A New Kind of Politics?

Like many, I watched with interest yesterday as President-elect Obama visited President Bush at the White House. While watching the video and seeing the pictures of Bush and Obama, I was sincerely moved. Sometimes the beauty of our democracy is apparent when I would least expect it, and yesterday was a wonderful example of so much of what makes our country great. Last night, when I read that Bush and Obama had talked for over an hour -- but without any aides, note-takers, etc. -- literally alone -- I was again somewhat awed by the magnitude of the moment. Here were only the 43rd and soon-to-be 44th people to hold this office in the history of our country, talking in a refreshingly frank, open (and presumably off-the-record) manner.

Yesterday was another example of the grace with which President Bush has handled the transition so far. Bush's magnanimity here should not be surprising, though, because despite whatever faults he has, Bush should be credited for the deep, clearly genuine and emotional reverence he has always displayed for the office and institution of the presidency. It's a level of respect that I would hope all presidents would show for the office, and for the extraordinary responsibilities accompanying it.

In the wake of yesterday's meeting, however, I was disappointed in Obama when he and/or his aides leaked details of Obama's and Bush's conversation to the media. Making matters worse, the leak was done for crass political posturing, specifically about the question of whether the federal government should bail out GM or other struggling US automakers. I would think (or at least hope), that even "the One" would hold some things sacred, and that accordingly, he would maintain the confidentiality and trust that such a meeting deserves. Apparently I was wrong.

Barack Obama will soon be my president too, and while he wasn't my choice this election year, I wish him nothing but success. He won last week in part by promising a new kind of politics, and while I was never clear what precisely that meant, I hope this isn't the first example of it. If so, it's neither the path to success nor the way to win the support of the 57 million Americans who voted for another candidate.

President Barack Obama

Congratulations to Barack Obama, the next President of the United States of America.

He was a remarkable candidate, and the historic nature of his victory tonight is truly extraordinary.

While I supported John McCain in this election, I can certainly recognize why Obama appealed to so many Americans.

And I hope that every American can set aside differences in political party or ideology and appreciate the significance of our country's first African-American president.

There will be a time to look back and analyze how Obama won or why McCain lost, and without a doubt, this 2008 campaign has been one of the most interesting, exciting and complex races in modern politics.

For now, though, I hope America can collectively celebrate this incredible milestone in the history of our great country.

Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, to his campaign, and to his supporters.

The Case for John McCain

Last week, the free newspaper here in NYC, amNewYork, asked me to "make the case for John McCain in 400 words or less". Now, as frequent readers of BraggingWrites know, brevity is not my strong suit! Nevertheless, I managed to make my case (in 402 words!), and I think it nicely -- and yes, succinctly -- sums up why I will vote for John McCain on Tuesday.

For those of you in New York, look for this in your amNewYork tomorrow morning. And for everyone reading, below is my case for John McCain as submitted to the newspaper. If it manages to convince someone on the fence to vote for McCain, that's great, but if I were to ask one thing of anyone reading this regardless of which candidate you support, it would be that you just simply vote tomorrow. Period. I realize that voting can be inconvenient and it can be tempting to just "sit one out", but I think it is important that we never forget how envious so many people in so many places around the world are of our political system, and of our rights and our freedoms.

With that said, I give you the case for John McCain:

---

The events of today often makes it easy to forget what happened yesterday or what might happen tomorrow. Today, we have been kept safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for more than seven years. Today, the situation in Iraq is more stable – both militarily and politically – than at any point since the war began. Today, Americans are intensely focused and concerned about what is in their wallets and their 401(k) plans. Today, voters are wondering if the value of their homes will return to previous levels and if their jobs are secure. All of these facts obscure the harsh reality that we are living in a new and dangerous era – today and tomorrow.

In this time in which our national security remains under constant threat, John McCain is the right candidate to assume the weighty responsibilities of the presidency. His foreign policy knowledge and instincts are tested and proven. His support for the so-called “Surge” strategy in Iraq even when it was politically unpopular is testament to that. His opposition to “spreading the wealth around” through redistributionist tax policies is correct. Cutting taxes for all Americans and lowering the taxes on corporations and small businesses alike will keep more money in Americans’ pockets and create more jobs – exactly the right tonic for our ailing economy. A President McCain would represent a crucial check and balance against the ultra-liberal Pelosi House and Reid Senate, creating the scenario in which true bipartisan compromise can and must be achieved.

Lost in the midst of Barack Obama’s impressive domination of the “change” mantle is the fact that McCain represents change, too. He is not President Bush. In fact, he ran against Bush in 2000, and has been a frequent critic of Bush and his policies throughout the last eight years. Drowned out by Obama’s empty promises to usher in a new kind of politics is the reality that it is McCain who has the long and distinguished record of putting political party aside in order to reach across the aisle for results. As impressive a politician as Obama is, he lacks the record, the experience and the judgment that John McCain possesses in spades.

With his long and dedicated service to our country, John McCain is the right choice on Election Day – not because he deserves the presidency, but because he is the president that the American people deserve – today and tomorrow.

Football and Blogging Don't Mix

In case you've been wondering why I haven't updated the blog in awhile, let me explain...

The weekend before last, I met some buddies on Saturday morning for a good, old-fashioned game of football. Now that I am an ancient 31 years of age, I stretched thoroughly before the game in an attempt to avoid pulling something, and maybe even to head off some soreness the next day.

Naturally, on the third play of the game in an extraordinary display of grace, my right cleat caught in the turf, I rolled my ankle, consequently fell, and in doing so, I managed to land awkwardly on my right hand, breaking my wrist!

So, as you can probably imagine typing with this cast...



...is no easy task! Neither are many things, as it turns out, given how completely and totally right-handed I am! (In fact, it has taken me 37 minutes to type this...just kidding)!

In all seriousness though, typing is tough, and that's why you haven't heard much from me lately. I'm getting better at typing though, and will hope to pick things back up soon. Thanks!

Believe It or Not, We're In This Together

Like I did late last month, I again devoted my latest SpliceToday column to the financial crisis. As they were then, things are still extraordinarily busy, a primary reason for the lack of posts on the election. Since my "day job" is consuming so much of time, I thought I might as well write a little more about it, and about about my perspective on the current situation. This week things seem more "normal" than they have at any time since early September. It's my hope that this return to normalcy will continue and that, as a result, I'll be able to start writing more about the presidential race (which is now only two weeks away)!

So with that, here is this week's Splice column...

---

Lehman Brothers’ September 8 filing for bankruptcy proved to be a catalyst for market turmoil, as nearly anyone with a stock portfolio or a 401(k) can easily attest. The subsequent five weeks have been the busiest of my career. As I wrote in my previous column, my job is to convince my customers to trade stocks with me and with my firm. As a general rule, market volatility breeds market activity (and to some extent, vice versa), but the bottom line is that the more fluctuations the market experiences, the busier I am. These last five weeks have been no exception.

When customers trade with my firm, they pay us commission—typically on a cents-per-share basis. For example, if a customer trades 1,000,000 shares with us on a given day at a commission rate of two cents per share, the firm takes in $20,000. Some of that revenue might be allocated to pay for the customer’s use of the firm’s research, some is used to cover the costs the firm incurs in order to be able to trade for the customer, and the rest is disbursed in any number of other ways. In theory, a portion of that will be reflected in my year-end bonus, though there is no exact formula and some degree of subjectivity involved in if and how that happens.

My firm is not one of the companies that has found itself in the headlines over the last few weeks and months. In many ways, our structure, philosophy and business model insulate us from many of the problems that have plagued some other Wall Street firms—Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers foremost among them. Coupling that with how very busy we’ve been, one might think things are shaping up nicely for a big year for my company at year-end and, presumably, for me as well. But even as a bastion of financial responsibility amidst the irresponsible risk-takers that brought us here, we won’t be able to avoid sustaining some collateral damage.

