And, unlike either presidential candidate, we have a plan (actually several of them). So here’s our list of 10 Ways to Fix the Economy:

1.  Organized Crime Employment Works Program (OCEWP pronounced o-soup): Conventional wisdom is that organized crime isn’t hurt by and may even benefit from an economic downturn. But this is no ordinary downturn and, if things get much worse, we wouldn’t be surprised if they start liquidating assets. Through OCEWP, the federal government will hire out of work enforcers to “persuade” all those dead beat mortgage holders to pay up thus raising the value of those mortgage-based securities we’ve been hearing so much about.
2. Downloadable Dollars: With the last stimulus package the government spent millions of dollars mailing us letters to tell us the money was coming and millions more delivering it. Those are millions of dollars which could have been spent bailing out banks. For all future stimulus packages we propose cutting out the middleman and making the hundred dollar bill available as a downloadable pdf file which can be printed as needed.
3. Reverse Border Security: We spent all that money on border fences and it turns out the way to solve the illegal immigration problem was to have a recession. Things are so bad that people are returning to Mexico to look for jobs. We propose using those border checkpoints to prevent illegal aliens from leaving the country until they pay up. And hopefully, once they’re back home, they’ll wire money back to the other illegals they left behind.
4. Senior Export Program (SEP): Recently insurance companies have begun shipping patients out of the country to save money on healthcare and who needs more healthcare than old people? Under SEP, senior citizens will be shipped to low-cost countries where they can get by on significantly reduced Social Security and Medicare benefits.
5. USA IPO: In exchange for stock, current stakeholders (formerly known as citizens) would give up the right to all current and future government compensation.
6. Google Takeover: Once USA stock is in private hands, it’s only a matter of time before Google tries to take over (I’m sure they’d love to get their hands on some of the NSA’s code). Then we could finally see what it’s like to have the country competently managed. Note: Encourage Microsoft to bid but make sure they lose.
7.  Neo-Hippies: If the Neo-Conservatives ushered in an era of greed and excess, perhaps the Neo-Hippies can usher it out. Thrift store clothes and homegrown (uhh…) vegetables will replace dependence on the government. In exchange for re-entering the Age of Aquarius, Neo-Hippies will commit to never again taking money from “The Man.”
8.  Bail Out Billy Jack: If we can rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, why not bring back Billy Jack, the peace-loving, kung-fu fighting, cult hero from the seventies. Last seen in 1977’s Billy Jack Goes to Washington, perhaps it’s time to send him to Wall Street to see if he can kick some sense into those folks. Note: According to Wikipedia, “Laughlin plans to make a fifth film, Billy Jack for President…” so maybe it’s not too late.
9. Invade Ourselves: It used to be a given that nothing turns around an economy like a war. The problem is that our current wars have left us so broke we can’t afford to send the troops anywhere else to fight. The solution is simple: invade ourselves. All the money stays home and, if we lose, we can benefit from the money we’ll spend helping ourselves recover. As an added bonus, if things go badly, we can use the excuse to pull our troops out of Iraq and bring them home where they’re needed.
10. Housing Swap Initiative (HSI): The problem with most economic rescue plans is that they reward the undeserving. I mean if you had the good sense not to get in over your head in the first place, you wouldn’t need rescued would you? How do you rescue the fools without punishing the frugal? The 2 Hangmen HSI is the answer:
    1. The government temporarily assumes ownership of all housing and takes over all mortgages.
    2. Using a Frugality Index (details to be determined), those who have lived within their means will be offered the opportunity to keep their current mortgage (if they have one) while trading their modest home for a larger home currently facing foreclosure.
    3. The foreclosed owners move into the former home of the frugal family and renegotiate their mortgage based upon the value of their new, more modest abode.

Viola, those who have lived within their means are rewarded with a bit more luxury and those who didn’t are downgraded but not left homeless.

Got a bailout plan of your own? Why not share it?

Ben starts it off:

Ben: Another good day to not have your money in the markets…

Jim: So how does this play out if Dems don’t decide to pass it on their own?

Ben: Dunno… if the bill had 228 against it that means Dems had to have voted against it as well right? There are at least a few Republicans saying that they can’t only support the free market in the good times which is what I think they SHOULD be saying. The reporters are saying there is no alternative or plan B right now so I wouldn’t expect to see anything else happen quickly.

