Big

Tom Hanks thinks this next presidential election is big. He even has a thought on who we should vote for. Hint: Hanks lives in Hollywood.

And you thought Hillary was polarizing

Just to balance out this Obama/Clinton face off, Michael Moore has weighed in. He is putting his ample girth on the Obama side of the ledger. Already, I am liking Obama less. Wow! This guy Moore really is polarizing!!

Street Money

There is a charming tradition in Pennsylvania politics. It’s called “street money.” It’s the money with which you grease the hands of the political machine’s political bosses. And every campaign in Philadelphia history (Democratic or Republican) has gladly greased the palms and oiled the machine to get the vote out. That is, until now. The Obama Campaign is refusing to play the game. And the party bosses are royally pissed. Especially, knowing that the Obama campaign is flushed with cash. Apparently, Obama’s campaign for Change is just that. This, of course, could hurt his performance on Tuesday. Or it just might change Phillie old-school politics for the better.

For the record…

The image on the left is what a presidential candidate flipping someone off looks like. The image on the right is what a presidential candidate scratching their face looks like. For an actual shot of someone flipping off Hillary Clinton, please refer to photos of former Clinton cabinet appointees Robert Reich and Bill Richardson endorsing Barack Obama.

Who won the debate?

Why, this guy, of course. Charlie Gibson––the guy with all those substantive questions. “Will you agree tonight to make the other your running mate?” That, of course, is a question to which we all already knew the answer. But it was worth it to see what appeared to be two candidates like deer in the headlights. Of course, it was, in fact, two candidates waiting for the moderator to do what moderators are suppose to do: direct the question to a particular individual. Instead, good-time Charlie throws out his snarky ” Not every one at once.” Yup, journalism at its best! Then Charlie raised this campaign to higher ground by resurrecting Rev Wright (who lies a molding in the grave), Bosniagate and the so-called bitter controversy. Yup, the electorate just can’t get enough of that stuff. Why talk vision and policy differences when we can watch the candidates skirm? Attaboy, Charlie. And kudos, to the caped crusader’s diminutive sidekick, George S. When Obama said he disowns his former Pastor’s remarks, Stephanopoulos shot back, “So now you disown him?” Alright, Georgie! Stirring it up!! By the third act, the two stooges actually asked some policy-related questions and Senator Clinton clearly performed strongly in this portion of the debate; but only after looking totally disengenious feigning bewilderment about Obama’s strange remarks about guns, God and racism. But, all and all, Charlie won this one. He led the debate with sensationalism and gave short shrift of the real issues. He made both candidates look stupid, and himself look clever. There must surely be a spot on FOX News for Charlie Gibson after last night. Clearly, he gets it. He’s the brand. He’s not a messenger. He’s the message. It’s enough to make me cling to guns and religion.

Look who’s voting for Obama

Just as soon as the Clinton Campaign and the GOP squeeze all the mileage out of the Rev Wright and the “Bitter” controversies, get ready for this one. Barack Obama consorts with known terrorists!!!! Pictured above is Bill Ayres, a former Weatherman. No, not the guy with the funny maps before the Sportscast– the 1960’s Yippie variety. He plotted the overthrow of our government, protested the Military Industrial Complex and conspired to put LSD in the Jello mold. All about the time Barack Obama was in Pampers. Anyway, today’s he’s a Obama supporter. And fair game. So get ready.

Gaffe?

Barack Obama has an international upbringing, a biracial heritage and an ivy league education. He is wicked smart and a powerful speaker. So when he says something you can be assured of two things: He is not misspeaking and he is trying to bring people together. So any attempt by the Obama camp to wiggle out of his comments concerning “bitter” blue-collars workers, we should question. This guy doesn’t misspeak. He says what he means and means what he says. But the other thing we should seriously question is his opponents attempts to cast Obama as out of touch with working-class people. The one thing Obama has in spades is empathy. So when he speaks to a group of San Francisco liberals he articulately and candidly tries to explain why conservative Catholic factory-workers may not embrace the benign programs of the liberal establishment. He challenges his listeners to transcend their cultural and political biases to understand the other end of the spectrum. He challenges middle-class white people to understand the plight of poor blacks. He challenges faith-adverse Democrats to embrace faith-based evangelicals. He challenges us all. Because without being challenged, we remain cosy and comfortable in our individual enclaves. And the other guy, is always the enemy. Sadly, frank, articulate challenges from a frank, articulate leader like Obama are always going to make dodgy-sounding sound bites for FOX News and the GOP. But when truth is spoken it is never a gaffe. It is, at worse, an inconvenient truth.

McCain closes the gap

In a recent poll, John McCain has closed the 10-point gap between himself and Barack Obama. Now, if he can only close the gap with himself.

Loaded

Okay. Is it just me or does this blue-collar, populism of Hillary Clinton’s receive a little blow back when we learn that she and Bill cleared $109 million over the past six years. I mean, saying you are going to help the hard-working poor prevail against the filthy rich seems to work better if you don’t happen be filthy rich. Of course, the Clintons do represent that segment of the dirty, stinking rich who are asking the government to increase their tax burden; And I guess that counts for something. But class-warfare rhetoric seems to work best when the bad guys aren’t ones making the speeches.

Pro-life, Pro-Obama

Used to be, the Democratic Party was the party of the little guy and the Republican Party was the party of the country club set. Then Roe v. Wade changed all that. The Democratic Party became the Pro-choice party and the GOP became the Pro-life party. Recently, those distinctions are not quite as predictable. GOP luminaries like Arnold Schwarzenegger are staunchly Pro-choice. Religious Right leaders like Pat Robertson openly endorse Pro-choice candidates like good ol’ Rudy. And Democratic up-and-comers like Bob Casey show up in the U.S. Senate unashamedly Pro-life. The Republican Party is gradually becoming more known by their views on tax cuts for the country club set, than their position on abortion. And the Democrats keep the “protecting a woman’s rights” rhetoric down to an absolute minimum. So when a Pro-life Democrat like Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey comes out today to endorse a Pro-choice candidate like Barack Obama, the question should not be, “Are Pennsylvania Catholics now going to flock to Obama?” The question should be, “When and why did abortion become such a back-burner issue?”