Before assuming I am just another “greedy” Wall Streeter, there are probably a few things you ought to know. You might be surprised to hear that salaries on Wall Street are generally very low—so low that it might shock you given the tales of excessive wealth in the financial service industry. For most people working in finance, the bulk of their compensation is disproportionately represented by the year-end bonus, and this year bonuses are almost sure to take a major hit. (Indeed, it’s the bonuses that provide the eye-popping numbers for which Wall Street is infamous.) Keep in mind as well that quite often, a significant portion of the bonus consists of shares of the firm’s stock. And, like many other Americans, we have our own stock portfolios and our own 401(k) plans.

The end result is that as the market declines, we feel it and are impacted by it perhaps two, three or even four times more than someone working in another industry. I’m certainly not complaining; this is how it should be. After all, many of us working on Wall Street—most of my clients, in fact—are stewards of your investments. Some are making decisions about how to invest your retirement or pension funds, for example, and so it only makes sense that we should have an intensely vested interest in the market’s success. Being “doubled down” on the market’s rise or fall has the added benefit of ensuring that we do our work with fiduciary responsibility and with an adherence to an extremely high ethical standard. Most of us do.

Some don’t, though, and it is these very few who brought us Enron several years ago, who have brought us countless other financial scandals, and it is they who have brought the current financial crisis upon us. So as popular as it may be to blame “Wall Street” collectively, the reality is that many of us on “Wall Street” will be hurt as much and potentially more than most. The reckless risk-taking that proliferated our industry over the last decade in particular has likely come to a permanent end now. If new rules and regulations don’t bring an end to it, a new attitude from those in charge of financial firms certainly will. This, in the long run, is good news for all of us, and it is my hope that some faith in the financial markets and those who make a living working in it can be restored.

Any profession, whether on Wall Street or Main Street, rewards hard work, good performance, and results. My line of work is no different. I am now watching the expected reward for an entire year of hard work dramatically diminish (if not vanish) before my eyes in just over a month. The same, obviously, is true for my colleagues. The situation is worse for friends of mine in other areas of finance, particularly those who work for hedge funds whose income is completely and directly based on the performance of their investments. When the market plunges as it has in the last six weeks, there are few if any investments capable of avoiding decline, leaving many in the hedge fund community unsure of whether they’ll make a quarter of what they did last year.

My clients perhaps feel it the worst of all. As their year-to-date performance numbers melt down, they not only struggle with their own personal financial repercussions, but with the emotional and psychological drain of knowing that you’re going to be hurt as well. Several of my customers have lost their jobs, and others will likely face the same fate before the year is out. Even those clients who keep their jobs will undoubtedly be working with far less assets under management due not only to the declines in the market, but also because of fearful investors of theirs who have decided to pull the plug on their exposure to a frighteningly volatile market.

As I see others who do exactly what I do at less stable firms worrying about their job security—and even worse, others who did what I do at Bear or Lehman now looking for a new job—I am in many ways thankful simply to have a seat at the desk. I can’t tell you with certainty that we’ve seen our way through the current crisis in our financial system. Even if we have, attention is likely to now turn—as it arguably began to last week—to the more conventional problems that are weighing on the nation’s economy, creating yet another drag on the markets. Have faith, though, not only in the inherent fairness of the financial markets, but also in the knowledge that those of us on the front lines are working as hard as we can to get things moving in the right direction: higher—for you, and for ourselves.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

10:15pm

The media likely won't admit it, but McCain is dominating the debate tonight. He has been aggressive -- but has managed to do so without looking overly angry, or doing so in a way that can reasonably have him labeled "desperate". Obama knows it too, and clearly seems rattled.

It remains to be seen if this will make a difference in what remains Obama's election to lose, but as of this minute, McCain has done about as well as he is capable of doing.

Bottom of the Ninth...Two Outs, Two Strikes...

Apologies for the sports analogy, but that's a pretty apt description of where John McCain finds himself tonight heading into the third and final presidential debate. While the degree to which he trails varies, there is no denying that McCain is definitely running behind Barack Obama and that, had the election been held today, Obama would have won -- likely handily.

And so here we are with one last debate, one last chance for an extremely large audience of voters for both candidates. Obama's mission tonight is quite simple: don't screw up. Continuing the sports lingo, Obama is very close to being able to "take a knee" and "run the clock out", and should he dispatch with McCain in tonight's debate, he'll almost certainly be able to do just that.

McCain's task is extraordinarily more complex and difficult. Without question, he is going to have to be more aggressive tonight. He is going to have to challenge Obama in ways and about things he has thus far been unable or unwilling to do. The biggest quandary he faces is that he risks being labeled desperate by the mainstream media, (and indeed he is almost guaranteed as much). If McCain brings up William Ayers, he'll at best be accused by the media of trying to avoid the "real issues" or the "issues that matter" -- at worst accused of racism or inciting anger, two charges McCain has recently faced for virtually anything negative he says about Obama. The reality is, with the relatively little we know about Obama given his brief political career, his past associations are important and speak to his judgment. We as voters deserve to know what the man who will likely be our next president thinks about the person in whose living room his political career was launched -- the same person who bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and feels he "didn't do enough".

As for the "real issues" and the "issues that matter", McCain does absolutely need to do a better job of articulating his plan for getting us out of the current financial crisis and for repairing a badly damaged economy. He blundered with his "campaign suspension" during the congressional bailout negotiations, and he has never really regained his footing -- not on economic issues and not on the race in general.

This is do-or-die for McCain tonight, and based on Obama's past performances, he's unlikely to make a blunder that will give McCain a boost. So the onus is on McCain, he's come from behind before, and if he's going to do it again, he absolutely has to start tonight. Let's watch!

Are We Done Here?

I sort of think we are done here, by which I mean it seems highly likely that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.

This is my gut reaction after watching the second debate between Obama and John McCain.

I'll elaborate more when I have time (and on that note, apologies for the relative blog silence of late. Work, as one might imagine, has been absolutely nuts over the last few weeks).

The bottom line tonight is that McCain needed to either have Obama make a gargantuan blunder or McCain had to have some sort of breakthrough performance in which he was able to significantly outshine Obama. Neither happened.

Speaking of Embarrassing...

Last month, I pointed you in the direction of "Our American Prayer", a video in which a variety of movie stars and pop stars were, it seemed, praying to Obama. I still think it's creepy, but today I came across something else that out-creeps "Our American Prayer". Take a look:



This strikes me as wrong on a number of levels. First and foremost, though, if you view this on YouTube and click on the "more info" link, you'll find the following description of what you have just watched:

Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered to sing original songs in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these nonvoting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.

Sing for Change was a confluence of hard work, good will, and shared vision. Inspired by ideas raised at a grassroots Obama fundraiser, a music teacher, Kathy Sawada, and the children composed and rehearsed the songs in less than two weeks. Several musicians heard of the effort and volunteered to accompany the children. Parents and older siblings designed and provided the T-Shirts and the banner. There's a first for everything, but rarely do so many firsts come together at once: for the children and their parents, this is their first performance, first video, first banner, and first involvement with grassroots work on a presidential campaign.

As Sunday approached, a neighbor volunteered a home. Production wizards got wind of the project and offered their help in recording it. The likes of Jeff Zucker, Holly Schiffer, Peter Rosenfeld, Darin Moran, Jean Martin, Andy Blumenthal, and Nick Phoenix rearranged schedules to participate. When Jeff Zucker went to pick up the camera package, Ted Schilowitz happened to be there and offered a RED camera set up on a Steadi Cam.