Did you read through the bailout bill? I dl’ed it but haven’t had time to look at what it would actually do.

Jim: Well, according to the first Republican, Pelosi gave a partisan speech on the floor this morning and that’s why it failed. But we need to come together in a bipartisan way and get something done. The Republican 2 came on and ripped Pelosi a new a-hole and blamed it all on the Democrats.

About 60% of Dems voted for it and about 30% of Republicans.

I’d say it’s dead unless a 500 or 600 point drop today matters to the house republicans OR the Dems just decide to strip out all the concessions to Republicans and pass it on their own without republican help and then dump it into the Senate where republicans can block it if they want (but seem unlikely to). That might put McCain in an interesting spot although since a deal didn’t get done, he doesn’t look to effective with his antics of the last week.

Jim (again): I haven’t read the plan but I’ve tried to follow the details. I thought a couple the concessions they made to the house Reps were good and I think the oversight and other changes that they put in earlier were good.

I really think the Admin screwed the pooch (as usual) by not offering a plan with oversight, and some checks on companies participating in the first place. Then they did a terrible job of selling it. They should have got their own troops on board first, presented a plan and then negotiated with the Dems (who have buckled in the past).

Ben: Yeah, blame being flung all over the place now. 133 Repubs voted no, 95 Dems voted no. Either both parties are to blame or neither one is. I really don’t understand why McCain supported it. Would be in a MUCH better position if he’d come out against it as the majority of the public seems to be.

Have you seeen anything like this before? It’s fairly broadly disliked (at least from what I can tell and from what Reid said about their offices being slammed with calls) in the public but is fairly broadly supported at the top of the government. Now we’ve got the lower house of Congress telling their leadership to piss off… It’s really interesting (and more than a bit confusing) to me.

Ben (again): So, McCain takes credit for the bill and then it loses, now he’s blaming Obama for it losing (even though McCain’s party accounted 40 more no votes). He’s supposed to be his party’s leader and yet he can’t deliver the votes to get it through.

Obama now says that this is the greatest economic crisis since the great depression even though the media (and I thought people in his campaign) blasted Palin last week for telling Couric the same thing (when Couric introduced the terminology in the question she asked). But at the same time tells people to remain calm, that things are always rocky in Congress, and like McCain he hasn’t exactly stood up as his party’s leader and delivered the votes on this one.

Pelosi and Frank are blaming the Republicans even though they only needed THEIR party to vote with them.

All the while we have everyone telling us that it’s needed but no one is willing to man up and actually pass it because they can’t really explain to the public WHY it’s needed.

I think it’s time for a reboot.

Jim: Nope, never seen anything like it.

Both candidates look bad although I think McCain looks worse. At least if he was against it he could go with public opinion. I guess he could say he’s bipartisan since he went with the other party (although he sided with Bush).

The Dems claim they could only get 2/3 of their party to go along with them (which isn’t bad for a proposal from a republican admin).

It’s a pretty tough call for the Republicans to say a) it was bad so we didn’t vote for it AND b) it was important for the country and we would have voted for it if Nancy Pelosi hadn’t hurt our feelings.

Like I said, I think the admin played it badly. Don’t know what will happen if the market is below 10,000 by Thursday. Just waiting to hear all the financial consultants say this is a buying opportunity.

Jim (again): From the NYT (I know, I know):

“Some Republicans blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, for a speech before the vote that disdained President Bush’s economic policies, and did so, in the opinion of the speaker’s critics, in too partisan a way.”

So she complained about Bush’s economic policies and they taught her a lesson by voting against him on the biggest economic issue of his presidency. Yep, that ought to do it.

Ben: Yeah, by making a bigger issue out of this McCain definitely suffers and I think after the debate on Thursday it will be all but over.

If this is as important as the Dems have been saying it is, they should have been able to get 11 or 12 more votes that they needed no matter which admin proposed it.

The Republicans took a golden opportunity to say they’re listening and representing the people, and tried to blame Pelosi for being partisan. Why not just say “Our constituents don’t want it so I can’t support it.”? Is that too simplistic for them to grasp?

It’s like the flipping blind leading the blind! They screwed up the fix for their own screw up!

