Nancy Pelosi, who is Tracy Flick without boundaries, intellect or shame, had a deal to bailout the Freddie & Fannie mess until she decided to blame Republicans.  Republicans were never going to vote in large numbers for a government blank check (unless, of course, you view six of the last eight years of history as indicator).  The fact that the Speaker of House was unable to sway more than 60% of her own party to vote for her own bill is beyond pathetic.

On the issues, I am opposed to any government intervention in free markets.  (I am also opposed to cod liver oil; sometimes medicine doesn’t taste good).  Capitalism is an economic form of Darwinism.  It is designed to encourage failure as well as success.  The failure of bad ideas is often the only way to discover great ideas.    In theory, then, intervening in a free market will allow weaklings to survive (and pass along their weaknesses).  When this is done by the government with tax dollars, it is, by definition, done at the expense of those who are strong enough to survive on their own.

The problem, of course, is that the government intervened in this market decades ago.  The final straw was in 1995, when the government allowed Fannie and Freddy to intervene in the subprime mortgage market.  Since then, this day was only a matter of time.  The government sponsored entities have implicitly put the government on the hook, and now the taxpayers are being asked to rescue the idiots who allowed this to happen, lest their monster eat us all.

So we have two choices, follow through or fall short. The bailout would ratify the implicit government guaranty that so many have railed against.  In order to save the broader economy, this is probably the better option.  The problem, however, as so brilliantly (but unintentionally) pointed out by Speaker Pelosi, is that Congress is not willing to learn from this mistake.  Fannie and Freddie are in no risk of being cut off from the federal teat.  Indeed, much of this bailout bill would encourage more of the same behavior.

Perhaps the better of the two options is to allow the credit markets to collapse.  In the future, financial institutions will (one would hope) ignore the government backing of Freddy and Fannie.  Without that insurance, banks would follow the fundamental tenet of capitalism: caveat emptor.  So too, should voters.

Chris Dodd and Barney Frank need to resign in disgrace for their reality-blind protection of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the root cause of the current financial crisis.  The fact that these two submorons are allowed to walk free is a textbook definition of abuse of the public trust.  As recently as two years ago, Dodd and Frank were claiming that their owners, Fannie and Freddie, posed no risk to the financial industry.  Before taxpayers are asked to pay one dime, these sanctimonious pricks need to go.

After that, I would prefer any bailout go to the housing industry, not to bailout the banks that decided to take risks without kicking the tires.  I can’t say I blame them completely as the government implicitly guaranteed the obligations of Fannie and Freddie.  The bill has come do, and Chris and Barney want you to pay while they “investigate” which Republican is responsible for their malfeasance.

The recent market turmoil has produced an astonishingly predictable wave of populism.  Even McCain and Palin are blaming corporate greed and abuse of the public trust.  (To be fair, corporations cannot fairly abuse the public trust as they are formed for the benefit of their own shareholders, not the public.  Somewhere, Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave.)

The most idiotic line of attack, not surprisingly, is coming from the Democrats.  In an effort to pin the market’s problems on Senator McCain, Obama has pointed to the 1999 Gramm Leach Bliley Act.  The wholly uncontroversial act was passed by nearly unanimous vote and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  Of course, as the lead sponsor, Senator Phil Gramm’s connection with Senator McCain’s campaign gives Barack Obama some Hope® to link the two to the current market problem.

Obama, having no economic experience beyond the begging for, squandering and doling out of tax dollars, is perhaps not familiar with the purpose and history of the Act.  (One of the more entertaining aspects of the last several days has been watching the mental midgets at Daily Kos, the Huffington Post and elsewhere espouse their opinion on GLB.  If asked before the recent market crisis, I would bet most of these people would think Gramm Leach Bliley was professor of Dark Arts at Hogwarts.)

I never thought this would come in handy, but as it turns out, I work with GLB every day, so I do know a little about it.  Which is to say, a great deal more than apparently what Obama and the Democratic party know about it.

GLB overturned a depression era law known as Glass Steagall (and no, that’s not a magical transparent bird from Harry Potter).  Glass Steagall prohibited retail banks (banks that make their money by holding deposits and lending money to consumers) from engaging in insurance and commercial and investment banking (like Goldman Sachs, these banks make their money mostly from investing in and lending money to corporations).  The rationale was simple: during the market crash of 1929, which precipitated the Great Depression, many retail banks failed because their assets were tied up in the stock market.

