Anybody watching this year's election cycle has got to be starring blankly at the headlines as the come up. Even I have to admit I am shocked at the events as well. The bet I made with Savage a ways back was a long shot. I was skeptical of the Obama candidacy, but if it wasn't fake cash, I would have put my real money on the Democratic ticket for January 2009. Fast-forward to now and the race is a dead heat, with the unelectable party giving the unbeatable candidate a run for her his money.

So how did that happen? Well, from the way I see it, there have been three major bets investments that McCain has made over the last year that have drastically changed the political scene. Each one has tested the Democratic party as a whole and the junior senator from Illinois. In each case, the stock that McCain bought has paid huge dividends, and at the same time, allowed Obama to box himself into a corner.

Bet One : Iraq & the Surge
This is an easy starter. McCain in the fall of 2007 was dead in the water. At the beginning of the year he invested heavily in the Surge. That early in the election cycle, and the fact that he was aligning himself with Bush so closely, makes me think this is the most a-political action of the three. McCain holds the same theories about military action as other Vietnam-era politicians. Powell's doctrine of reluctant, but overwhelming force when necessary could easily be McCain's. That is the baseline for his support for the surge in early 2007. It was wildly unpopular to invest more resources into the Iraqi cause. If it turned out to be unsuccessful, his campaign was dead.

And that is where he found himself in late 2007, dead in the water while Mitt was running an eighteen wheeler filled with cash through the primary with the back doors wide-ass open. Huckabee was solidifying the conservative base. McCain drifted.

Then people started to notice that Iraq wasn't in the news so much, and the election came back to John. Mitt and his cash couldn't buy the delegates, and Huckabee wasn't a national face. After improved news from Petraeus, McCain started to pull into the lead. After a galactic miscalculation from Rudy in Florida, Mac was back.

With Obama staking his candidacy on Iraq withdrawal, he was forced to move to center with the recent turn of events. My guess is that there was also a come-to-Jesus moment when he started to get real intelligence briefings afforded presidential candidates. Either way, Obama had to step closer to McCain's original position. Incidentally, Obama's Iraq bet paid initial gains, but left him holding a worthless stock. As for the Democratic party itself, their main message has been removed from the country's conversation. What got them through the primaries was not enough for the summer season. If the party trashes Iraq any more they risk looking like the party of unavoidable defeat. If they shift to Afghanistan, they look like they are pushing the goal post.

Bet Two : Palin
I go back and forth on my stance on the issue of whether or not Obama should have named Hilary as VP, after she was eliminated from contention. My gut tells me that I would not have picked her either. The Clinton two-step would be too much for a threesome. JFK took LBJ, in spite of their discord, to win Texas and the South. Hillary comes with a significant voting block. But the Bubba-effect would be too much to handle after getting into the Oval Office. Johnson was put out to pasture. Clinton (both of them) would have never gone away and done book readings.

Add to that the fact that Obama didn't seem to need the help. To him it seemed that the Hilary supporters were going to vote for him despite Hilary's fate. The exit polling data from the late primaries showed some glaring short comings between Obama and the blue-collar Dems. His gaffe's at the time didn't help. I bought into the notion that Obama was not strong where he needed to be strong, and that would come out in a national election. Either way, I still would not have picked her, then.

But if I were to pick Hilary, I would have done it immediately after the June primaries. Let Hilary have her come-to-Jesus moment and then ride the Immaculate Ticket through to November. Some voters would have hated the notion. Enough would have supported it and turned it into a landslide.

When Obama chose Biden he left a gaping hole in the change ticket. After a summer that revealed Obama coming back to the center on a number of issues: Iraq, Gun Control, FISA, campaign finance, etc. Obama chooses the worst candidate. Not only is Biden lackluster, he has a treasure chest of gaffes with eternal dividends. At least Evan Bayh was an unknown, boring yes, but definitely an unknown. Not only does the Obama/Biden ticket appear to be upside down, Biden cannot hold a message for more than ten seconds. He may be a great guy and somebody that is very appealing in person. His nearly thirty years of congressional experience have taught him nothing about the ten-second sound-byte.

McCain drove a truck named Palin through that gaping hole. I was leaning towards Lieberman for my first pick. Hard to offer more change than a cross-party ticket. And then, after the Biden selection, I was thinking Kay Baley Hutchinson. But I was not that familiar with her.