BTW, I realize this video is edited to paint the democrats poorly but I can’t help but be amazed that Barney Frank is a leading figure in this whole process of “fixing” things even though he was defending Freddie and Fannie just 4 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Jim (quoting and responding):

“Yeah, by making a bigger issue out of this McCain definitely suffers and I think after the debate on Thursday it will be all but over.”

But if Palin can walk on stage without tripping she will exceed expectations.

“If this is as important as the Dems have been saying it is, they should have been able to get 11 or 12 more votes that they needed no matter which admin proposed it.”

One commentator said that basically no one in a tough election campaign is voting for it. So to get the Dems, they’ll probably need to throw back in more money for keeping people in their houses or change bankruptcy laws.

“The Republicans took a golden opportunity to say they’re listening and representing the people, and tried to blame Pelosi for being partisan. Why not just say “Our constituents don’t want it so I can’t support it.”? Is that too simplistic for them to grasp?”

Apparently

“BTW, I realize this video is edited to paint the democrats poorly but I can’t help but be amazed that Barney Frank is a leading figure in this whole process of “fixing” things even though he was defending Freddie and Fannie just 4 years ago.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs”

I think the Dems definitely got on the wrong side of that one.

But, I don’t think anyone believes that Fannie and Freddy were the only problems or even the only root cause. And the republicans have a hard time presenting themselves as reformers when they’re still proposing tax cuts and deregulation as the solution to the current problem.

Ben: Like you asked me last week.. why do you care what the Republicans do?

In all honesty, if you can’t get anyone to stand up and take “credit” for the bill, wouldn’t you think you could find people to take credit for killing it? It’s just amazing. It’s important, but not important enough for the Dems to push it through without the Repubs, and it’s also not important enough for the Repubs not to vote for it even though Pelosi made some speech they didn’t like.

The only guy really trying to get something done on this is the guy getting the check!

Jim: From the Boston Globe:

[Barney] Frank, one of the major architects of the bailout package, said he was “appalled” that members of Congress would put “hurt feelings” ahead of the good of the country.

“Frankly, that’s an accusation against my Republican colleagues I would never have thought of making,” Frank said.

“Here’s the story: There’s a terrible crisis affecting the American economy. We have come together on a bill to alleviate the crisis. And because somebody hurt their feelings they decide to punish the country. I mean, I would not have imputed that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity….But think about this: Somebody hurt my feelings so I will punish the country. I mean, that’s hardly plausible. And there are 12 Republican members who were ready to stand up for the economic interests of America but not if anybody insulted them.

I’m not necessarily a Frank fan but the Republican’s put it right over the plate and he hit it out of the park. You know that sound bite is going to be on all the news shows this evening.

Jim (again): I do think some action is needed but maybe it will have to wait until a lame duck session after the election. Of course the cost might (or might not) be higher by then.

Jim (yet again): Do you have any idea what the McCain camp is trying to say?

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

Does that mean McCain was for or against it. That it shouldn’t have passed but would have if Obama hadn’t been partisan so shame on him????????

Not trying to make a point here, I just don’t get the argument.

Ben: No I think they’re trying to say that it SHOULD have and would have passed if not for Obama staying largely on the sidelines and Pelosi playing partisan politics. Of course those two points are quite flawed as we’ve already discussed.

Ben (again): But any Republican that voted for the bill can now use Frank’s comments to attack the 95 Democrats that also didn’t vote for the bill. In fact, they don’t even have the hurt feelings to fall back on as an excuse.

Yes, the Republicans put it out there and he hit it but I think he clocked himself pretty good on the back swing. No one comes out of this looking good no matter how hard they try.

Jim: True BUT the Dems who were against it can say they voted on principle. The Pelosi excuse, as you pointed out, contradict that.

Jim (again): The ultimate political moment: everyone looks bad and nothing gets done.

Politics is a topic that can really get people wound up. As you’ve probably gathered from our occasional political cartoons, we like to lighten the mood every now and then and today is one of those days.

So, several hours of work and thousands of pieces later… I’d like to present the “leg-O-bama”

the "leg-O-bama"

What you’re looking at is a 30 inch by 30 inch, 4 color portrait of Barack Obama… using Lego bricks!

close up view of the "leg-O-bama"

When I started the project for some reason I didn’t think 30″x30″ would be that big but once I started putting it together I realized I had underestimated it a bit. Here’s a shot of me holding the finished project.