What we accomplished in a few hours on a Sunday afternoon embodies the nature of the Obama campaign: its grassroots inspiration, its inclusiveness, its community building. People pitched in quickly for a cause that resonated with them. There were not many conditions: "Think this is a good idea? Want to help? Great. Sunday at 12:00." At the heart of the project were 22 children and their music. The willingness of all involved to come together for them was a testament to our hope, unity, courage, joy and belief in the future represented by these children.

So let me quickly indicate just a few of my issues with this:

1. Some of these children are as young as 5 years old. Is a 5 year old (much less the children here who are between the ages of 6 and 12) really able to make a conscious political choice for himself or herself? I would argue probably not, and if you grant me that, how are these children not being used as political pawns by their parents and others involved in producing and disseminating this?
2. Given that this can be found here on Barack Obama's official website, Obama and his campaign therefore shares the responsibility for promoting it.
   
3. Heavily involved in apparently every aspect of this was Jeff Zucker. Jeff Zucker also happens to be the President and CEO of NBC Universal, which encompasses not only NBC News, but also MSNBC. That strikes me as a blatant conflict-of-interest at worst -- a clear indication of the bias held by the man atop NBC News and MSNBC at best.
4. While I obviously cannot prove this point, I would be willing to bet an awful lot that if this video featured children singing for John McCain (or George W. Bush), the liberal community would be in an uproar about the exploitation of children, etc. And I would bet even more that the phenomenon would be featured prominently on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, an MSNBC primetime show. (Yes, Jeff Zucker's MSNBC).

I'm sure I could come up with more reasons why I find this offensive, hypocritical and (with apologies for the repetition) creepy, but I'll stop here. I'd be curious to hear via the comments function what you think. Let me know!

Embarrassed Republican

Today, I am horribly embarrassed to be a Republican. The stubborn refusal of House Republicans to pass the Rescue Bill was extraordinarily wrong-headed. I understand sticking to the "conservative principles", but there are times when the urgency of the situation requires action that may run counter to one's instincts and/or convictions. This was one of those times.

Do these GOP legislators -- most attorneys by trade, I suspect -- truly believe that they know more about the financial system than Hank Paulson or Ben Bernanke (to say nothing of Warren Buffet and the other "experts" consulted on this)??? If these financial minds are telling you that this must be done, one should put aside partisan concerns, constituent complaints and simply do what is right for the country -- reelection be damned. I can assure them that their constituents will be a hell of a lot more angry tomorrow when their 401(k) has been devastated or when they can't get a loan of any kind. This is such a huge mistake. Think of the Democrats who likely acted counter to their beliefs after 9/11 for the greater good. This is the closest thing we've had to a financial 9/11, and the GOP has failed the country.

Republicans can kiss whatever fleeting hopes remained of maintaining the White House goodbye, (not to mention both Houses of Congress), and I am sad to say that it's deserved.

---

Update (4:15pm): Republicans are pointing to the speech that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave on the House Floor prior to the vote as part of the reason the bill failed to pass. I will let you watch her speech for yourself below, but I do want to note that her remarks truly were mean-spirited, partisan and uncalled-for. There was absolutely no reason to make such a speech prior to what needed to be a bipartisan effort to pass the bill. Secondly, it was dishonest, blaming all of the problems in the financial industry on the Bush Administration. Any honest observer will acknowledge that, as I posted here last week, there is plenty of blame to go around. Certain portions at the root of the current crisis began during the Clinton Administration. (Take a look at this New York Times article from 1999 if you need corroboration). Speaker Pelosi knows this, and her choice to take the disingenuous cheap shots she took -- and to do so when she did -- was despicable.

With that said, her ugly rhetoric does not -- I repeat, does NOT -- serve as an excuse for the Republicans who abdicated responsible represenation in voting against this bill (or for the Democrats who did the same thing, for that matter). This was a moment in which those in the GOP voting "no" simply needed to swallow their pride and, as the saying goes, "man up".

Here is Pelosi for you to see and hear for yourself:

Slipping Away

This election is beginnig to slip away from John McCain. To be clear, I wouldn't necessariliy argue that the election was ever firmly in his grasp, however he has managed to keep things close and competitive so far. I had thought things would remain very tight heading into Election Day, and until yesterday, I would probably have predicted another long election night with no winner declared until early the following morning. But now my gut feeling is that it's getting ugly out there, and more worrisome for McCain, I don't think the prospects for a comeback are very good. A few primary contributors to McCain's current predicament:

1. McCain's campaign suspension and return to Washington last week were widely viewed as a political stunt, and one that now appears to have backfired.
2. Initial post-debate reaction seemed to hold that either McCain had been slightly better or that it had effectively been a draw. Either way, that's likely a net win for Obama. Why? Because as the one trailing in the polls, McCain has the burden of significant outperformance on him, and it would be difficult to argue that he significantly outperformed Obama Friday night. Secondly, the foreign policy area was perceived as Obama's possible weakness. By holding his own in the debate, he probably alleviated concerns some voters may have had about his commander-in-chief qualifications. Over the weekend, though, a quasi-consensus developed that Obama had, in fact, won the debate outright -- from a stylistic a perspective as well as a substantive perspective.
3. Sarah Palin has derailed. McCain's choice of Palin, initially a wildly successful political move, may come back to haunt him. In the immediate days following Palin's selection, the Republican base was both excited and relieved. The media buzz surrounding the selection effectively buried the positive reactions to Obama's convention acceptance speech, and questions about her experience (or lack thereof) had the (unintended?) effect of reflecting the experience question back onto Obama. The wheels began to fall off during Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson of ABC News. Though he was condescending and arguably looking to trip her up, the result was nonetheless a perception that she had been a bit shaky in her performance. If the Gibson interview was shaky, her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News last week, however, was an unmitigated disaster. The impression likely left on those who watched the interview was that of someone who is in over her head -- not the impression the McCain wants to leave with a 72-year old nominee. The stakes were enormously high for her convention speech a few weeks ago, and she delivered a game-changing performance. If it is possible, the stakes are even higher now for the vice presidential debate on Thursday, but my confidence in Palin's ability to again deliver a game-changing performance is lacking, and the choice of Palin as a running mate is quickly beginning to look like a big mistake. Palin can turn this around, but she'll have to be nearly perfect on Thursday night.
   
4. The media continue to aid Obama. Ironically, he might not need their help, but nevertheless, the media bias in this election is rather striking. Talking heads on television, op-ed writers in newspapers -- these are people who have enormous power in terms of driving the national conversation, and they have consistently driven that conversation in a decidedly pro-Obama, anti-McCain fashion. (The New York Times has been particularly shameful). This shows no sign of abating any time soon, and it simply adds to the litany of factors now making a victory for McCain unlikely.

Obviously a lot can happen in the next 36 days, but as I write, McCain has likely reached the lowest point of his General Election campaign to date. At this point, I simply don't see a way that McCain will be able to make enough of the uphill climb necessary to turn things around. I suspect this may begin to snowball, that we'll see continued movement towards Obama in the coming weeks, and that on November 4th, we might be going to bed early.

(If this morning's news is any indication, chances are I'm in for another crazy week at work. I will try to chime in when possible, but wanted to get these thoughts "out there" before the "fun" at work begins)...

The Great Unknown

I took the opportunity in my weekly SpliceToday column this week to discuss our country's current financial crisis. I cannot recall a period of time in nearly nine years on Wall Street when I'v been busier or more stretched to the limit. As I prepare to head into work today, there is still no agreement on a bailout (or rescue -- see below) plan, and my Blackberry was buzzing last night with news of Washington Mutual's failure and subsequent acquisition by JP Morgan. These are crazy times...and it ain't over yet. Hang in there!

