“Before the conventions, a guy in his 30s told me he wasn’t going to watch the conventions, he’d just tune in to Jon Stewart for the highlights. Now, Jon’s a wicked insightful, funny-as-hell comic-cum-pundit, but watching him for 20 sarcastic minutes to understand the several-hour dynamics of the two most important political events for each party, is, while admittedly a whole lot more fun, a little lame.”

The theme of your latest post appears to be about political inaction and fear of openly supporting Obama. I don’t see how the above quote really fits that theme.

And is it really “lame” to avoid watching the conventions which are nothing more than an astonishing amount of money being wasted on marketing and theatrics in order to sell a “product”. I compare it to an infomercial. Do I really need to sit through a multi-day infomercial about a product to decide if that product is “right for me”? How much do I really learn about the “product” the Democrats or Republicans are selling, when everything is scripted and marketed with the intent of swaying the “buyer”. It seems like a better way for me to decide if the Democrat or Republican “product” would be best for me, would be to evaluate where each side stands on the issues (optimally from an objective source), see the products tested side-by-side (debates), and/or see the “products” intensely scrutinized, even if it means doing so using comedy and sarcasm (Daily Show, Colbert Report, Bill Maher). Furthermore, ironic as it may seem, I believe I can gain a more realistic grasp of a candidate by watching them be interviewed by Jon Stewart than I could ever gain watching them recite a speech at any convention. Jon Stewart may be a comedian but he asks some of the more critical questions others are afraid to ask.

“Hell you never saw the pix of Joe Biden in Speedos”. Umm, no.. And, I don’t want to.

“what on earth does it mean lack of commitment in the past?”

Alexander Russo reports in Slate magazine:

For several months, Obama didn’t indicate clearly where his sympathies lay. He didn’t join with protesters and other legislators who swarmed public events denouncing the Vallas proposal. He didn’t talk to the press about the importance of community engagement for schools or the unfairness of diminishing the influence of the 5,500 elected LSC members. Obama kept tabs on the negotiations through his staff, met occasionally with local-control advocates, and, according to those who were involved, sometimes provided ideas and advice in private. But that was about it. Some local advocates weren’t even sure whether he would ultimately be on their side or not. And many worried that without someone like Obama to stop it, the Vallas juggernaut would overrun any opposition …

In the end, support for Vallas’ proposal suddenly collapsed … Only after the fig leaf was in place did Obama come out publicly in support of local school councils, making a brief speech on the Senate floor to codify the final agreement preserving local councils’ authority …

In being so late to the debate, however, Obama didn’t really have to stand up to anyone—not the groups he was affiliated with, not Vallas, not Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. He was just approving the final result. He remained loyal to his roots, but only when it was easy to do so. To some critics, this is exactly the problem. “Obama has no history of standing up to school interests or anyone else,” says Dan Cronin, the Republican state senator who handled the 1999 legislation (and recalls little if any involvement from Obama). “If you look at his past record, there’s nothing that’s particularly bold or creative.”

Maybe, the next time around.

As for me, I’m still going to vote for PAT PAULSEN, the guy would make a perfect president.