McCain’s recent batch of television ads are trying to reach out to the disgruntled Clinton camp. Using sound bytes of the New York Senator calling Obama inexperienced, in one McCain concedes, “She was right.”

Oh please.

Like McCain has ever thought Hillary was right about anything.

What we have here is a classic case of Washington manipulation at the hands of a 72-year-old seasoned veteran. McCain could no more agree with Clinton than he could stay up past 10 p.m.

It’s an act, and a poor one at that.

In perhaps the most transparent campaign charade yet, McCain is shamelessly pining for votes with the most unlikely of supporters—fiercely dedicated democrats. The problem may be, however, that Clinton’s supporters are more devoted to her than the principles of the Democratic Party.

Like a spoiled child, Clinton supporters who defect to McCain are clearly acting out of spite. How else can you justify not voting for Obama—whose policies are 95 percent the same as Clinton’s—and thus denying a democrat the white house for another four years? It must have been the pants suits—and not the policies—that Clinton supporters were so ardently in favor of. Otherwise, the transition to Obama would have been seamless.

What I’ve found more disappointing than McCain’s manipulation (not a real surprise), is Clinton’s less-than-passionate disapproval of the ads. Only when prompted did Clinton respond to the ads by saying, “I am Hillary Clinton, and I did not approve this message.” A clever play on words, but far from the serious, impassioned defense of Obama and attack on McCain’s cheap tactics one would expect of a die-hard democrat in an election season. 

McCain may butter up to Clinton and her supporters now, but rest assured that if he takes office there will be no place for Clinton at the table. Obama represents the same ideals as Clinton, and more importantly, the same party. Clinton’s political career may not reach the office of “Madame President,” but there is still room for a high position in the Obama administration. If Clinton supporters really want the best for their candidate—and their country—they will vote for Obama.

UPDATE: Clinton’s speech Tuesday night was exactly what it needed to be. In her own words: “No way, no how, no McCain.” Check out this article in The New York Times for in-depth analysis.

As much as Republicans like to paint Democrats as big-spenders, the latest numbers from the Bush Administration tell a different story. Sure, the wealthiest Americans may pay less taxes, but the $482 billion budget deficit isn’t what I’d call low government spending. Democrats will raise taxes. Someone has to.

I may not be an economist, but even little-old-English-major-me can see that as long we spend more money than we raise (ie taxes), we will be in debt. Say what you will about Clinton, but Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion and turned it into the biggest deficit we have ever seen. Granted, the population of the US has increased, and inflation has also taken a toll so percentage-wise it’s not as large as the raw dollars may seem. Nonetheless, our spending is out of control. The $150 million stimulus package, a mere drop in the bucket, makes a nice scapegoat, but it is far from the real problem.

Ross Perot has a great presentation on this subject with more charts and graphs than you can shake a stick at. The bottom line? Our healthcare and social security spending is increasing at a rate that we can’t maintain while fighting two wars and providing tax cuts for the super-rich. Not only do we need to reform healthcare and retirement benefits, we need to spend more wisely in Iraq and Afghanistan and let the Bush tax cuts expire.

No one likes to pay taxes, but our government has overspent its budget nearly 500 billion times. Someone has to take responsibility. When Obama takes office in November, and has to deal with this mess, remember it was the Republicans that got us into it, but it will take a Democrat to get us out.

But, the right wing has dubbed Obama as lacking in skill. Just a pretty face with a bunch of empty words. Somehow, his interpersonal skills and amiable personality have been distorted to mean he’s a better rock star than a politician. OK, I’ll admit calling him a Barack Star is a clever play on words, but why does it have to be a bad thing? Oh no, he inspires thousands of young people to vote for the first time. Oh no, he raises more money from average private citizens than lobbyists and party heavy weights. For shame! How dare he, a stylish well-spoken man, enter politics and run for president.

The same right-wingers who like to call Obama names conveniently neglect to mention that he was the president of the Harvard Law Review, has published two best-selling books, and served on both the state and national legislature. He’s actually served more years as an elected official (twelve) than Hillary Clinton (eight). But as Obama has said on a number of occasions, experience alone doesn’t create sound judgment. Clearly, Bush’s experience as the governor of Texas for six years didn’t translate into effective leadership. However, Obama has proven his good judgment through his record. In the U.S. Senate, he opposed the war in Iraq from the start, even when it was overwhelmingly popular. He has also served on a number of committees, found here. Then there are his eight years as a state senator. I love when people discount this role, as if they know the first thing about it. In the state legislature, he worked on bipartisan bills to create Earned Income Tax Credits to assist needy families, providing more than $100 million in tax cuts over three years. He also fought for a better criminal justice system through reforms that required videotaped confessions and interrogations in capital cases. This is just a sampling of his record, which includes loads of passed bills.