Without further ado, here's my Splice column...

---

It’s been an extraordinary two weeks in what was already a rather exceptional year in the financial services industry. I work “on Wall Street.” In nearly nine years in this business, I have seen some significant ups and downs—September 11th, 2001 most notable among them. 9/11 was traumatic for this industry, but in reality the trauma was primarily psychological or emotional in nature. The last two weeks have also been psychologically and emotionally jarring, but in this case, the financial system of our country has been shaken on a fundamental and systematic level. As I write, both presidential candidates have returned to Washington to work with President Bush and their fellow members of Congress so that the federal government can provide some sort of solution to the current crisis.

It would be reasonable to assume that because I work on Wall Street, I’d be able to offer a unique perspective on what we now face. Yet in many ways, I know as much (or as little, as it were) as anyone else. The extent to which the specifics of the current situation surpass my understanding points to a crucial element of how it is we got here: we as a country, we as taxpayers, we as investors and even we fellow financial services industry workers have been betrayed by the reckless, irresponsible and, yes, greedy, actions of a very few individuals.

So, what exactly is it that I do? Put in the simplest terms, I am a salesman. My job is to convince institutional investors (mutual funds, pension funds, hedge funds, etc.) to buy and sell stocks with my firm. If I am successful in convincing such an entity to begin doing business, I then become something of a relationship manager, by which I mean that my job evolves into maintaining the customer’s business and, whenever possible, increasing the level of that business over time. To do my job effectively, I need a solid understanding of the financial markets—the stock market specifically. My customers do not need my advice on what to buy and sell. They are trained to do that themselves, or someone above them directs their transactions accordingly. What they do need and rely on, though, is my knowledge and feel of when to buy and sell their stocks, and what sort of result they can anticipate once their trade is complete. They count on me to alert them to important news not only about the specific stocks they are trading, but also about the markets in general. Information is vital to success in my job, and the ability to effectively communicate that information is the real key. These last two weeks have been as volatile, uncertain and unpredictable as any I’ve experienced, and without a doubt, everyone’s abilities have been put to the test.

The rollercoaster ride began in earnest earlier in the year, as Bear Stearns fell apart. We shook it off, though, only to watch in amazement again this summer as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac teetered on the brink of failure, saved by a bailout from the federal government. Smart analysts had months ago warned that Lehman Brothers was in danger, noting the similarities between Bear and Lehman, and the uncomfortable correlation between the types of investments and debts weighing on both firms. While most believed there was no way that Lehman could (or would be allowed) to be “the next Bear,” early this month the writing was on the wall. The reasons for Lehman’s eventual failure are still being sorted out, but the impact of that failure had immediate repercussions.

There was panic. There was panic from customers who watched, ashen, as their portfolios lost value and their year-to-date gains disappeared. I saw very conservative, well-respected and cerebral investment firms engage in what I can only believe was true “panic selling.” There was panic from those entrusted with overseeing the very system now facing a real crisis. As is often the case, here too the panic largely resulted from the many, great unknowns. I certainly don’t know how much more toxic debt lies buried in the books of financial firms across our country, but there is no reason why I should know. More alarmingly, however, the men and women in charge of the very firms nearing their demise didn’t truly know the extent of their remaining exposure either. The SEC, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department—none truly knew the extent of the catastrophic precipice on which we found ourselves. Emergency actions were implemented such as a ban on the short selling of stock—something I could never have imagined as I had chuckled in the past on hearing of various emerging markets’ complete and total bans on short sales—or sometimes on selling at all! I’m not laughing any more.

The Thursday after Lehman filed for bankruptcy—in the midst of the most tumultuous week of trading I had ever seen—I had my only moment of true panic. Bear was gone. Lehman was now gone. Merrill Lynch was effectively gone, having been acquired days earlier by Bank of America. That left only two of the handful of Wall Street giants we had for so long been accustomed to: Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. I remember vividly that Thursday as I watched the share price of Morgan Stanley plummet with a velocity and an intensity I’ve never witnessed. Tens of millions of shares of the stock were trading every hour, and early that afternoon, it appeared Morgan Stanley was headed for a Bear- or Lehman-like fate. In the space of only 30 minutes, Morgan Stanley’s stock had fallen more than 50 percent, at one point flirting with single digits. It was only the breaking news of the plan being hatched by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that rallied the markets, taking Morgan higher with it.

This small example points to the importance of what the media have taken to calling “the bailout plan.” I think a more appropriate moniker is “rescue.” We’re beyond bailing out. Bailing out is only a temporary stopgap. Bailing out invokes images of buckets fighting a losing battle against a vast amount of water. What we need is a rescue. Coast Guard helicopters, life boats, whatever it takes! Honestly, I can hardly believe I’m writing this. As a Republican (and a Republican primarily for fiscal reasons), the idea of increased government intervention or oversight on the nation’s economy is absolute anathema to me. With that said, it is my firm belief that Democrats and Republicans absolutely must come together to pass some version of the Paulson plan—and sooner rather than later. I hope it will be the most responsible plan possible with respect to the role the government will play in the financial industry in the future. I hope the Democrats won’t take advantage of the vulnerable situation we’re in to insert more government controls than are absolutely necessary. I hope the taxpayer will bear as little of the burden as possible, and that they will stand to reap the majority of the benefits of the plan’s potential upside. But I don’t feel as though now is a time to be picky, and I don’t think now is a time for partisanship.

Say what you will about President Bush, his speaking ability or anything else, but he was excellent when he addressed the nation on Wednesday night. In clear (if sobering) terms, he effectively laid out the facts of the present situation, and skillfully explained much of what led us here. As Bush said:

“The government’s top economic experts warn that without immediate action by Congress, American could slip into a financial panic, and a distressing scenario would unfold: More banks could fail…The stock market would drop even more…The value of your home could plummet. Foreclosures would rise dramatically…More businesses would close their doors, and millions of Americans could lose their jobs…it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.”

He’s right. This is unprecedented, and it’s dire. There is more bad news out there and more pain to come—the extent of which we just do not know. So the unknowns remain, and as unfortunate as it may be, a rescue from the federal government has become the best of a limited number of terrible choices. Those supposed to know don’t know. Those responsible for not letting this happen have let it happen. The actions of a very few have the very real possibility of dragging down all.

Remember, I’m no financial expert, but I do read the markets, and I do know my clients. The markets, my clients and my gut all agree that drastic action is necessary. Inaction is not an option. The sooner we swallow this pill, the sooner we can begin to heal. Take it from me—I’ve got a front row seat.

(This post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

There's Plenty of Blame to Go Around...

But most in the media (and certainly in the Democratic Party) seem to point the finger at George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Take a look at the clip below. (Yes, it is from Fox News, and while Fox News is seen as a conservative news network, the report consists primarily of video and audio footage, and direct quotes. Conservative or not, a fact is a fact, and the alleged political slant of the news network cannot be used as an excuse in this case)...

Short & Sweet

Well, unless you've had your head buried in the sand for the last week, you've probably noticed that things on Wall Street have been a little hectic. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Monday morning, insurance giant AIG nearly did the same on Tuesday, and the markets have generally been in turmoil -- the Dow down nearly 450 points yesterday, and then up over 400 points today. In over eight years "in the business", I cannot recall a busier week -- nor can I can recall seeing more volatility. Most alarming for me, I think, is that I can't recall seeing more uncertainty, even from so-called "experts". With the government's apparent plan to create an entity in which to dispose of all of the toxic debt plaguing so many financial firms, the buyers returned today with more conviction than I've seen all week.

