In my opinion the “Maverick” is taking a huge risk in naming Sarah Palin as his running mate as it puts into question his own integrity.  The definition of a maverick is “one that refuses to abide by the dictates or resists adherence to a group.”  The very fact that McCain named Gov. Palin goes against the definition of maverick.  If he had truly done what he thought was best for the country, he would have insisted on running with Lieberman or Romney who were his first choices.  Instead he bowed to the pressure of his party in order to get the party base to support him, putting his own need to be elected ahead of "country first."

Senator McCain continues to reverse his previous stands in order to win votes – lack of experience, taxes, off-shore drilling, immigration and “change” – continue to morph.  With Gov. Palin as his bulldog, he can stand quietly by and let her extol his virtues while avoiding any explanation of concrete policy statements.  His economic plan is to make the Bush tax breaks for the rich and big business permanent, and he says the economy is fundamentally sound echoing President Bush.  This is more of what we have had the last eight years and, yet, we now have the highest rate of unemployment in 5 years, and the government is taking over Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac in the wake of prime loan foreclosures.  The sub-prime greed of already wealthy bankers having rocked the world financial markets, American tax payers are now expected to take the hit for failed Bush economic policies that are affecting middle America.  McCain has admitted that the economy is his weak point.  How can we put our economic future at such risk?  If we continue to do what we have already done, we will get what we already have and that’s not good enough.

At the RNC, McCain’s message to Washington was not one of working together to create change.  He gave them notice that change was coming!  Like it or not, he’s going whack them upside the head with an iron hand!  With his tone of voice and declarative manner, he will probably find a great deal of resistance from his own party in Congress.  Isn’t that what Nancy Pelosi did two years ago after the Democrats took over the majority in Congress?  She made defiant declarations based on the voice of the people in wanting America out of Iraq, and we are still occupying and our young people are still dying on foreign soil.   McCain should learn from the Democrats mistake.  A leader is not a dictator, and whoever becomes President will have to know how to play nice and bring people together.  McCain’s acceptance speech was nothing if not divisive.

In regards to Gov. Palin, she should have been prepared to have every aspect of her public life scrutinized as it is the rite of passage for every politician, especially one not known on the national scene.  She and her husband released the announcement of her daughter’s pregnancy out of wedlock, opening the subject up to public examination because of her stand on sex education, abortion and Roe vs Wade.  Senator McCain’s life story is very well known; Sarah Palin’s is not.  American voters need to have a good idea of who they are voting into office, their past political decisions, and the policies they support.

In order for America to once again become a world leader, the next Administration will have to work hard to regain lost trust. Frankly, the rest of the world is wondering what Americans are thinking in regards to Sarah Palin.  In reporting on the RNC, the foreign press showed the video repeatedly of Gov. Palin in her camo’s firing an automatic rifle.  Her bulldog, hockey mom image as a rugged Alaskan, shooting first, taking no prisoners and asking questions later is so close to the terribly unpopular image of Bush as a “cowboy” that I do not see her helping our stand in the global arena.  What she does in Alaska is perfectly acceptable but she’s playing in a much bigger sandbox now.

And Republicans do realize that the ticket is McCain, Palin and not the other way around, right?  I get the feeling that many of the base that McCain is playing to secretly hopes he’ll have a heart attack and die shortly after taking the oath of office – another reason why we need to know Sarah Palin and the policies that she supports better.

Veep, Veep, expect the next 60 days to get very hot!  McCain has nominated someone who is way more popular than he is and he just might get lost in the crowd.  If it wasn’t for her nomination, the RNC would’ve been a big snooze.

Diane MacEachern, author of Big Green Purse: Use Your Spending Power to Create a Cleaner, Greener World, wrote an article in National Wildlife Magazine encouraging women “to buy less and to reuse what they buy. Clearly, nothing will get manufacturers’ attention more than consumers who decide to keep their money in their purses. Corporate needs for profit give consumers power. And because women spend 85 cents of every dollar in the retail marketplace, we have a whole planet full of power. By intentionally shifting our spending to products that offer the greatest environmental benefits, we can use our purses like bright green tethers and pull manufacturers in a safer, healthier, more eco-friendly direction.”

It occurred to me that Corporate America is not the only entity taking notice that consumers are spending less.  Our government measures the health of our economy by measuring how much American’s are spending and government is clearly worried.  The “r” word is beginning to be heard above a whisper.  Many American’s are hurting financially and worried about the future.  They have had no choice but to change their spending habits.

What if the real revolution we could create was to change the measuring stick?  What if our economy was based instead on how happy American’s are or how much money we didn’t spend but saved for the future, or how healthy we are, or how clean our environment, or how peaceful our world?  How would the decisions of government change, and how would the priorities shift?  My mind boggles at the possibilities – the Department of Transportation becomes the Department of Mass Transportation, the USDA becomes the USDOrganicA,  the FDA actually works for the people instead of the drug companies, the Pentagon becomes the Peaceagon.   Whew!