Glass Steagall did two things: (i) it created the FDIC to insure deposits at retail banks up to now $100,000 and (ii) it prevented banks from exposing themselves to market risks that could again crash the entire system.

Over 60 years later, the economy and the markets had changed.  The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 had developed strong, robust markets that were, for the most part, self-correcting.  In addition, the Savings and Loan crisis had shown that restricting diversification was not necessarily the best way to prevent bank failures.  In addition, retail banks and large investment houses wanted to be a one-stop shop and compete with one another for the savings and investment accounts of their customers.  All of this lead to the repeal of the second major prong of Glass Steagall.  In a sense, that is all the GLB did: it allowed your checking and savings account to be held at the same place as your insurance policy and your mutual fund.

Obama, however, is now claiming that GLB should be repealed.  He’s flatly wrong.  Repeal of GLB would lead to disaster.  In fact, GLB is operating as the savior today.  Who saved Merrill Lynch from bankruptcy?  The largest bank in the world, Bank of America.  Glass Steagall would have made that illegal.  Who is rumored to be buying Morgan Stanley?  Wachovia, another retail bank that would have been prohibited by Glass Steagall from intervening.  Who is picking up the pieces of Lehman Brothers?  Barclays Bank, a UK bank known primarily for retail banking and credit cards.

Obama’s claim that GLB is the cause of the problem is even more idiotic.  The root cause of the current problem is over aggressive lending by mortgage banks like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide and a slew of others.  These banks, after being pressured by Congress and President Clinton, made loans to lower income families that everyone knew could never be repaid by their income alone.  The buyers, to the extent they knew what they were doing, were thinking, “I’ll buy a $200,000 house I can’t afford.  I can pay interest only for a few years, then the house will increase in value and sell it at a profit and buy a new house for more money.”  The banks were thinking, “worst case scenario, we foreclose and sell the house for a profit.”  In essence, the banks and the homeowners were betting that housing prices would go up.  They were wrong.  In fact, the fast and loose credit rules further exacerbated the problem by artificially driving up home prices.  If more people can afford a home, home prices become less affordable.  (Note to Dems, this is where the Law of Supply and Demand meets the Law of Unintended Consequences).

So, you may ask, but only if you’re still paying attention, how does this bring down Lehman Brothers, who doesn’t have a mortgage brokerage?  Well, Fannie, Freddie and Countrywide were not content to hold these bad mortgages themselves.  A mortgage is just a promise from some putz to pay over 30 years.  If you’re a mortgage lender, you prefer your money up front (who doesn’t).  So the banks devised a new product called mortgage or asset backed securities (ABSs).  These are a bundle of thousands of mortgages, each with the same or similar terms.  The bank then sells interests in each of the ABS’s to investment banks like Lehman (and Merrill and Morgan Stanley).

The problem is, the ABS’s are only as good as the aggregate credit of the underlying homeowners.  If one or two in a thousand default, no problem.  The losses are offset by the payments from the others.  The only way this could fail is if a lot of buyers started defaulting on their home loans at the same time.  Well, guess what?  When you systematically extend credit to people who can’t afford it, you create systemic risk.  The bottom falls out when the first person can’t sell their home.  The next person to try to sell is facing a buyers market and we race to the bottom.  The fact that baby boomers are all retiring and trying to sell their homes at the same time compounds the problem.

To further complicate matters, the ABS’s were further divided and picked apart and merged with other instruments (like credit default swaps and other derivatives).  All of this means that even the whizkids at Lehman couldn’t figure out what their real risk was.  (Like John McCain, first Lehman, and now the taxpayers don’t know how many homes we all actually own.)  This led to a panic and a run on the investment bank.  Shares plummeted and investors in Lehman products bailed out.  In a sense, this is the exact opposite of the bank failures that lead to the Great Depression.  It wasn’t market speculation that lead to a run on retail banks, but retail banks’ speculative lending that lead to a run on investment banks.

The take home point here is that Gramm Leach Bliley is not the culprit.  Nanny state regulation and do-gooder intentions in the mortgage market are the culprit.  The sooner we realize that altruism is not a valid economic policy, the more we can avoid these messes.