Savage and I have this discussion that we gnaw on once in a while. I've mentioned it in previous comment threads. It goes something like this: The candidates we currently have have been so far removed from the original idea that we would hardly recognize a Washington or Jefferson if they were to run today. Minus the white wigs, their type of politics would not get very far today, even if they were to consider it worth their time. The current election process eliminates the candidates we want. We have moved very far away from for the people, by the people, and of the people... That may be pessimistic.

Palin is of the people, about as much as you can get. The nation has noticed that, despite all the shit that has been thrown her way. Her selection is a bet that has paid enormous dividends for McCain. The timing is even better.

With Obama coming off his convention speech, we were supposed to see our first real polling data. Instead, that following Friday, everybody was focused on Sara Palin, and Obama's selection of Joe Biden. The immediate trouncing by the media of Palin didn't help matters. Either way, Team Obama got smoked by McCain. With her selection: the base was solidified, the electorate was energized, and a stark light was cast on the Obama/Biden ticket. Suddenly the change ticket looked very normal, and the same ticket looked very different.

Obama had no choice but to attack a working mother, with a family of five, and a resume that is very similar to his own. In doing so, he is oddly attacking the VP selection. If he does nothing she runs away. The race was on.

With the selection of a female candidate being Republican, the democratic party's ownership of women's liberation comes into question. All the card carrying dems are beside themselves that the first women VP candidate since Ferraro is pro-life, and religious. Women's Liberation has been turned on its head. If Palin is the next VP she has a clearer shot the presidency than Hillary.

Bet Three : Wallstreet
Today's events and the most recent financial meltdown are amazing, no doubt. McCain has played them perfectly. Here's why:

With the pending bail-out legislation in DC, by Friday of last week there was an enormous opportunity to be had. Something was going to go down. Each candidate made statements regarding the market activity, and Federal action. McCain's was first, and weak. Obama's was academic and lethargic. By Friday the Fed had announced a plan, but no details. The market reacted positively. By Monday, there were still no details and the market dipped.

I immediately discount the notion of insider trading by McCain. Meaning: I don't think he had any more advantage of getting advanced notice of any significant progress on what was looking more and more like a stalled bail-out bill. Obama is a member of the majority party in the Senate. If the Senate knew it was going to go down quick, He would have had just as much notice as McCain. Still there was no call to action by Obama. And that presented another gaping hole for Mac.

Another great political guess? A gut feeling? Maybe an inner call to duy? Who knows. But I cannot see where else McCain would have gone with his reaction to the pending financial crisis. He went right at it as fast as he could. By taking the immediate action of suspending his campaign he immediately takes the initiative. By inviting Obama he appears bi-partisan. By getting back to the Senate Chamber immediately he looks like a legislator that happens to be in a campaign. Obama, by taking the safe approach, looks like the opposite: a candidate that happens to be a legislator. This will play out in the polls, I think the difference is obvious.

Basically, Obama's reaction to McCain's call to suspend the campaign until the crisis is addressed amounts to this: McCain asks Obama to play fetch. Obama declines but says that he likes to chase sticks. George Bush tosses the biggest stick he can and Obama chases it like a dog.

See, Obama should have taken the wind out of the sails and said he has a plan that will release the log-jam and he is bringing it to Washington. His bags are already packed. Blame a staffer for not booking the flight early enough. He will be meeting Mac in DC. Instead, he tries to call McCains attempt a stunt. Basically, Obama said if he was needed, to call him, and he would not be bothered with a photo-op. Bush's summoning calls Obama's bluff and again, makes Obama's initial judgement a point of concern. See also: Wright, Ayers, Rezco, Surge, FISA.

If Obama had been an active member of the Senate he would have known that a deal was close, or would have had taken a chance to affect a solution. Instead he passed. I do find it odd that Pelosi and Reid did not call Obama and tell him that they were very close to closing the deal. If it turns out that the bill is signed before the end of the week, everybody will be asking why McCain guessed right and Obama hesitated.

Mac wasn't involved in drafting the bill that will most likely pass by the week's end. But he did see it as an opportunity to take the initiative. McCain took a relatively safe bet and it is going to be another huge gain. The worst scenario is that he looks like he over reacted in considering delaying the debate, which considering the current financial situation, is quite understandable. The best outcome, has Mac leading Obama into Washington to watch the President sign the bail-out bill, with time enough to spare the sacred debate. I bet Washington finds that McCain is already there.

My previous post outlined why I find it difficult to identify with today's democratic party, and why the current democratic ticket of Obama and Biden does not give me reason to believe the their election will result in anything other than a shift towards a traditional blue platform. Granted, current financial events do give me moments to pause and consider a polar shift. But then my conservative nature grabs hold and I hesitate. Yeah, my 401(k) just lost ~25% on what amounts to an Amway Scheme on Wallstreet. No, I do not think this is an excuse to take Universal Healthcare out for a national test drive.