So, what kind of change can we reasonably and realistically expect to create?  I believe it begins and ends with our own behavior if we want our government to implement change.   Focus on what we can control, what we can directly influence.  Make the choice to change our spending habits.  Government and Corporate America will follow the money.  (Opps, maybe I am a Libertarian - Let the marketplace be the agent of change.)  (But I still think socialized medicine is a good idea.)

Two more primaries to go and the season will be over but the Democratic race is still to close to call.  Everyone claims their candidate has the edge but, no matter who comes out on the top of the ticket, the party will come together and play nice.  Oh, for a crystal ball! 

I must admit I am weary of these contests but I can’t deny that during this election I have learned more than I thought possible about the party process, the interplay between state governments who pay for and hold the primary races and the political parties who make up the rules, that Native Americans who have their own sovereign nations within the United States can vote for the President of another nation, while Puerto Ricans can vote in the primary but not in the general election.  I have observed the media as it curries favor with one candidate or another, and have been surprised at how little real mud slinging has occurred….. so far.  It certainly is a time for change but it will take more than a new President.  It will take a coalition of Congress people on both sides of the aisle working with an Administration dedicated to reform.   Or will it?

One thing I’m certain of is that government equals power and it’s naïve to think that any politician is immune from that heady perfume.  How can we expect that change will come from the top down?  How do we create change from the bottom up?  There are so many issues, so much government, so many global influences, so much committed tax money, and so great a debt.  What can each of us do?

It takes a significant emotional event to cause real change in behavior.  We’ve been through that with September 11^th and our invasion of two sovereign nations.  Are we tired enough of the status quo to demand our government take notice?  Is our economy creating enough pain that we will make changes ourselves?  Just by making the difficult choices of our daily lives, will we be able to send a message that our country must fundamentally reform? 

I don’t have the answers to these questions, only the energy to muse.  I have lived long enough to know that our society swings like a pendulum from far left to far right to a more reasonable moderate stance over time.  Normally I’m an optimist but this time I’m just not sure that time is on our side.  Then again, maybe all we have for sure is time.

This brings us to the third and fourth assumptions of pluralist theory: that there are many competing interests that converge around a given issue and that these competing interests result in policy by consensus. Inherent in this statement is the presumption that those with power have not taken steps to put up road blocks for other parties attempting to utilize their resources to affect change. E.E. Schattschneider explores the idea that those with power can affect the ability of others to act in opposition to them. He outlines a theory of conflict for us which states that “every fight consists of two parts: (1) the few individuals who are actively engaged at the center and (2) the audience that is irresistibly attracted to the scene,” (1975, 62). He continues on to assert that the outcome of the conflict is dictated by how the audience chooses to react. He refers to the “scope” of a conflict as the means by which parties directly involved can maintain control over the outcome (1975, 64). In other words, if the conflict is kept private in the hands of a few people, those people can dictate its outcome. If the conflict becomes public and a greater portion of the audience is included in resolving the conflict, its resolution leaves the hands of the few and is dictated by the voice of the majority. This theory has very interesting implications in terms of elite theory because it suggests, based on the premise that there is an elite class who have managed to coordinate their accumulated power, that this group of people might have a means of a silencing the voices of their opposition through privatizing conflict. Those who have interests contrary to the interests of the Corporate Community cannot be heard because the Corporate Community so dominates the political sphere that no authorized representative would, or could, get it placed on an agenda to be voted on in the first place (Domfoff 2002). This demonstrates the wielding of power beyond the actual decision making process and into the realm of agenda setting. If that is the case, the pluralist assumption that there are many competing interests that result in policy by consensus is false. Rather, there are competing interests but if they have converged around an issue that matters to the Corporate Community, the result is policy in favor of the Corporate Community (Domhoff 2002).  

Alright, I know that was painful, but at least you didn't have to write it. Lets recap: Pluralists make four assumptions when advocating their ideals of how the government responds to interest group involvement. To begin with, it is assumed that power is not centralized, that the state acts as an impartial referee between competing interests, that there are many competing interests that converge around a given issue, and finally that these competing interests result in policy by consensus. By examining elite theory it was revealed that power is, in fact, centralized. Furthermore, a discussion of the state as an impartial referee linked power to resource management, as dictated by the way our government is naturally set up. The combination of these two discoveries makes it unreasonable to assume that policy decisions are reached by consensus. Rather, that claim was qualified with the requirement that the issue not be of interest to the Corporate Elite. This counter argument to pluralism confirms what we already know: The government has too much control over our lives and cares too little about what we think about that. The thing that this study should lead us to recognize is that the issues that we face now, and that we will face in the future, are issues of class. Contrary to what the two democratic candidates would have you believe, prejudice against skin color and sex are possibly gone forever, thanks to those who worked before us. But they have been replaced by prejudice based on economic standing. And why shouldn’t they have been? Capitalism always leads to inequality, and our second favorite thing next to democracy in this country is "the silent hand of the market."

After much reflection, this is my short (incomplete) list:

I want a President who will bring together diverse and divergent points of view, one who won’t be isolated from the real world by cabinet appointees and who will listen to concerns of the people. 

I want a President who will defend the rights and issues of women and children, regardless of color, social status, religious beliefs or influence.

I want a President who will put environmental concerns at least on par with (if not above) big business.