Probably as close to meeting Obama as I'll get

So there you have it! The plan was originally to do one of each candidate and their running mates but after seeing this one, I’m not sure my wife is going to want 4 big portraits and tens of thousands of Lego pieces cluttering up the house.

Note: These images are protected by copyright and cannot be used without permission. So please ask first and offer to include copyright information and link both the image and the copyright info back to this site. I will be fairly friendly about granting permission but if I find you’ve used one of my images without asking, I’ll request that you remove it. Simply, ask first or don’t do it.

I have to admit I was a bit shocked, but there it was – nestled in my inbox right between a notification of my lottery winnings and an offer for Super Viagra – a plaintive cry for help from Mitt Romney. Now I don’t usually get emails from politicians (except for David Plouffe, who seems to have a crush on me) but Mitt seemed a bit depressed and I suspect that, knowing I’m a Liberal (and therefore all touchy-feely), he figured I’d offer a soft shoulder for him to cry on.

Dear Jim,

First, I can’t figure out how I lost to this McCain fellow. I mean I bent myself double kissing the right wing’s ass and a “moderate” wins the nomination. Heck, I had a lock on the moderate thing. How was I supposed to know it was a winner?

And then he picks Palin. Hey, I know we didn’t get along, but surely I was better qualified that the Governor of West Canada. Anyway, I gotta believe that, with the economy in the toilet, my record would have been a bit more helpful than hers.

But, hey, I still want to be president! What’s a right-wing, moderate, Mormon, Christian conservative, Liberal supposed to do?

Yours truly,

Mitt

Here’s my response:

Dear Mitt,

It’s time to take a hard look at the facts. Worse case scenario for you: John McCain wins and somehow survives (politically and physically) eight years as president. During that time Sarah Palin will build some actual credentials, meet a lot of foreign leaders at funerals and, with her lock on the right wing, become the inevitable Republican presidential candidate in 2016. That makes your next chance 2020 and by then nobody will remember or care who you are.

Your only chance is for McCain to lose; relegating Palin to Ferraro status and leaving the 2012 nomination wide open. So what can you do to blow another hole in the Senator’s sinking campaign ship while, at the same time, helping yourself?

It’s easy. On tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal’s Op-Ed page, you need to come out with a clear and concise, free-market based solution to our current economic crisis and challenge McCain to adopt it. It doesn’t make any difference if it makes sense, it will never be put to the test. The voters don’t want free market solutions right now. They want the government to fix things. And the government fixing things is the Democrat’s idea. All John can do is ignore you and act like a Neo-Liberal.

Odds are he’ll lose, and you being the only Republican to offer a plan to fix the economy (and a market-base one at that) will be the logical choice to get the nomination next time around. If this turns out to be really bad and the economy hasn’t turned around by 2012, you’ll be a shoe-in unless, of course, you blow it again.

And, if Obama wins and the economy is purring smoothly come 2012? Well in that case, I have just three letters for you: F – D – R. You might be better off trying to get a job managing the London Olympics.

Sincerely,

Jim

As was so eagerly pointed out in the previous post, How long can they get away with it?, Palin, as governor apparently requested $453 million in earmarks. Democrats have jumped all over this hoping it’s the smoking gun they need to stem the tide of Palin’s popularity. While I am certainly not happy with the fact that Palin requested those earmarks, I find it ironic that the Democrats are criticizing her for the practice. Apparently it’s perfectly fine for Obama to request nearly $1billion in earmarks, but Palin’s $453million is unacceptable and irresponsible.

Lest you think this “strategy” is only isolated to the earmark issue, consider the Democratic attack on Palin’s experience. She’s been governor for only two years and was only a lowly mayor before that. Once again the Democrats are hoping you forget that just a few days before the Palin pick was announced, they were defending Obama’s three years of experience as Senator.

Need another example? Obama recently released an advertisement attacking McCain for having former lobbyists on his campaign staff. Naturally there’s no mention of the fact that Obama’s running partner Joe Biden (remember him?) has a son that, until last week worked as a high paid lobbyist. And as long as we’re going to ask the question of who will run the respective administrations, wouldn’t it be fair to examine the countless confidants and friends that Obama has had to disown to save his political skin? Anyone care do discuss Reverand Wright, Rezko, or admitted terrorist Bill Ayers? Of course not.