I posted this same thought here before, but I will reiterate for my own self-indulgence. I if I were to suggest, a year ago, that one ticket in the 2008 presidential race would have a candidate with a record of cross-party legislation that was at times unpopular but focused on reform and also include a female selection, which party would you predict that ticket would support?

Fast forward to post convention 2008 and I find that the answer even surprises me. Out of all the candidates that went through the tedious primary selection process - 'fer shit's sake we had to listen to Tancredo... and the shit-stain that is John Edwards. [side note: if i get time, I will outline why the Edwards candidacy was propped up by the MSM, and without it would have been a complete failure.] - I favored Mitt. I didn't think he was going to win. But I gave him the honorary rider award for shelling out his own cash and paying his way through the primaries. I agreed with him the most on a wide range of issues.

As it turned out, Dick Morris hit it on the head when he suggested that Romney paid for the most expensive delegates in history. Mitt isn't a national candidate. Neither is Joe Biden. So it goes.

That left me to consider John McCain. I knew Huckabee wasn't going to get the nomination. He's likable and honestly, an individual that I would like to see in federal office. I knew he wasn't going to fly. With Mac, you get a potpouri of legislation that, at the time, I felt was either hit or miss. Campaign Finance Reform was a step in the right direction, but also a step back, trading corporate financing with 527's. The McCain/Kennedy Immigration reform made me gag in places. At the same time, I don't consider myself dyed red. You have to take the best candidate for the current time. The primary was coming back to McCain.

Mac had the fortunate circumstance of Iraq and the Surge. He bet big time on it, and it was costing him in the early primaries. By the time January 2008 came around things were looking calm in Iraq and we were finally seeing a return on the investment. It took some serious balls to get up and support an increase in troop presence when the majority of the country wanted a withdrawal. Did he get lucky? Yup. So did Lincoln when Lee decided to toss all his forces into Gettysburg. After galactic ineptitude in managing Union Army leadership Lincoln finally got a break. Lee broke his personal rule of only giving battle when it is opportune. He took a gamble that his furthest progress north would push a political stalemate and an end to the war. He attacked when he had the low ground. If he did not, we may be talking more about the rube Lincoln.

Mac took a stance in what he believed was the correct course of action in Iraq. He's cut from a very similar cloth as Colin Powell in that, there is reluctance to utilize military force, but if it is to be used it must be overwhelming. They learned that from Vietnam. The Surge isn't really a gamble. It happens to be the only strategy Mac knows success can be achieved.

Add to that Campaign Finance Reform, Immigration Reform and you get a picture of a candidate that is actually doing what he is elected to do. I didn't agree with every piece of the McCain/Kennedy Immigration bill. But goddam, it sure was refreshing to see a candidate actually have their name on something that was a critical piece of legislation. It didn't pass, but there was action. Across the other side of the aisle is some fucked up combination of nepotism/osmosis/incest and hope about political action.

Seriously, in ten seconds, name a bill by: Clinton, Obama, or Edwards. These candidates have all had the political convenience of tested times without the accountability of incumbency. Agree with his positions or not, McCain is the only current candidate that has legislated. The others have campaigned. This country needs leadership in the former, not the later.

So upon further review, Mac turns out to be the candidate with an actual record that supports what the Dem. ticket is running on. If you think this country needs bi-partisan legislation, you should consider a candidate that has authored it. If you think reform is what Washington needs, try to consider a candidate that has put his name on the line of unpopular, yet needed, pieces of legislation.

Hope is an act of desperation, when no action can have an effect. Action is still on the table. I am strained. I am not desperate.

I don't look at my vote as a referendum on the current administration. It's a "hope" that the new admin. doesn't completely fuck everything up. At least with the Republicans, and the last administration, I take consolation in feeling like I was sold down the river. I didn't consciously sign-up for the biggest increase in domestic spending since The Great Society. W just had a hard time telling this shit congress no thanks, try again. I regret being sold down the river.

At the same time, I cannot vote for a party whose answer to every social issue starts with "A new Gov't program that does..." From Universal Healthcare, to Freddie and Fannie, to a goddam federally-funded disaster insurance program (WTF?) gov't spending is going to turn this country into an all-inclusive Sandals. When China stops giving us cash, they'll just start taking land - from west to east. 