I want a President who will keep as much government intervention and interference as possible out of my daily life.

I want a President who will once again be respected as the leader of the modern world.

I want a President who has a realistic view of life’s risks and who doesn’t have an agenda kept alive by fear.

I want a President who will enforce current laws before enacting others that muddy the water or enacting Executive Privilege to by-pass the laws of the land in the name of National Security.

OK, I admit some of my list is still what I don’t want. But I’ve tried to listen carefully and I recognize that no politician is going to meet every one of my criteria. Initially, my vote was for John Edwards and I hope that he will run again some day. But, now, the field has been whittled down to three Senators – McCain, Clinton and Obama. For me, John McCain is too much of the same ol’ Bush thing. I think I’ve been pretty clear that what I don’t want is another Bush. But would either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama come close to what I want in a President? And how about the issues that matter to me –health care, Veterans benefits, the environment, Medicare and Social Security, taxes and the economy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and more?

I have read the issue statements for both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. While there are differences, I could vote for either one. Again, no one candidate is perfect and - this is a biggie - each will have to compromise with Congress in the end. Rather than list supporting statements here, I’ll suggest that you go to their official websites and read their statements for yourself. Instead, I’m going to explain why I choose to support Hillary Clinton.

As a baby boomer woman who grew up in the middle of second the wave of feminism (see http://www.legacy98.org/move-hist.html if you missed it in a previous comment), I admit I am drawn the Senator Clinton because of her gender. All other things being equal between candidates, this is an historic moment for women. While discrimination is more subtle these days, it has not been eliminated. For example, men in the media consistently refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary, but refer to Senator Obama as Obama when using a one name reference.  They refer to women by their first names as though they have not attained the status of a man.  This may seem like a small thing but it is a subtle form of discrimination, and it is only one of dozens of small examples, not to mention those examples that are blatant.  Discrimination against women is not a thing of the past.

I would like to see a national holiday in remembrance of Elizabeth Cady Stanton who started the women’s movement in 1848 much like the holiday of Martin Luther King where we gather and remember where we’ve been, assess where we are, and bring to the forefront where we still need to be to establish equality for all men and women. Young women today take for granted the very things my generation and generations of women before me fought against, and we have no one to blame but ourselves for not regularly reminding them of the hard fight - a national holiday would help us remember and remind. Towards that end, I see the election of a woman as President as the next giant step in changing the mindset of future generations.

I am aware that people either love Senator Clinton or they hate her. There seems to be no middle ground with the electorate. There are questions of integrity and I’m not belittling the importance of integrity, but I’ve heard all three Senators caught in lies. She has experience, and is well known and respected throughout the world. She’s a fighter, there’s no denying that, and she’s spent her life fighting for issues that affect women and children. I also believe she will be more than competent as Commander in Chief.

I will continue to support Senator Clinton through the national convention and, should she become the first woman President, I’ll hold her to a very high standard. As is always the case for the first woman in any position, she’ll have to work twice as hard to be seen just as competent as her male counterparts. In the meantime, I look forward to an election season where gender and race no longer matter in choosing our elected officials.

How are voters suppose to obtain factual information regarding the candidates?  Hwalker would have us believe that “in every statement of fluff and manipulation there is bound to be a grain of truth.”  Therein lies the rub.  Lies and rumors are passed on as truth and believed as truth because of the grain of truth.  There’s just enough truth to give the statement credibility.  Social psychologists tell us that the more times we hear something, the more we are inclined to believe it, even when statements are retracted or denied, and repeating the claim no matter the context increases it’s apparent truthfulness. 

So what’s a voter to do?  Questioning things we read or see in the media, hear on talk shows, receive in emails and read on blogs is essential.  Recognizing that every author and media outlet has an agenda no matter how unbiased they proport to be.  Checking facts on websites such as snopes.com and politifact.com is positive, especially before passing them on to our friends and family as truth.   Instead of looking for the grain of truth in statements, take them all with a grain of salt.  Critical thinking is essential.

Gathering information and listening to opposing viewpoints is healthy as long as we realize we also have our own filters.  We are predisposed to believe those things that validate our own beliefs.  Are most voters open to questioning their own values with differing points of view?

Every candidate has an official website that publishes their positions and a thorough reading of each is essential, recognizing that each one is understandably biased.  They would like to get elected so words are carefully chosen and statements massaged.  Listen to what the candidates say in context. Know for yourself what you heard, the tone of voice and inflection, and the audience the candidate is addressing.

I’m not sure how many voters are willing to put so much time into figuring out what is truth, partial truth, propaganda or outright lies.  I’m not sure I believe that most voters are informed voters but, rather, emotional voters who get just enough information to validate their own feelings before bubbling in their ballots.

And since the average Joe and Jane don’t actually vote for the President and Vice President, maybe they should put that energy into finding out more about their Congressional representatives and the issues. (Issues, now there’s another Pandora’s box.) My name is AuntieD and I approve of this message.

“In politics, a lie unanswered becomes truth within 24 hours.”  Willie Brown, California politician and former San Francisco Mayor

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”  Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propagada Officer