Back from Hiatus

Hello there readers, and take my sincerest apologies for my incredibly long hiatus- first I managed to get myself into a post-election political rut, and then I got sucked into the void that is real life, etc. Anyway, the reasoning for my abscence doesn't matter- the point is, I'm back, and as usual I've got something to say.

I'm very disappointed in President Obama right now- It's not as though I was expecting him to be some sort of Messiah, I mean. I know some people have, and I'm proud to say that I save that sort of blind approval for Representative Kucinich. Still though, he did make some promises- mostly simple social things, really- that he has so far failed to keep. In case you haven't clued in yet, I'm talking Don't Ask Don't Tell.

When asked whether he planned on pushing legislation to repeal the baseless and bigoted act, his answer was a resounding yes. However, when it came to his promises being put in the practice, in the case of the coming out of Lt. Dan Choi, his answer was a little different. I understand that the President has a lot on his plate, as well as that he doesn't have the power to create legislation by his will only- however, as Commander in Chief, he can set an example of tolerance for the military, our Congress,and the American people by nulling the discharge of a valued Arabic translator and American citizen- with little more than a signature.

So, rant over- and again, apologies for my sudden disappearance, and I'm glad to be back! Expect me more often here- my muse has been revived, and like always, I have a lot to say.

MCCAIN'S NOT WEARING A FLAG LAPEL? OH NOES!

And yet I don't really care. Instead, lets focus on the debate. The debate just finished; and I think Obama won, although I can't provide an expert opinion. He was sticking to his points, and his arguments were strong. McCain's done better than I would have suspected; still, I can see why he tried to wriggle out of the debate. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be in a debate with Obama either.

I have a few bones to pick with McCain. He says he'll freeze all spending except for defense spending. But doesn't he realize that the Iraq War is exactly what's got us in all this debt? The Bush administration has spent 600 billion there, and spend approximately 10 billion dollars a month to this day. If we're going to cut spending, that would be a good place to cut it from.

Also, McCain says that "we've" created a government that is too large and spends too much. Well Senator, by "we" do you mean your good friend Bush? If so, one would think that you might think twice about agreeing with him ninety percent of the time.

In other news, I did some phonebanking today. I called up some voters in Virginia, but to no avail. I got one devout Hillary supporter who wasn't planning on voting- I tried to appeal to her reason by explaining that McCain disagreed with Hillary on the issues, but she simply argued that she "didn't like Republicans, didn't like Obama, wasn't voting." The rest either weren't there, were a wrong number, or hung up on me as soon as they found out it was a political call. Ah well...

And now for something completely different: I made a doodle of John McCain. His eyes are too big, and he has too much hair in the picture, but it's not a bad likeness if I do say so myself.

A Late Update on Obama's Speech- Also, Sarah Palin? You've got to be kidding me.

Sorry, readers, for the late update on Barack's acceptance speech. I'm sure all the other blogs have already covered it, but oh well.

So Obama's speech. Absolutely incredible. He managed to get onto the offensive a little, too, which is always good, with lines saying that voting for McCain would be "taking a 10% chance on change" and that McCain "just doesn't get it". His campaign had lowered expectations for a while, saying it wouldn't be as good as '04 etc. but my expectations were certainly exceeded and I imagine that it had a similar effect on other voters.

In other, snarkier news; Sarah Palin? Seriously? Why?

Well, we all know why. I'm pretty sure that goes unsaid. But why her? I get it that she's a woman and all, but she's no Hillary. She's a conservative, anti-choice governor of Alaska. By picking her, McCain just lost his "experience" card. He could have just chosen another Republican woman: Ever heard of Elizabeth Dole? I guess McCain hasn't. It's actually insulting to Hillary supporters, really. I mean, Palin is the epitome of "baking cookies". She's an ex pageant girl; as Miss Alaska, he so-called special talent was whistling. Now that's just ridiculous.

I really can't stop laughing. Sarah Palin. That's pathetic, even for McBush.

In case you've been hiding under a rock this morning

According to Larry King and the message I got from the Obama campaign in my inbox this morning, Joe Biden's been chosen as Barack's running mate. So far, pretty much all of the pundits I'd heard consider Biden an asset to the ticket, and it's no wonder why. After all, the polls have showed that the American public considers McCain stronger than Obama in regards to foreign policy, while Biden is incredibly experienced with that matter. On the subject of experience, Biden's thirty-five years in the senate may counterbalance Obama's relative inexperience (which conservatives have been capitalizing on).

The only issue with Biden is that he's opinionated, which can be a good or bad thing, but could render him unpredictable. Already, the McCain campaign has released an ad attacking Obama, using Biden's words from the primaries. Also, people have been mentioning the "scandalette" (my word) regarding Biden's college plagiarism. However, if we're going to talk about college, I could say a few things about McCain's years in the Naval Academy, and all his demerits there.

I guess the pressure's on McCain now to pick a running mate and deflect some of the attention towards him. Until then, I'll just be Biden' my time (sorry, couldn't resist the bad pun).