Long story short, I've barely had time for lunch this week, and what is already a fairly stressful job has been even more so this week. As a result, blogging has been the last thing on the agenda. The last hour or so of today brought the first signs of potential stability, and should tomorrow be a return to (some semblance) of normalcy, I'll hope to be able to write a post or two this weekend and early next week. In the meantime, a few quick thoughts to leave you with...

• The McCain-Palin "bounce" in the polls following the Republican National Convention appears to have exhausted itself. This is not unexpected -- a "bounce" is inherently temporary.
• With that said, though, McCain likely catalyzed the reversal in the polls this week when, in the midst of Lehman Brothers' declaration of bankruptcy and a stock market meltdown Monday, he affirmed his belief that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". He's not entirely incorrect, technically, but that was the last thing that nervous Americans wanted to hear, and it was remarkable in its political tone deafness given the slew of headlines people were seeing that indicated quite the opposite. The lead McCain has enjoyed in the polls since the convention immediately began to disappear, and as of today, he again trails Obama.
• According to CNN, Obama is now using the teleprompter for each and every speech he gives -- even for what would normally be considered fairly informal, casual stump speeches. I have a few thoughts on this bit of news. First, clearly the Obama Campaign had become concerned about the candidate's ability to stay "on message" when speaking extemporaneously, perhaps trying to avoid another "lipstick on a pig" moment. Second, this reinforces the belief many have that Obama lacks some degree of substance. He can absolutely write a great speech and he can sure as hell deliver a great speech, but every one of the "great" speeches he has delivered has been while using a teleprompter, and conversely, many of the missteps he has made have been when shooting from the hip. Lastly, this is just further evidence of the media's double-standard. Were this McCain who was now relying on a teleprompter for each and every word he uttered in public, the media would be in a frenzy, and the leftist blogs would be buzzing with claims that McCain is so old (or perhaps even approaching senility), and therefore he is unable to even remember his stump speech lines. (Were it President Bush who did this, the same crowd would be trumpeting how "stupid" Bush is, as evidenced by his need for a script whenever he speaks). With Obama, though, not so much as a peep. (NOTE: I stand corrected on this point thanks to a comment from a reader -- and a good friend -- Brandon. Thanks for the correction, Brando).
  
• A week from tomorrow is the first of three presidential debates -- Friday, September 26th at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, MS. I predict that Obama will maintain his lead -- perhaps even build on it slightly -- and head into next week's debate with a 3-5 point lead in the polls. I believe the debates are crucial this election year. A disastrous showing by either candidate could have a significant impact on the polls and on the election's ultimate outcome, so be sure to tune in and watch.
• After a series of missteps and strategic errors, Obama and his campaign enjoyed their first good series of days this week since the Republican Convention. While they seem to have regained their footing for now, he still appears unable to close the deal with American voters. If he had done so, he'd likely be leading by double-digits given the poisonous political environment for any candidate with the Republican "R" next to his or her name. Even still, this election has been and remains Obama's to lose.

I'll be back soon...

The Puppy Formerly Known As Rocket **

Rather than trying to discern what Barack Obama intended when he made his now infamous "lipstick on a pig" remark yesterday, I decided it was time to have a post unrelated to politics. In that spirit, I'd like you to tell you about Henry...

It has often seemed to me that many of the big things in life happen when we are not planning for them, and so I probably shouldn't have been too surprised when my wife, Hayley, called me three weeks ago with the news. It wasn’t as though it was completely out of the blue, either, because as we near our second anniversary, she and I have found ourselves having discussions and debates that many couples at this stage in their marriage undoubtedly have. We thought we were ready around Christmas time, but ended up talking ourselves out of it. Could we pull it off while living in Manhattan? This spring, we again gave serious consideration to the matter, but in a tough year on Wall Street, we were concerned about what effect such a change in our home life might have on our careers. This time, though, it looked like it was really going to happen, and as soon as we hung up, I knew our lives were going to change dramatically.

“I found him”, Hayley said. “His name is Rocket, he’s six months old, he’s at a shelter in Brooklyn, and we can meet him tonight!” Rocket was a Labradoodle (a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a Poodle), and he was in need of rescuing after inexplicably being given up by his original owner. She had found him on Petfinder.com, probably her favorite website in the world, and one she has visited daily for the last year in a heretofore fruitless search for the third member of our small family.

After work that night, we went to Brooklyn as fast as we could. Arriving at the shelter, we announced that we had come to meet Rocket, and someone on the staff was dispatched to retrieve him. The door soon opened, and out bounded the scrawniest, most unkempt dog I’d seen in some time. He jumped on Hayley, then me, then back to her, moving with the frenetic energy that only a puppy has. A few minutes later they asked us if we wanted to take him for a walk around the block, and so we set out for our “test drive”. Once outside, it was obvious that Rocket was just happy to be free. He was sniffing everything, looking everywhere, trying to say hello to everyone, and generally just all over the place. His legs were too long for his body, like a 13-year old boy in his “awkward stage”, and he didn’t seem to know what to do with them when he would try to pick up his pace. Though dirty and a little too skinny, it was easy to see that underneath all of that was a truly gorgeous dog, and naturally, we were completely hooked. “This is our dog, Bragg,” Hayley said, and I couldn’t disagree.

Back at the shelter, we told the manager we wanted Rocket. He gave us an application to fill out, and began to rattle off the laundry list of supplies we would need to properly care for our new puppy. I felt like a cartoon character listening to the cash register “cha-ching” with every item he named. The application was lengthy, requested references, and, as is standard in New York, asked if our landlord allowed dogs and if so, whether there was a size limit. This was the question we had dreaded, because we were pretty sure we knew the answer. In the course of our deliberations about getting a dog, Hayley and our landlord had a hypothetical email exchange in which he informed her that dogs were allowed, but that there was a 10 pound limit. A 10 pound dog? Don’t most cats weigh more than 10 pounds? Hayley grew up with a Golden Retriever, and my family had a Standard Poodle – both large dogs. We are unequivocally “big dog people”, and unlike many fellow New Yorkers, we’d rather have a dog that could eat Hayley’s purse than one who could fit inside it. We made the joint decision to answer “yes” and “no”, respectively.

That night we went home to “puppy-proof” our apartment for Rocket’s arrival the next day, and as we sat down to dinner, I addressed the elephant in the room. “Hayley, what are we doing to do about our landlord?” Even though we didn’t want to admit it, we both knew that in fairness to the dog, we had to call our landlord and officially ask permission. After all, if he denied our request, it might hurt us, but the dog would be fine and would end up being adopted by someone else. If, however, we just brought the dog home in defiance of our building’s policy, we risked hurting not only ourselves, but more importantly, we risked hurting the dog too, and that was a risk we weren’t willing to take.

The next day we woke up early and prepared “talking points” for our upcoming discussion with the landlord. When I got to work, I called the shelter to inform them that we might have a complication, and that I would get back to them with a definite answer by noon. I asked about Rocket’s weight, and was told he was “between 15 and 20 pounds”. I asked if he would likely grow much more, and was told he was probably close to full grown. Armed with this information, we called our landlord. He asked what kind of dog it was (“a poodle mix” I hedged), and then he asked how big he was. “Well,” I said, “he’s about 15 or 20 pounds, but not expected to be much bigger”. “No problem”, the landlord responded to our great surprise, and Hayley and I hung up absolutely elated. We went to pick up Rocket that night.