And perhaps the biggest contradiction of them all, Obama continually blasts McCain as being a “Washington insider” and running the same type of “divisive” campaign we’ve seen in the past. Of course we’re to forget that Obama chose a running mate who’s been in Congress even longer than McCain or that Obama has resorted to the tired old Democratic strategy of class envy on the rich to drum up votes. The message as always is that Democrats should not be held accountable for their actions while Republicans should be lambasted for theirs.

Earmarks? They’re an evil vile waste of money when Palin requests them but obviously necessary when Obama does it.

Inexperience? Palin’s obviously disqualifies her as a legitimate candidate while Obama’s simply means he’ll be an agent of change.

Lobbyists? A damning association for the Republican candidates but radical associates included a convicted felon, a hate mongering “pastor”, and a terrorist are not to be held against Obama.

Years spent as part of Congress? McCain’s time has obviously tainted and corrupted him. He’s part of the problem our country faces while Biden’s even longer tenure means he’s qualified to shake things up.

As I said before, I’m not at all a fan of the fact that Palin requested earmarks. However, the man at the top of the Republican ticket has been remarkably consistent on earmarks. If the fact that McCain’s running mate has accepted earmarks somehow disqualifies him from campaigning on that issue, Obama is no longer allowed to run against the war, against lobbyists, or against being part of the Washington establishment.

As the Democratic attacks continue to focus on issues that in fact, apply in greater degree to themselves than their Republican counterparts, I find myself asking the same question… How long will they get away with it?

Gov. Palin is McCain’s trump card with the Far Right which is willing to put aside all the gender bias it’s exhibited over the years in order to elect one of its own. And McCain is hoping it will work with fiscal conservatives as well.

First there was the “She Said No to the Bridge to Nowhere” ad. Which deftly failed to point out that she “was for it before she was against it.”

Now there’s John McCain’s statement on “The View” Friday that Sarah Palin hasn’t sought congressional earmarks. Specifically he said, “Not as governor she hasn’t.” I assume the disclaimer was necessary because, by now, most people know that she sought earmarks for the hamlet of Wasilla while she was mayor there.

But, even with the disclaimer, his statement is flat out wrong. I’d call it a lie but I’ll give Sen. McCain the benefit of the doubt and assume he simply forgot to check the facts before making them up. In any case, that bastion of the liberal media, the Wall Street Journal (it’s irony folks), came out today with the real facts.

As Governor, Ms. Palin has requested $453 million in earmarks for Alaska. Using the metric which the McCain campaign has used against Obama in the past, that means Gov. Palin has requested MORE dollars per working day while in office than Sen. Obama. About a million per working day during Palin’s tenure compared to just shy of $900,000 per day for Obama’s senate career. And that doesn’t take into account that Obama’s state of Illinois has over 18 TIMES more residents than Alaska.

It gets better. Hidden among Gov. Palin’s requests is $4.5 million to upgrade the airport on an island with a full-time population of less than 100 (exluding moose I’m guessing). Anyone else hearing the phrase “Airport to Nowhere” ringing in their head?

Clearly the Republicans, having learned their Orwellian lesson, are busy constructing their own “truths” about Sarah Palin and aren’t about to let the facts get in the way.

The question is, how long will voters continue to be fooled?

Just your average All-American couple

With a tip of the hat to Grant Wood. Thanks to TOONrefugee.com for providing this custom ‘toon! If you enjoyed this post you might enjoy some of these other political cartoons.

Barack Obama, “I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture the she’s [Michelle Obama] been subject to these attacks.”

Hillary Clinton, “”I became Chelsea’s mother long before I ran for any office, and I will always be a mom first and a public official second. Nothing justifies the kind of debasing language that David Shuster used.”

Sarah Palin: “We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

But just because they all say it doesn’t make it true. And, more to the point, do the candidates themselves offer their children the kind of protection that they ask the media to afford them. As a husband and father myself, I sympathize with the candidates when they speak out in support of their families. And that’s why they do it. It’s a calculated and largely cynical attempt to gain our sympathy. In reality, there are limits on the amount of privacy the families of political candidates should enjoy. And those limits are in large part determined by the actions of the candidates themselves.