For me, the 2008 version puts a new spin on the tired mantras of the Democratic Party - class warfare, manufactured community, mandated societal responsibility. Ehhh, as soon as they start peddling the Tax-cuts for the rich crap, my eyes start to roll into the back of my head and I think to myself: the bottom 50% of earners pay a whopping 3% of the tax receipts. As for the bottom 40%, you cannot give a tax-break to a net negative. Give it all back and call a spade a spade*. Half of this country pays next to nothing in terms of net taxes. That is, when the benefits received are compared against the contributions, the sum is a net loss. Yeah, I'm an asshole for saying this group doesn't pull its weight. That misses my point. The reason this statistical fact is important is because it already points to a neighborly effort that is suggested we should posses. Point of fact: the minority of the US tax payers already support the majority. To suggest that they do not is disingenuous. To suggest that they should feel patriotic by doing more borders on malicious.

The popular Democratic theme of tax-cuts for the rich takes advantage a modest silence by the minority and leverages a statistical ignorance with trite class warfare. Yeah, it bothers me that much.

It makes me think about the salt-of-the-earth Truman-type Dems - Hoffa-type guys. Now that was a labor party. The current Dem. party has been hi-jacked by the far left loons that: think 9/11 was a conspiracy; do not understand UN or NATO resolutions; get sweaty when Europe farts. The right has their share of whacko's, they just don't get mainstream air-time on the View. I think about my grand parents, and other grand parents that I know - people that would vote Blue until they were cold and stiff - and I cannot help think that they would be lost today. A party of trial lawyers and political surrogates does not resonate with blue collar America. Blue collar America is fucking great. The message I hear from the blue camp makes me think they are all standing with their hands held out. The part of me that remembers growing up finds that offensive.

It's not that I think the Republicans are so good, it's just that the Democratic equivalent is corrosive to my internal chemistry. Back in 2000, the fact that Gore couldn't beat George W. Bush speaks to the Dem. candidates short comings. Clinton gave Al a so-so leave, the economy was still decent, but the scandals were rather note worthy to say the least. But the guy was a robot. And now we find that he's bat-shit insane. Remove all the fossil-fuel cars and convert them to a non-existent super fuel - in ten years. He knows that the average life span of a domestic vehicle is about the same amount of time, right? And then we got Kerry-Edwards. Holy fucking shit. Stop nominating trial lawyers and maybe the Dem. party will cease to be bi-coastal. A 20-year Senator who has zero examples of leadership, and an attorney that did all he could to inflate medical findings for his patients' gain - strange how Biden couldn't break through that select group and become the front runner.

After the Democratic Party went through internal convulsions trying to decide which had more merit: being the wife of the President, or hope; we get Obama, another lawyer with a record that is vacuous. It seems to me that a constitutional professor with a destiny for the change we are waiting for would have authored something that is worth review. I'm curious as to why a legislator that is running on political reform and leadership has little background to reflect this. Obama's Illinois state legislative background amounts to: controversial issues he has avoided; bills he has pilled on top of at the last minute. His Federal accomplishments amount to locating the public restrooms, the Global Poverty Relief Act, and his presidential campaign. Sign. Me. Up.

By way of comparison, I happen to think that JFK was a lightweight and that he was the justification behind the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK had a twelve year congressional record on top of military leadership. Obama doesn't instill me with any confidence that the US is going to get taken seriously at any negotiations table that involves Iran, NK, SA, Pak, etc. *Clue: Russia will not support UN sanctions against their own country. And, they have a UN Veto.*

Add to those points the fact the Obama has been groomed by the Chicago political machine. His association with that, and the political machinations that make him associate with Ayers, Wright, Rezko, make me think that he is either: of the same mindset; or, goosing the system for his own political gain. Since he is running on change, I am persuaded to think that he is just as fatuous as any other candidate and less experienced. I don't have any evidence that Obama is going the make an immaculate transformation and reform the political bosses if he is elected president. Maybe I'm bitter. Obama's platforms of change are oddly similar to the common themes of past Dem. politicians: Federal mandates on Energy, Healthcare; increased taxes on the rich; increased spending on education; all with the hope that somehow it will be different.

I would be more inclined to consider a Dem. candidate:, Kerry, Clinton, Obama, etc. if they got their ass into the Senate Chamber and drafted some solid legislation that addressed a major issue. Take your pick: SS, healthcare, SCHIP, immigration. Get that pushed through and use it as their stump. Until that happens, it's all just a political speech from either a let-down or unknown.

I cannot vote for that.