Apologies for the delay.  I know I promised a post on why Pro Choice voters can vote for a Pro Life candidate, but other events have kept me busy.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there are really nine types of voters.  As some people have noted, this is a spectrum, not a rigorous box.  You may find yourself between Right/Center or Issues/Instinctual.  The reason for this post is to refute (as if the polls hadn’t already) the peculiar notion that Pro Choice voters will not vote for Sarah Palin because she (and McCain) are vehemently Pro Life.

Here is the break down on the issue by voter category, viewing all nine types of voters on abortion:

The voters in question then are Left Issues and Left Instinctual voters.  Right voters will be voting for McCain Palin and Center voters will likely base their decision on some other issue or factor.  The real question is, could a Pro Choice Left Issues voter or a Pro Choice leaning Left Instinctual voter be swayed by Sarah Palin.

Left Instinctual voters. These voters lean Pro Choice, but mostly because they have empathy towards women who have unwanted pregnancies.  Here, Sarah Palin will, and clearly has, made much progress.  Her historic candidacy has provided many of these voters with relief from the guilt of not voting for Barack Obama.  The fact that she is a mother of five, chose to have Trig after knowing what difficulties she and her husband would face, and the fact that the media has vicously and in many cases sexistly attacked her, all tend to work in Palin’s favor with respect to these voters.

Left Issues voters. Clearly Sarah Palin’s (and John McCain’s) position on abortion is not going to be an area of agreement.  Most Left Issues voters on abortion, however, are also pro feminist.  The draw for them would be Sarah Palin’s chance to make history as the first woman Vice President and the positive role model she would be for young women.  Clearly these voters will need to be convinced that McCain-Palin’s view on abortion would not impact what they view as a fundamental right to choose abortion.

Practicality. The likelihood of the Supreme Court reversing itself are slim to begin with.  First, a current justice would have to step down or die.  The two most likely to step down are John Paul Stevens (88 years old and appointed by Gerald “Oops” Ford) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton).  These two are very liberal justices and would likely try to stay on the Court until a Democratic president took office.  (Much like Hillary, they may have to wait another four years).  Any new justice will need to be approved by a very liberal Senate.  Even if the Senate allows an appointee to take the bench, a case would have to brought up involving abortion.

Roe v. Wade/ Casey v. Planned Parenthood. These are the two major Supreme Court cases that make it illegal for states and the federal government to outlaw abortion, except under certain narrow circumstances.  Without getting into the legal details, the rulings prohibit states from making laws that restrict what the Court calls a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy before the end of the second trimester.  The idea that overturning Roe v. Wade (or more accurately Casey v. Planned Parenthood) would outlaw abortion is wrong.  Let me say that again, if these Supreme Court cases were overturned, abortion would still be legal in the United States.  The issue would then revert to the states who each, on their own, would decide whether or not to outlaw abortion and to what degree.

States vary. Here is where the fallicy falls apart: there is a near zero chance that the states of California, Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Massachusets, New Hampshire or any other liberal or libertarian stronghold will ever outlaw abortion.  In fact, even before Roe v. Wade, Washington, Alaska (!), Hawaii, and New York all allowed for abortion on demand.  This was in the early 1970’s.  Certainly, as the culture and the politics have liberalized, the likelihood of California outlawing abortion is miniscule.

So the question would then become, what about a woman living in Kansas or Nebraska who wanted to have an abortion.  Here, I’m certain that the resources now spent on lobbying politicians not to overturn Roe v. Wade would be spent provided transportation and other resources to these women.

On balance, even if someone is strongly Pro Choice, there is not much reason to worry about abortion with a Republican president.  Practically speaking, abortion will never be totally outlawed in the United States.  To the extent someone is a single issue voter, of course John McCain and Sarah Palin will not be their choice.  But to the extent other issues matter, Sarah Palin is an attractive candidate to those people, despite her views on abortion.

Seven years ago this morning, America was awakened from its complacency by 19 little men on four planes armed with little more than small knives and a determination to kill innocent people. Through the heroism of a small band of heroes, only three of those planes met their targets. The names Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, and Tom Burnett do not play nearly the role in everyday life that they should.

In the past seven years, the world has become a very different place. America no long plays victim on the world stage. Nor should it. The wave of sympathy and compassion that embraced us seven years ago is gone. We have spent that capital, along with our blood and treasure, making the world a safer place. Since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq there have been no attacks on U.S. soil, and only two terrorist attacks in Europe. We have taken the fight to our enemies and the results are clear.