Take my wife, please

Let’s begin with the easiest subject to tackle, the candidate’s spouse. At least since Edith Wilson and Eleanor Roosevelt (and more realistically since Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison), presidential spouses have played a major political role. Don’t we, and our surrogates in the media, have a right – even responsibility – to examine the person behind the most important relationship in a candidate’s life? Moreover, political spouses have become campaign surrogates. They attend events, make speeches and appear at conventions. If the candidates are going to be thrust their spouses before the country and the national media, should the candidate be allowed to dictate the terms? I don’t think so.

Bottom line: Whatever a candidate’s spouse says or does is fair game. And when Michelle Obama said she was proud of America for “the first time” in her adult life, she got what she deserved.

Shocked I say, shocked!

One of the not so subtle messages of Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign was her role as a mother.  To emphasize that, her daughter was by here side constantly and, when Chelsea wasn’t with her mother, she was making campaign appearances for her. Still when Chelsea faced tough questions about her father’s philandering, the Clinton’s were quick to claim such questions were off-limits. More to the point when a commentator accused Senator Clinton of politically “pimping out” her daughter – a crude but not necessarily inaccurate turn of phrase – she was quick to fire up the “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric. But who, given their experience, is more aware than the Clintons of how hostile and personal the media can be.  Don’t they deserve some of the blame for putting Chelsea in a position to be the target of such abuse? And isn’t it a bit disingenuous for them to claim to be shocked when it happens?

Bottom line: If you want to keep your kids from being a target, keep them off the firing line.

No, not that kid

It’s suddenly popular for politicians to mention – as both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin did to great applause – that their offspring are serving in armed forces. I assume the purpose is to illustrate patriotism and emphasize how they understand the costs our troops are paying. But, if a politician can use one offspring to benefit their campaign, isn’t it fair for their opposition to point to their other children whose life stories are perhaps less uplifting?

Bottom line: In the media’s eye all your children are equal. If you want to keep one out of the spotlight, keep them all in the shadows.

Is your daughter putting on weight?

Which brings us to Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter. Surely Bristol, whatever mistakes she may have made, doesn’t deserve to be splashed across TV screens and ridiculed by comics. But she doesn’t deserve to be used as a political tool by the right wing of the Republican Party either. Surely Sarah Palin knew what she was setting her daughter up for when she accepted John McCain’s offer to be his running mate.

It’s not easy to hide a pregnancy, especially when you use your family as the backdrop for your introduction to the national electorate. In my mind, it’s a bit hypocritical to ask people to respect Bristol’s privacy while using her as a political prop. And, if I had any doubts about Governor Palin and the Republican Party’s willingness to try to manipulate the pregnancy for political purposes, they vanished when the baby’s father was yanked out of Alaska and flown in for a guest appearance at the Republican convention.

Still, even if we accept the argument that Bristol is off-limits, don’t we have the right to question those who exploit the situation – whether their purpose is to harm Palin’s candidacy or to help it? And, given the fact that family is such an important theme in this election shouldn’t we be allowed to ask Governor Palin a few questions related to it? Namely:

“Does your daughter’s pregnancy make you question your past support for abstinence only education?”

“Given that your daughter was sexually active, do you wish she had used birth control?”

Bottom line: Don’t put your kids out front and then expect to hide behind their privacy to avoid the tough questions I have no doubt that the current presidential and vice-presidential candidates love their families.  But, given the realities of the current campaign, I also believe that also view their families as political tools to be used to advance their agenda when possible and to be “protected” (a bit hypocritically) when they become a liability. After all, playing the outraged spouse or parent is always good political theater.

Heck, even I have a tough time not falling for it.

At roughly 2:43am Central time, I received Barack Obama’s much anticipated text message announcing his choice of Joe Biden as his running mate. The message simply states:

Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee. Watch the first Obama-Biden rally live at 3pm ET on www.BarackObama.com. Spread the word!

Now unless you didn’t turn on the computer, TV, or radio Friday night, you probably already knew that Biden was the choice.

I’ve got to be honest, my initial reaction was, why the hell would they send this out in the middle of the night? And then it hit me… 3AM.

As in, the infamous Hillary Clinton 3AM ad…


That’s right, not only did Clinton lose the primary, she’s also not the VP, and Obama used her own ad to mock the critics of his “lack of experience.”

And Joe Biden apparently answered the call.