Obama "kozy" with Sarkozy

Photo: Jae C. Hong/Associated Press

Obama met with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, and pretty much got as much of an endorsement as a candidate can get from another country. According to the New York Times, Sarkozy spent time praising Obama and wishing him luck on his campaign, concluding by saying that while “Americans will chose their presidents you know, not I [Sarkozy],” he wishes “Good luck to Barack Obama, if he is chosen, then France will be delighted. If it is someone else, France will be [still] be the friend of the United States of America.” Obama also complimented the French President, joking that Sarkozy was the reason we Americans are "calling French Fries French Fries again".

The two also had a private meeting, and the Times says that they talked about the need to work together regarding Iran's nuclear program, Afghanistan, and global warming, among other issues. Sarkozy stated that Obama would "change the way the world views the United States". I must say, he hit the nail on the head with that comment.

Also, at the risk of being accused of being part of a "cult of personality", I have to comment on that picture. Honestly, doesn't Obama look so presidential there? They even match....but I digress. It's this ability to cooperate with other world leaders that'll make Obama good with foreign policy, as much as his opponents complain that he is "inexperienced". Still, I'm sure the conservatives will find a way to spin this as "elitism" or "being too French" (like they did with Kerry). Pray tell, when did eloquence and class start equalling elitism? Oh well, we'll just have to see how this plays out. Until next post, this is Stephanie, your Peewee Pundit, signing off.

A Quick Intro Post: Also, my views on potential veeps

Bill O' Reilly claims that the media has a "liberal agenda"; and he might just be right. After all, it is the media's job to report the facts, and, as Stephen Colbert put it, the facts have a well known liberal bias. This is a report on politics, from a young and progressive viewpoint. This is My Liberal Agenda.

As you all most likely know, throughout this week there has been buzz surrounding a potential announcement by John McCain regarding who will be his running mate, and the McCain campaign hasn't done much to defuse the rumors (although perhaps only to deflect attention from Obama and his tour). As of this posting, nothing has been officially announced regarding this, however, this has not stopped speculation and commentary about the running mate choices of both McCain and Obama. In this post, I'll comment on some of the pros and cons of a few commonly discussed potential running mates for Obama.

Option 1: Hillary Rodham Clinton
"Dream ticket" anyone? Senator Clinton is perhaps the most talked about potential running mate for Obama, and for good reason. After all, having Clinton as his running mate would be a definite plus for party unity, and would hopefully regain the alienated "Democrats for McCain" voters. Also, Hillary's experience would help counteract Barack's reputation as a newcomer, and her popularity amongst blue-collar, older, and Hispanic voters could help strengthen his weaker spots.

However, there are a few issues with having her as a running mate. First, having a Clinton on your ticket might not be the best way to win over independent voters, or voters who consider themselves to swing to the right, and could possibly contradict Obama's projected image as a new kind of politician, one who is above partisanship. Also, there are the issues of whether Clinton would be able to "lay low" and be content with sharing the spotlight with her former opponent, and whether or not the hatchet has been buried far enough for something like this to work.

Option 2: Jim Webb
This Virginia senator and former Secretary of the Navy under the Reagan administation could be just the man to bring Obama a little closer to the center, and therefore increase his popularity with moderate-to-conservative voters and Southerners. Plus, Webb would be a great boost to Obama's credibility regarding foreign policy, as well as leveling the playing field in regard to families of members of the military.

On the other hand, Jim Webb isn't one to lay low either, and he would have to be very careful lest he stir up controversy. Also, Webb has less Senate experience than Obama, something that wouldn't be convincing to those unsure about Barack's readiness for the job. Lastly, some further-left voters (including me, actually), may feel sold out, as if Obama was somewhat abandoning the progressive principles that helped get him nominated.

Option 3: Ted Strickland
The main benefits of having Strickland as a running mate would be that he would take away voters from McCain. The governor would rally up favorite son votes in Ohio, a very important swing state that is essential for the McCain campaign. Like Webb, Strickland would also gain support from more conservative voters, as well as support from blue-collar workers due to his humble, average-Joe image.

However, Strickland has some of the same issues as Webb. He could alienate further-left voters towards abstaining from voting or voting third party, as well as making Obama seem too motivated by political strategy, which would conflict with his new kind of politician image (although it could alternatively prove that he is in fact not "naive" or "unrealistic" in his hopes for change). Also, Ted Strickland could not be that beneficial towards Obama's foreign policy credentials, as that isn't his strongest point either.

Who would I suggest as a running mate? I'm afraid to say that I don't really know; they all have their various pros and cons, I suppose that's why I'm not the one making the decision here. These are just a few potential running mates, there are many, many others, including but not limited to Chuck Hagel, Wesley Clark, and Dennis Kucinich (actually no, not Kucinich, that's just wishful thinking on my part). I could (and probably should) go into detail about them all, but frankly I'm running out of space (and patience). So I guess that's all for now. See you next post!