Thousands more men and women have given their lives willingly to save those they don’t know. In the words of the dearly departed Tony Snow, “love can propel a man to run into a burning building to save a complete stranger; but a man motivated by hate cannot save even himself.” Because of the sacrifice of brave men and women, Americans, Brits, French, Spaniards, Poles, and not least of them, Iraqis, the Middle East now has an exemplar of democracy and a secular levee against the tide of Islamic fascism. Young American GI’s have once again reshaped the face of the world for the better.

The United States and its allies will continue their struggle against Islamic fascism. It is a long fight against a determined enemy. The alternative for us is not a fragile peace, but certain death. As the threat of attacks at home fades, however, so do the raw emotions of that day. The sinking fear has been replaced with a clear sense of awareness, but recessed in our minds; behind our families and work; behind worries about taxes, health care and bailing out failed bureaucracies.

Terror may never completely die, but it is on the run. It hides in remote regions in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It shouts impotently from the safety of cassette tapes and grainy videos. It squanders its youth and rage in clean, quiet cells in Cuba. It dies futily alone in the streets of Iraqi villages and the rugged trails of Afghanistan. As the allies who liberated the world from European fascism and soviet communism, we have a duty to see terrorism find its place on the ashheap of history. Let’s Roll.

Senator Barack Obama raised eyebrows today when he said that the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempt to “reinvent themselves” as mavericks was “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.“  Many feel the freshman Senator was making a thinly veiled reference to Senator McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin.

The McCain campaign quickly objected to the veiled allusion and to the underlying argument.  “First of all, if you want to talk pork, you’ll need to review the records of Senators Obama and Biden.  McCain Palin is virtually pork free.  Second, as for a candidate with a paper thin résumé who has never gone up against his own party on any subject to claim Senator McCain and Governor Palin are just all talk, well, that’s the pot calling the kettle a closet Muslim.”

There is, of course, an abudnance of data to support the assertion that Joe Biden is an idiotic windbag. Today, there is more evidence in about what a shallow, manipulative politician he actually is. Today Joe Biden attacked “Republicans” for claiming to be advocates for those with special needs while not supporting stem cell research:

I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there’s joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well, guess what folks? If you care about it, why don’t you support stem cell research?

There are at least 6 problems with this line of argument:

1. This is clearly a thinly veiled reference to Governor Palin’s youngest son Trig. I thought families were off limits. Maybe Biden has bought into the Obama campaign to such an extent that even Biden’s own statements have an expiration date. Or maybe families are off limits, unless you’re down 10 points in the Gallup poll.
2. The implicit assertion that Down Syndrome could be “cured” by stem cell research is far fetched at best. The promise of stem cells is in their ability to replace damaged cells that your body cannot ordinarily replace after you reach a certain stage. For example, brain cells are irreplaceable. Your body creates them when you’re young. If your injured, develop Alzheimers or otherwise lose brain cells, they are gone forever. Stem cells, however, are the proto cells. They can be manipulated into new brain cells, liver cells, kidney cells, etc., but your body cannot generate them after a certain age. This has the potential to cure Alzheimers, paralysis, diabetes and other diseases that involve irreplaceable cells. Sadly, Down syndrome is caused by an additional chromosome. As far as anyone can tell, it is not “curable”, using stem cells or otherwise.
3. In a response to the immediate outcry, Biden’s press secretary compounded the error by stating this was about McCain and how “[w]e’ve heard not a dime’s worth of difference between the McCain-Palin ticket and the Bush Administration on medical breakthroughs that millions of parents and doctors believe could save lives and transform the quality of life for countless Americans.” First, McCain favors embryonic stem cell research. This is one of the huge differences between McCain and Bush. In fact, there is barely a sliver of light between Obama, McCain and also-ran Biden on this issue. If you’re going to attack the mother of a Down syndrome infant, you might want to get your facts right. Then again, Joe Biden never let facts get in the way of a good political smear.
4. The Obama campaign, in their typical third bite at the apple (they’re learning on the job, as they will in office), later said this was not about Palin. Well if McCain agrees with Obama, who the hell was Biden talking about?
5. It dismisses the fundamental difference between embryonic stem cell research and other forms of stem cell research. Many conservatives (and Bush) merely object to killing embryos to harvest their stem cells for research. Bush has always supported existing line research, as well as alternative research (i.e., manipulating other cells to have the same effect as stem cells).
6. Much like the surge, the cold war, SDI, Iraq, Serbia, and countless other issues, the facts are on the other side of the argument from Joe Biden. Bush opposed embryonic stem cell research and said at the time that science would have to find another way. The Press and know-it-all Biden laughed at him, just as they laughed at Reagan about SDI. Well guess what? Two years ago, scientist learned how to trick skin cells into becoming stem cells, reversing the magic that makes stem cells so miraculous (and the potential cure for so many illnesses). Earlier this year, another team of scientist learned how to skip the stem cell step and convert existing cells of one type into another type. For example, we can now convert a skin cell into, theoretically, a neuron–potentially reversing brain damage or alzheimers. This is exactly what Bush suggested 6 years ago. Had he not pushed scientists to be more creative, we may still be harvesting (killing) embryos for research. Today that moral issue is moot.