Our first night with Rocket was somewhat turbulent, but we all made it through. Hayley and I had both taken the next day off from work to begin dealing with all of the logistics of our newfound “parenthood”. While driving him home the night before, we decided we didn’t think the name Rocket fit him well, and since we were told that at his age, there was not yet any name association or recognition, we decided to make a change. After throwing around a few names, we settled on Henry. We liked the name, we didn’t know any other dogs named Henry, and well, he just sort of looked like a Henry. We did, however, feel it was only proper to honor the first name he was ever given, so we made Rocket his middle name: Henry R. Van Antwerp, our dog.



We decided to take him to the vet for a full check-up, nervous new parents that we were, and a few surprises emerged from our visit. For one, Henry was not six months old, he was five months old. No big deal there. But a few of the other revelations were not as innocuous. We learned that Henry weighed 32 pounds – just a tad bigger than the “15 to 20 pounds” the shelter had told us (and that we had in turn told our landlord). Additionally, he wasn’t even close to being fully grown (as we had also told our landlord). In fact, said the vet, we were probably looking at a 70 to 90 pound dog when it was all said and done. Oh and by the way, he also has pneumonia! So a few hundred dollars later, we left the vet a little poorer, a tad shell-shocked, but still falling madly in love with our new puppy.

The last few weeks have been busy ones in the Van Antwerp household. I don’t think I’ve gotten more than five hours of sleep since Henry’s arrival, and Hayley isn’t faring much better. I haven’t had time to go to the gym, and she has fallen behind in her training for the New York Marathon. A small fortune has been spent on the vet, low-calorie, grain-free food, an endless amount of miscellaneous supplies, and of course, entirely too many toys. A woman we only met three weeks ago now enters our apartment three times a day with a copy of our key to walk Henry for 30 minutes. (She then calls Hayley or me to let us know how – or perhaps more appropriately, what – he did while walking). Along those lines, we have had more discussions about our dog’s “elimination” than I ever imagined, and in greater detail than I ever thought possible – to say nothing of what we have cleaned off our apartment floor or picked up off the Manhattan sidewalks. Baby Talk is now the official language of our apartment, and much to our chagrin, we both now occasionally refer to ourselves as “Mom” or “Dad” – in the first person! I have had several business meetings in which I have reached into my pocket only to find a dog treat there instead of my card. In short, our lives have been turned upside down, but we knew that would happen, and it was part of what we signed up for when we rescued Henry. The bottom line is that when I come home from work and he’s there to greet me, his tail wagging so hard that his whole body begins to wag with it – just those few seconds alone make every lost hour of sleep, every dollar spent, and every single change to our lives absolutely worth it. (But I think we may wait a little longer on kids)!

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

** Special thanks to John Lingan, Managing Editor of Splice Today, for the title of this post!

Grand Slam !!!

Sarah Palin is simply a phenomenal politician and, more importantly, a tremendously good choice by McCain as a Vice Presidential Nominee. With the stakes as high as possible, she came through with a fantastic speech and perfect delivery.

Democrats should be concerned, I think, but so should Palin. If the Democrats and the media have been tough over the last few days, the pressure will only increase now that they have seen what she can do. They will recognize the real threat that her addition to the McCain Ticket singlehandedly poses to Obama's chances, and they will stop at nothing to tear her down. Something tells me she'll be ready, though.

In the meantime, Republicans have found a politician who generates more excitement and enthusiasm than anyone else in the GOP since Ronald Reagan.

Job well done, Governor Palin.

Mixed Emotions

It has certainly been an interesting few days for Sarah Palin, her family, and the Republican Party. As indicated here on Friday, I was extremely enthusiastic about John McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate. This enthusiasm only grew over the weekend as I was able to hear more of her on the stump, and also to gauge the almost unanimously positive reactions of the people to whom I spoke. But then, on Monday, news broke that her 17-year old daughter Bristol was pregnant, and I began to feel far less optimistic about Palin and the overall chances for the ticket.

Full of newfound doubts, on Monday, I wrote the following, which now appears at Splice Today:

Well, it was a fine three-day run for the McCain campaign, and Republicans in general. As we went to bed last Thursday night, it appeared McCain was on the verge of tapping Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty for the veep slot, and the more I thought about that, I was disappointed, particularly when juxtaposed with Obama’s acceptance speech. Pawlenty is qualified, but he is essentially the personification of “boring white guy.” Friday morning by the time I got to work, the room was buzzing about the rumor that McCain had instead chosen the nearly unknown Sarah Palin. Soon it was confirmed, and I was thrilled. I was familiar with her, but thought she was a long shot at best, particularly with the cloud of an investigation involving the Alaska public safety commission hanging over her. Now that she had been picked, though, I assumed that the team vetting McCain’s potential running mates had looked at the situation closely and determined she had done no wrong, or at least that the controversy wasn’t sufficiently detrimental to disqualify her from being chosen. What’s that saying about the folly of assumptions? Something about making an ass out of you and me?

Friday’s official introduction of Palin energized Republicans; many probably had their first genuine moment of enthusiasm about voting for McCain. To the extent that enthusiasm extended to their wallets, the windfall of contributions the campaign received over the weekend seemed to confirm GOP voters’ newfound excitement. In talking to a variety of friends and relatives of varying degrees of political interest and multiple political leanings Friday, I found the reaction to Palin uniformly positive. Palin’s enthusiasm, her verve, her genuineness, her refreshing departure from typical Washington politics and politicians—all were among the attributes positively cited by those I spoke to. Perhaps more importantly, though, her conservative bona fides are unassailable, and for a Republican base still suspicious of McCain’s sincerity on social issues, this was a choice that put many of those lingering concerns to rest. Over the weekend, McCain’s rallies had an energy level higher than any his campaign has seen so far. Record crowds turned out to see the Alaska governor in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Predictably, the media questioned her experience (despite their general disinclination to do the same for Barack Obama), but in reality, she’s not much less experienced than Obama, and by virtue of having even a day of executive experience, she bests that of Obama, McCain and Joe Biden combined. Whether intentional or not, in a brilliant stroke of political jujitsu, every time the experience of the #2 person on the GOP ticket was questioned, the focus was implicitly or sub-consciously turned back to the inexperience of Barack Obama—the man at the top of the Democratic ticket.

But the subsequent news about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy reminded me of that moment in movies when the thriving dance party is suddenly interrupted by the sound of a record scratching. Was she properly vetted? On its face, the issue of her daughter’s pregnancy is just not a big deal. Nearly every family has had a similar instance, and based on the Palin family’s statement about the issues, it sounds as though they are dealing with it in a loving and unified way. But it is a very big deal in its implications. Does her daughter’s teenage pregnancy make her unfit to be the vice president? Of course not. But if McCain knew about this when he selected her, it raises serious doubts about his judgment and political acumen. If he indeed knew, and if he decided it was not sufficiently damaging to stop him from choosing her, then his campaign should have made this fact known shortly after unveiling her on Friday. Surely that would have been preferable to the bombshell news breaking on the first day of the Republican National Convention and in the midst of one of McCain’s only true momentum surges this year. I frankly don’t believe he did know, and if his vetters couldn’t unearth that, is there anything else that McCain’s campaign doesn’t know about Palin? And if Palin herself didn’t tell him, what does that tell us about her?

In general, it seems that most of the same conservative bloggers and writers who were heralding her choice Friday were now downplaying the political implications of her daughter’s pregnancy. The pro-life crowd is predictably ecstatic that Bristol Palin was choosing to keep her baby, and the emerging party line seems to be that the manner in which Sarah Palin and her husband had embraced the news only made her more appealing as a mother, and further, how dare the media and the Democrats invade the Palin’s privacy in this way! Obama, to his credit, almost immediately announced that the families of candidates should be off-limits, and that, oh, by the way, his mother had only been 18 when he was born. This was a classy reaction from Obama, and it was also politically pitch-perfect. Magnanimity is the shrewd play here, and Obama and Democrats will now sit back and give Palin and the GOP all the rope they need to hang themselves. As for Republicans and conservatives now claiming that this will have no backlash (or even that it will somehow be a net positive), they are simply kidding themselves—drunk, I can only assume, from a weekend bender of political enthusiasm after several painful years on the wagon.