I guess I can’t blame staunch conservatives for blasting Barack for his suave style. After all, they’re trying to find a way to make John McCain presidential. What better tactic than to paint the skilled, smooth rival as “too flashy” while ignoring his lengthy record in public service. McCain’s ineptitude as a public speaker is not inversely proportionate to his ability to lead the country. It’s laughable that the GOP considers the use of teleprompter a more authentic style than Obama’s candid speeches. While the right wing likes to couch their arguments against Obama as issue-oriented, they rarely mention them. Opting instead to pick apart his wardrobe (which is frequently lacking in American flag pins), and charismatic speaking style.  I’m voting for Obama because of his stance on the war, plan for universal healthcare, work on death penalty reforms, emphasis on early education, and commitment to cleaning up Washington. I’m not going to lie though, his basketball skills and sense of comedic timing are a plus.

What confounded me was that I can’t even count the number of times I’ve given a standing O this year. There was a talent show, a sub-par speech on campus, a retirement party, a community play, a stereotypical coffee house guitar bit, and the list goes on. I’m not trying to be stingy here. I’m just saying it doesn’t take much these days to get a crowd out of their seats.

I’m perfectly fine with hearty applause, maybe even a few shouts of jubilation for a good performance. But now, a standing ovation is the standard. It’s somehow become rude to merely slap your hands together to show support.  I’ve been trying to hold back, buck the system, and remain seated, but it’s not easy, especially when little kids are on stage. Yeah, yeah I know whatever kids do is “precious” but extraordinary? I think not. I’m really doing the kids a favor, I think. If they start getting standing Os every time they bang around on a keyboard or step up to a mic, they might get the impression they are extremely talented. I think this is how we end up with lines that stretch for miles to audition for reality shows featuring “talent.”

Sure, we all like to chuckle at the poor saps who can’t actually sing or dance or tell a joke, but when they’re up on a stage near you, I bet you’re on your feet.  It may be a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but I’d like to see standing ovations curtailed along with an end to the war in Iraq and the creation of a universal healthcare plan. We all have our dreams.

Even while people commended his campaign and expressed pride that our nation had come far enough to consider a black man for president, they largely talked about him as a novelty. Hillary Clinton was the all-but-certain-nominee.

They said Obama’s day would never come. He could never overtake the “Clinton Machine.” He was too young, too inexperienced, too black, too white, too smart, too foreign, too different. Too bad no one seemed to care. Instead of alienating voters with his “otherness,” Obama brought loads of first-time voters into the process. His so-called “inexperience” with politics produced a highly organized, efficient campaign that consistently surpassed both McCain and Clinton in fundraising. And now that he has clenched the nomination, outcries of inadequacy are echoing across the blogosphere and the mainstream media.

He “needs” Clinton on the ticket to win in November. He can’t do it without her. Really? Because the last time I checked he just did. Despite all odds, he went head-to-head with Clinton and won. Although current polls suggest otherwise, Obama can beat McCain in a general election. The longer Obama is on the ground, meeting voters and making speeches, the better he does. While McCain has had quite the head start, I am confident in Obama’s skills. I can’t wait to see the two of them in a debate. While Clinton certainly deserves a place in Washington for all the support she has garnered in the last 16 months, to say Obama needs her is a stretch of the imagination at best.

I was guilty of the sin of silence a couple of weeks ago at Barnes and Noble. After buying a copy of The Nation with Clinton’s not-too-happy face plastered on the cover, I met sexism face to face. My cashier, a grandmotherly woman with silver hair and round features, smirked at me from behind the counter and shared a story she found charming. A man had come in just before me and exclaimed while looking at the same magazine, “I’d hate to wake up to that every morning.” She thought this was hilarious. I didn’t have the heart to break it to grandma that I found his comment neither humorous nor cute. I was deeply offended. But, with perfect feminine, genteel manners, I smiled and looked down, tucked my hair behind my ear, and walked out of the store. 

I’ve heard many a woman proclaim that gender equality is here. Sexism is dead. While I’d like to embrace the post-feminism ideal, there’s this whole issue of the gender wage gap, or the lack of a coherent, comprehensive maternity policy that gets in my way. Granted, I think women have taken an all too active role in perpetuating many of the stereotypes and inequalities in the workforce and the home. But I also think we women have come a long way. And even though I didn’t vote for her, I think Hillary Clinton stands for just what women can accomplish.

Voting for Clinton because she’s a woman reduces gender to a trump card. I’m not voting for Obama because he’s black, and I’m certainly not voting for him because he’s a man. It’s not that I ignore these facts, but they aren’t the game-changer. I honestly believe this is just the beginning of women taking an equal role with men in politics. Nancy Pelosi is another example of this changing tide. And if we can have a Madame Speaker, then I think a Madam President isn’t too far off either. So I don’t have to vote for the first person I see wearing lipstick on the campaign trail (Rudy Giuliani notwithstanding).

I would like to hear Clinton deliver a speech on gender because she is the only woman to make it this far in the race for the most prestigious job in the country. I may not agree with the way she runs her campaign or the Washington lobbyists, but only she can speak to the effects of gender roles and sexism on a national stage.