The Obama campaign, facing a slight and diminishing lead in the polls and an immensely popular Republican Vice Presidential nominee, has announced a list of things Obama “once considered” doing.  The list follows Senator Obama’s assertion to George Stephanapoulous that he (Obama) had considered joining the military.  Indeed, Senator Obama even went so far as to reveal his primary motive for not joining the military: the lack of opportunity to fight in combat.  “Had I been able to kill someone, I think, certainly, that might have made this decision more difficult for me.”  The campaign has noted that the decision was so painful for the Senator that he decided never to mention it again, not in either his two memoirs, and not in the hundreds of interviews, speeches or town hall events.

The list of “unfinished dreams” released by the Obama campaign include:

• Selecting Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.
• Actually developing a track record showing a commitment to change, hope or anything other that typical Chicagoland politics.
• Clinging to guns, religion and antipathy to others not like him.
• Attending a church that didn’t preach vile, racist, Antiamerican rhetoric.
• Making friends and connecting with neighbors who aren’t terrorists or racketeers.
• Getting shot down over enemy territory and denying his captors propaganda victories by staying in captivity for 5 1/2 years.
• Making any kind of executive decision that may reveal judgment, character, or even his decision making process.

Until recently, an amazing statistic regarding presidential elections had held through almost 100 years: the tallest man (almost) always won.  (The two recent exceptions were in the 70’s, both when Nixon defeated McGovern and Carter defeated Ford.)  The chain was broken in the internet age of free-flowing ideas and the 24-hour media cycle when George Bush (5′11′) defeated Al Gore (6′0.5″) in 2000.  The irony here is that Al Gore invented the internet.  (On the flip side, if you’re a Democrat, you might say short guy + evil genius overcomes this advantage).

The interesting thing about this statistic is that it suggest how superficial the American electorate can be.  To a certain extent, I agree.  There are, generally, nine types of voters, across two dimensions.  The first dimension is ideology: there are Right, Left and Centrist voters.  The second dimension is what I will call the decision dimension: here there are Issues voters, Party-line voters and Instinctual voters.

Left, Right and Center voters are those voters who, on an issue by issue basis, shake out on that side of the spectrum.  The thing I would point out here is that these voters can (and do) swap sides based on the prevalence of the issue at hand.  For example, a “neocon” has been described as a liberal who’s been mugged by reality.  After 9/11, many otherwise liberal voters saw national security as a prominent issue.  Though they may be fiscal liberals and/or social liberals, their concern for national security trump these issues.  Centrist or Center voters are generally independent, disenfranchised and/or apathetic voters .

Where I would like to focus, though is on the second dimension, because I think it may explain why Governor Palin may be such a fantastic choice politically.  I believe that, although Mrs. Palin was not picked to go after the “Hillary Vote,” it is nonetheless true that some Pro choice, non-religious voters who would otherwise support Hillary Clinton will, indeed, vote for Sarah Palin.

Let me first address the Issue voter.  Issue voters are those who base their judgment on the positions of the candidates.  A Left Issue voter on abortion, for example is commonly referred to as Pro Choice.  A Right Issue voter on defense would be called a hawk, a Left Issue voter, a dove.  (A Centrist Issue voter is almost always considered a “fence sitter.”)

Party-line voters are simple: they always vote the party line.  Here a Left Party-line voter would (recently) be a Democrat.  I say recently because a big part of the Reagan revolution was moving “Reagan Democrats” over to Republicans, permanently.  Centrist Party-liners, if you’re wondering, are nonvoters.