Palin was unquestionably a risky choice for McCain, and for the pick to work out she had to be controversy-free until Election Day. While this was the gamble I thought McCain had to take in order to change the game and catalyze his candidacy, it was only worth it if he and his campaign were 100 percent certain there were no surprises about Palin waiting in the wings. Obviously they weren’t, and so in apparently failing to properly vet her, McCain will now find his judgment questioned, and rightfully so. As a committed Republican, I find myself shaking my head in disbelief and disappointment.

Tim Pawlenty is looking pretty good right about now. Perhaps there’s something to be said for the boring white guy after all.

Since writing that, however, I have started to return to the happy, optimistic Bragg of the weekend. Well, almost...

Here's the bottom line: I still think this was a terrific pick by McCain. I think Palin is a star already, and on her way to even bigger and better things (regardless of whether that ascendance begins with the vice presidency this time around or not). I am extremely interested in watching her speak tonight at the Republican National Convention, and I am even looking forward to watching her debate Joe Biden next month. On the other hand, I feel like what could have been the absolutely perfect pick has been somewhat tainted, even if only slightly. I think that to take the risk McCain took in picking her, the whole package (the candidate, the vetting process, etc.) had to be pristine, and it has not been. A part me of me, then, still feels deflated and disappointed, but then on the other hand, is it possible that all of this could still become a positive? Can the McCain-Palin ticket bounce back after a rough few days? If you'd asked me Monday -- as evidenced by my Splice post above -- I'd have said there was no way to come back from this. But the more I think about it and the more I watch the media (predictably) overplay their hand, the more I think this whole thing could, in fact, boomerang in Palin's favor.

The aggressiveness and borderline glee with which liberal bloggers, the mainstream media and some Democrats have attacked Palin is astonishing. The reason the news of Bristol Palin's pregancy even came to light at all is because hateful bloggers at Daily Kos (a preeminent liberal blog) were alleging that Palin had faked her most recent pregnancy (which resulted in the birth of her son, Trig, 5 months old, who suffers from Down Syndrome) in order to cover up her daughter's. In other words, they were alleging that Trig was in fact Palin's grandson. It was truly despicable. The Obama Campaign itself had to back down from their initial official reaction after the consensus held that it had been overly hostile. The media have, as expected, questioned her experience despite their willingness, by and large, to allow questions about Obama's -- the person at the top of the Democratic ticket -- to go unasked. Some reporters have questioned her ability to run for (much less serve as) vice president while still being able to adequately mother her children, a blatantly sexist inquiry. Has anyone ever asked Barack Obama if he feels he can be a good father to his two young daughters while running for (much less serving as) president?

The reality is that she is hardly less qualified than Obama no matter how one measures experience. And if executive experience is the benchmark, well then she has more than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. The fact that Obama on Tuesday felt compelled to compare his experience with that of Palin's -- again, the person in the #2 spot on the opposing ticket -- shows not only some measure of concern on the part of Obama and his campaign, but also the political brilliance of the Palin choice. Going one step further, McCain's campaign responded today with a new ad addressing the experience question, and I think it's fairly effective. Have a look:


I'm going to have to cut this shorter than I had wanted, but I'll be back later this week with more. In summary, I absolutely wish that the McCain Campaign had revealed Bristol Palin's pregnancy at the outset (even as a part of Sarah Palin's biography -- "expectant grandmother," maybe???) rather than let the news come out on the first day of the Convention, but perhaps they had their reasons. If I have learned one thing over the last few weeks, it's that I have consistently underestimated the political instincts of the McCain Campaign. Perhaps this is all part of their grand plan? Whether it is or not -- and whether that plan will work -- remain to be seen.

Tonight's speech would have been make-or-break for her even without the distractions of the last few days, but because of it, the stakes are astronomically high for Palin as she prepares for her primetime address to the GOP Delegates and, in all likelihood, millions of Americans watching at home. Here's hoping it's her turn to hit a home run!

Sarah Palin: A Homerun for McCain?

It appears McCain has indeed "swung for the fences" with his vice presidential selection. All signs this morning point to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, someone I've mentioned here on a couple of different occasions. (And someone who a BraggingWrites commenter "Ted", really, really liked).

In a normal year with a level playing field, McCain's choice should have been Mitt Romney. But McCain is facing an uphill battle over the next two months. In Barack Obama, he is up against an extraordinarily well-funded, remarkably charismatic candidate. The anti-GOP sentiment in the country is real and formidable, as is the so-called "Bush Fatigue". (McCain also inadvertently dealt an enormous blow to Romney's chances of being chose with his "inability" to answer a question last week about how many houses he and Mrs. McCain own).

So, who is Sarah Palin? At 44 years old, she is the first female Governor of Alaska, an accomplished outdoors(wo)man and athlete, and a former beauty queen who finished second in the Miss Alaska contest in 1984. She and her husband have five children, the eldest of whom will be headed to Iraq in September with the Army. She is currently the most popular governor in America (in terms of her statewide approval ratings), and she has a record of reform, particularly in terms of aggressively fighting corruption. Perhaps most importantly for McCain, who continues to be viewed with some suspicion from the "base" of the GOP, Palin's conservative bona fides -- social and fiscal -- are unassailable. Lastly, as a woman, she has the potential to appeal to disenchanted Hillary supporters.

What will we hear about her from Democrats or anti-McCain members of the media?

1. She's too inexperienced: While it is true that she is relatively green, she is really no less experienced than Barack Obama, and he's at the top of the Democratic ticket! (And in terms of executive experience, by virtue of having any, she already has more than Obama). Quite frankly, I don't think the "experience" argument is one that Democrats will want to make given the obvious and potentially unfavorable comparisons to Obama's experience (or lack thereof) that will result.
2. The "scandal" in Alaska: Quite frankly, I can't completely understand this one as it seems to be rather complex. Long story short, Governor Palin fired the Alaska Commissioner of Public Safety and offered him a spot running the state's ABC Board instead. He turned down the offer, and then alleged that Palin had fired him because of his refusal to fire an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who is in the process of divorcing Palin's sister. The story is full of twists and turns and at the end of the day, I don't think it has any legs.
   

Given the reality of the political situation facing McCain, I believe that, on balance, he has made an excellent choice. It's unexpected, it's going to catch many in the media off-guard (in a beneficial way for McCain), it's bold, and it reinforces McCain's "maverick" reputation for which he is so often praised.

I think the Palin choice is a game-changer, and that's exactly what McCain needs.

---

UPDATE: ABC News reports that Palin is still in Alaska, raising the prospect that she is, not, in fact the choice. Personally I believe this is a smokescreen designed to throw the media off the scent. BUT, if she indeed is not the pick, watch for three more wild-card women to emerge as the actual pick:

1. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman
2. Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina
3. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

We'll know by Noon today at the absolute latest...

Will McCain Swing for the Fences?

As we finally enter the homestretch of the 2008 Campaign, Barack Obama should probably have a 5- to 10-point lead in the polls, but instead finds himself effectively tied with (or even trailing) John McCain. In generic poll after generic poll, Democrats are decisively favored over Republicans, yet for some reason, Obama lags. The Obama Campaign knows this, is nervous about it, and their anxiety has started to show. In choosing Joe Biden as his running mate, Obama made a tacit admission that a bolstering of his experience and qualifications – particularly with regard to foreign policy – was necessary. Biden is not likely to do any harm for Obama’s chances, particularly given that I would expect the Obama Campaign to have him speak only on a scripted basis to avoid his infamous propensity to put his foot in his mouth. On the other hand, it’s difficult to make the argument that choosing Biden will help much either. Would a president and vice president who were both sitting senators – Biden for 35 years – really represent a departure from the “same old Washington politics”? Does that truly represent change?

