’ll soon find out you have to do more than hire some Washington career politician to go in and speak their language. They don’t relate to Harvard law review types, don’t eat spinach or arugala salads, don’t like when folks make fun of their religion and gun culture, and certainly don’t relate to the issues of inner-city Chicago politics.

Barack Obama, and his Democratic friends, will need more than a running mate who spent 10 years as a child there to understand that, and we’ll be here every step of the way to remind them of that.

I came at the exercise of finding five suitable names John McCain could use in selecting his running mate, hoping to add some fresh faces to the list of, what I’ve seemed to think lately, are blatantly unacceptable choices floating around. For I believe there is still hope that John McCain might pick unconventionally.

As it stands, Barack Obama has just given John McCain the ability to create a “game-changing” moment in the presidential race. If we punt ourselves, as I believe Obama did in picking Senator Joe Biden to run with, we risk missing the chance to long-ball this one into the end zone for a touchdown.

With risk, there is sometimes reward, and thus, in my believing McCain’s newly found magic won’t last much longer, I think it wise for him to resist the temptation which comes from names like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Tom Ridge, three picks I view as potential disasters.

Keep in mind, a few of these names are suggestions only, and couldn’t possibly be equal in potential as compared to those at the top of the list. But for the sake of going beyond, what I view, as three potential home runs McCain could choose from, I believe all who fall on this shortlist would not only take the position, but actually help John McCain in some way.

They’re ranked in order of least helpful to most:

5. John Kasich, former US Congressman from Ohio:

John Kasich has been largely out of politics for the latter half of the Bush Administration, and is currently rumored as a potential candidate for Governor of Ohio in 2010. And while many will disagree with me on this pick, as congressmen are sometimes risky, I’ve always felt that John Kasich’s blue-collar conservatism would stack up well in the corridor of the nation which John McCain (and apparently Joe Biden if you heard his speech today) seeks to exploit this election cycle, the purple midwest. With the roots to speak to those working class voters from states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, John Kasich could serve McCain well through reinforcing, in a believable way, the negatives associated with Barack Obama’s Chicago brand. He also comes with economic knowhow from his experience doing government budgets, is remembered and liked by the base from his recent time at Fox News Channel, and could play an effective attack dog role by speaking the right language.

4. Rick Santorum, former US Senator from Pennsylvania:

I know… Santorum lost a hard fought senate re-election campaign to Bob Casey, Jr. in 2006, and failed politicians are often seen as bad for national tickets. But put a man as talented as Rick Santorum in any other state but PA (especially one more in tune with his conservatism), and he’s easily a third term senator right now, if not our presidential nominee. He’s young, great on the issues, social, military, and economic conservatives alike love him, has a grasp of foreign and domestic policy as the former #3 ranking GOP senator, and served his state of Pennsylvania (battleground one for John McCain this year) for 12-plus years. Unfortunately he doesn’t carry you PA, but unlike a Tom Ridge, he makes your opponent sweat a little while the rest of us don’t have to hold our pro-life noses. If our choice is between loosing PA with Rick, and loosing MN with Tim Pawlenty (a pipe dream that McCain shouldn’t believe), I’m taking the guy I like more, and that’s Santorum. Bottom line, I made this choice because I believe Rick Santorum could serve as a competent under liner for John McCain’s commitment to conservatism. Also like Kasich, he’d be an effective attack dog from a region of interest.

3. Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina:

Sanford’s stock has dropped lately, given the unifying fear conservatives have found over Barack Obama’s potential election, and the view among many that McCain has run a far more conservative campaign than expected. As a friend of mine recently put it, McCain is doing what Sanford doesn’t need to do anymore, speak our language. However, this newfound joy over John McCain shouldn’t erase the fact that Mark Sanford is vastly popular in his home state, a solid conservative who the right would grow to enjoy, who’s known as a reformer in the Republican Party (often at the expense of criticizing his own state Republican Party), and whose hatred of spending rivals that of McCain’s. He’s uber-likable (if you’ve ever heard him talk he’s cool and relaxed, always), looks presidential, and could go a long way in making the conservative base a bunch of happy campers. If anything, Mark Sanford is that safe governor compliment to John McCain’s Washington experience, who would make sense from the standpoint of governing later.

2. General David Patraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force:

Memorize four words if McCain makes this pick: This. race. is. over.

John McCain certainly doesn’t need any more foreign policy credentials, as a veteran of war and government service, but who gives a damn… this pick would seriously kick people’s asses! Imagine the press afforded to McCain camp when the news broke, as they’d warm up the act by telling stories of a general who won the Iraq War when all seemed lost, now coming home to serve his country in honor, to protect us here. The crowds would come for miles to watch him speak, to hear him one of the greatest military leaders of our time talking of American strength in the world, and of the peace that comes only with victory.

It’s not that Americans dislike war, it’s that we dislike loosing wars. Well meet the man who prevented us from loosing a major war. McCain/Patraeus, quite frankly, would breath a sense of confidence in people, and would be a hail mary with minimal risk, as it’d be hard to challenge this man on anything (see MoveOn.org if you don’t believe me) other than domestic inexperience. McCain/Patraeus. Man… that just plain rocks.

1. Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska:

Google “Sarah Palin”, and find me one picture that doesn’t intrigue you to fits of lengthy staring.

I had a hard time deciding how to arrange picks 1 and 2, for who could beat out General David Petraeus? But I settled on Gov. Sarah Palin as the more “doable” pick for John McCain.

McCain would be best suited with a governor to match his senate career, and she is one. McCain would be best served with a younger, fresher face; she’s in her late 40s and is a Washington outsider. McCain would be better served to pick up as many disgruntled Hillary voters as possible, and Palin’s demographic matches the Clinton supporter to a tee (in terms of sex and age).

Sarah Palin currently has an 86% approval rating, and I’m not sure anyone since George Washington has ever held levels that high (save George W. Bush post-9/11). Conservatives would love this woman, as she’s rock-solid on all the issues we care about from life to guns to spending. Blue collars would love her, as she comes from that set of roots (her husband runs dog-sledding races and worked manual labor at an oil rig). Likewise, a female running mate would break historical ground, as Obama camp is certainly gaining from his own historical breakthroughs. She’s also not that bad looking, if you haven’t noticed.

Geographically, why care to work a particular state, when McCain could work the greater nation of womanhood? And it just so happens that Gov. Sarah Palin is an expert on a little issue called oil production, having lead all Pacific governors this year in an interstate pipeline deal. Palin’s actually been to ANWR, and has met the majority of Alaskans who support drilling there. Top that Barack (and McCain for that matter). Finally, and this is important, Sarah Palin just screams fascination, and that’s the magic that leaders are made of.

The stars are aligned for you on this one Senator McCain. If you want to win this election, pick the Governor of Alaska as your running mate.