Switching gears, John McCain made a colossal mistake last week. Just at the moment when he seemed to truly be gaining some momentum, he committed a gaffe that will likely haunt him all the way until Election Day. Asked by two reporters from Politico.com how many houses he and his wife own, McCain offered the following answer:

“I think – I’ll have my staff get to you – It’s condominiums where – I’ll have them get to you”.

Wow. That one hurt. In McCain’s defense, were one to take the time to try to understand the reason he could not provide a clear answer (namely that there are properties owned by his wife’s family trust of which he may not be aware and probably cannot actually be considered an owner), it becomes easier to understand his hesitation or inability to answer the question. Unfortunately for McCain, no one is going to take that time. The national media certainly won’t, though were Obama to commit a similar mistake I feel confident his fourth estate admirers would quickly come to his rescue. No, regardless of the nuances or complexities that led to his non-answer, the narrative has been established that John McCain is so “rich” and so “out of touch” that he cannot even keep track of how many houses he and his wife have. In a time of economic weakness – especially when the housing market is bearing much of the brunt – this is the type of answer that loses elections.

Meanwhile, back at the Democratic Convention, Monday night was initially billed as Michelle Obama’s time to shine. This changed slightly when Ted Kennedy – “’lion’ of the Senate” – opted to make the trip to Denver, and then further, to address the convention. It is truly sad that Kennedy is gravely ill with a terrible disease I wouldn’t wish on anyone. But can the Democratic Party and the media spare me some of the sycophantic coverage of the “heroic” Kennedy making the “courageous” journey “against medical advice” to “summon the strength” to speak in order to symbolically “pass the torch” to Barack Obama? As John McCain might say, let’s have a little straight talk, my friends. To the extent that Ted Kennedy was ever worthy of holding the same torch as either of his late brothers, that torch was extinguished by the water underneath Dike Bridge on Chappaquiddick in 1969 – along with the life of Mary Jo Kopechne. I couldn’t help but wonder if Chris Matthews was aware of the irony when he said on MSNBC Monday night:

“He’s a sentimental guy, whatever you think of Ted Kennedy, and he looks out for other people”.

Really?

Speaking of Democratic political giants prone to moral failings, when Bill Clinton addresses the convention on Wednesday night, many in the Obama Campaign will be watching nervously to see just how warm or sincere he seems in his support of Obama. Already controversy has surfaced over the former president’s reported displeasure at being scheduled to speak on a night the DNC has themed “Securing America’s Future”. Apparently “The Man from Hope” would much rather speak on economic issues and is bitter about a missed opportunity to do what he loves most: talk about himself. Obviously Clinton believes the economic strength of the 1990’s is his best chance for a lasting legacy not involving the name “Monica”, and it’s a safe bet that the narcissist-in-chief will say as little about Obama as he thinks he can get away with, attempting instead to better his own political standing first and foremost, and if he has extra time, that of his wife too. I remain puzzled that Obama did not dispatch with both Clintons on the convention’s first night, much as McCain is smartly doing with President Bush and Vice President Cheney on Day One of the GOP Convention. The Clintons and the ever-present melodrama in their wake pose a real threat to distract from one of the Obama Campaign’s best opportunities to introduce their candidate to the nation on their terms. And the Clintons wouldn’t have it any other way.

Looking ahead to Thursday night, Obama is slated for his own star turn. Rather than address the convention in the convention hall as is traditionally done, he and his campaign have opted instead to use neighboring Invesco Field (home of the Denver Broncos) so that “The One” can make his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 adoring disciples. I predict that, like his “premature victory lap” in Europe, the Obama Campaign may come to regret sensationalizing and over-hyping what is almost certainly the most important speech any presidential candidate ever gives in the course of a presidential campaign. American voters get it by now. We understand that people literally faint at his rallies, that it’s “cool” to support Obama, and even a Republican like me can’t help but find the Illinois Senator awfully likeable at times on the surface. What American voters may not get, however, is just precisely what is in store for us if Obama becomes president. It seems unlikely we’ll learn much more on Thursday, as a speech in an outdoor stadium to such an enormous crowd is not a setting that lends itself to a serious and sober discussion of what specifically Obama plans to do as president. In making this choice, the Obama team will only perpetuate the very negatives so aptly pointed out in McCain’s “Celeb” ad. Hope and change are wearing thin, and “I’m not George W. Bush” is in and of itself not sufficient rationale for being elected to the highest office in the land. Voters want a president, not a rock star.

With back-to-back party conventions likely nullifying the usual post-convention “bounce” in the polls, there’s a great chance that the fall campaign will officially begin in a deadlock. John McCain is likely to name his running mate any day now, and the Republican Convention begins next week. McCain needs a game-changer to break the tie and build a legitimate lead over Obama, and he has a remarkable opportunity for just that after Obama’s bland, status quo choice of Biden. The how-many-houses gaffe should effectively eliminate Mitt Romney as a potential vice president for McCain, because having an honest-to-God multi-millionaire join the ticket with a man now being portrayed as fabulously wealthy and aloof would make the Obama Campaign’s ads too easy. On the other hand, an argument could be made that McCain’s misstep last week boosts Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s chances given his bona fide blue collar background, but in many ways, Pawlenty represents the Biden equivalent of the potential GOP vice presidential candidates. He’ll do no harm, but it’s not clear he’ll help much either. McCain can fundamentally alter this race and gain back his lost momentum with a bold and surprising veep choice, particularly in going with a woman after Obama disappointed the Hillary supporters by not choosing her. But who? Unfortunately for McCain, there is no Republican female who perfectly fits the bill, but there are a few names to keep in mind as we await the official announcement: Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell; Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison; Tennessee Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice; former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Each has pros and cons to be sure, but unlike Obama, McCain’s vast experience affords him more leeway to swing for the fences in selecting his running mate. If he wants to win in November, he may have to do just that.

(An abbreviated version of this post can also be seen at Splice Today: http://splicetoday.com/).

Barack Obama: "Our American Prayer" ???

Over the last few months there has been much discussion of the quasi-deification of Obama in popular culture. Primarily it has been tongue-in-cheek, and the McCain campaign even got in on the action, releasing a clever ad a few weeks ago called "The One" that humorously took on the phenomenon.

Today, however, I was directed to a YouTube video. I can't accurately describe it, other than to say it's just downright creepy, and so I would only encourage you to watch it for yourself:

What I can say with confidence is that this is not the sort of thing that will help Obama. Voters, I think, have some degree of fatigue when it comes to celebrities using their fame to promote their political views. This video, though, takes the "Obamessiah" phenomenon to an entirely new and arguably inappropriate level, tosses in a healthy dose of celebrity worship for good measure, and the end result is an extremely bizarre and, in my view, off-putting production. The more this video is seen, the better it is for John McCain.

So It's Biden...

So Barack Obama has opted to go with Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. I have been ruminating about this since the news was confirmed late Friday night, and I still haven't quite been able to crystallize my thoughts on it.

Bottom line: good choice, but not a great choice. I still argue (as I did here last week), that if Obama wanted a guaranteed win in November, Hillary Clinton was the right choice. He's gone another way, however, and in doing so, he has picked someone who I certainly don't think will do any harm, though I question how much Biden will help.

More on this later today or later this week...