Instinctual voters are, for better or worse, most of the electorate.  These voters base their decision less on a candidate’s platform and more on their character, demographic and other inherent traits.  An Instinctual voter is one who is enthusiastic for a candidate, but cannot articulate a precise policy reason why.  The Right/Left/Center split here is tricky.  For me, the notion is one of sympathy/compassion (Left) versus strength/character (Right) versus utility infielder (Center).  For example, a Right Instinctual voter might not know much about McCain’s platform, but they might view his life experiences as an indication of his character, strength and devotion to country.  A Left Instinctual voter may not know much about Obama’s policies, may view his personal narrative, his oratory and/or his lack of Washington experience as evidence that he “feels their pain” or is sympathetic to them.

These voters, as a whole, have been the driving force behind electing the tallest man for nearly 100 years.  Height has a big impression on people, especially when they’re looking for a leader.  This is basic human nature, to look for the alpha leader; the tallest, strongest person to protect the tribe.

Back to today’s question about Hillary Clinton voters.  Hillary Clinton supporters are a Left-leaning microcosm of the above.   You have:

• Left Party-liners: these are the 50% of people who, immediately following Hillary’s concession speach in June, fell in behind Obama.
• Left Instinctual Voters: These, I think represent about 10-15% of the 30% of Hillary voters who fell behind Obama after Hillary’s convention address.  She vouched for Obama, and many of them felt that was good enough.  There are some left, however, who are looking for a sympathetic candidate.
• Left Issues voters: These are Pro Choice voters, as well as feminists, universal healthcare advocates and others.  (Doves already went in for Obama based on his “vote” against Iraq).  About half of these HIllary voters are the remainder of the now Obama supporters.  If their main issue(s) are universal healthcare, pro choice, withdrawal from Iraq or any other issue that Obama supports and McCain doesn’t, they went over to Obama.  The remainder, to the extent there are any, are up for grabs (this would include some environmentalists, feminists and government reformers).  Some of these have already gone over to McCain (like PUMAs, for example).
• Right/Center Issues voters: These are people who (and I disagree) remember the Clinton Administration with fondness for its policies.  (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a classic Center compromise position, as are civil unions).  These people are Hillary supporters who have already gone over to McCain.
• Right Instinctual Voters: These are the voters who view Hillary as a strong leader with “modern” Democratic values on things like defense, national security and the economy.  These are the blue collar workers who refused to support Obama and continued to turn out for Hillary in the later primaries.

So the target voters we are talking about, those 10-20% of Hillary voters who are undecided, break down into two main categories: Left Issues voters and Right and Left Instinctual voters.

Left Issue Voters: As I mentioned, most pro choice voters are already supporting Obama.  McCain can make a play for them, but not without alienated his base, so the risks probably outweigh the rewards.  Governor Palin’s stellar social conservative bona fides, however, allow McCain to solidify his base while also playing to the Centrist and Left Issue voters.  McCain may, in the coming weeks, tack towards the center on abortion with a wink and a nudge towards Palin as necessary.  It’s unlikely, but Palin helps him here.

Other Left Issue Voters include feminists (believe it or not, Gloria Steinem, someone can be a feminist and still believe that abortion should be illegal) who will either see Palin as a cynical ploy by McCain or a genuine acknowledgment of her qualifications and ideology.  I would say 50-50 split for these voters.  Government reformers may be swayed by Palin, as she clearly bolsters McCain’s maverick image and her zero days in Washington beats the hell out of Joe Biden’s 35 years.  Finally, certain environmentalists (the Colorado rational types, not the Berkley wackados) will see promise in McCain’s platform and Palin’s record of fighting oil companies and conservation in Alaska.  Look for Obama to hit her hard on ANWR, drilling for oil and her (correct) statements on Global Warming™.

Right Instinctual voters:  This is where McCain will gain ground.   Blue collar workers have been shown McCain’s maverick side, as well as his commitment to reform and pragmatic governance.  Governor Palin’s personal story is also compelling as she’s held numerous “real-life” jobs, has a large family, comes from a small town, is a hockey mom and started her political career in the PTA, not at William Ayers’s house.

Left Instinctual Voters: These are the remaining batch of voters who are looking for a sympathetic leader.  Palin wins on many fronts.  Crudely, she’s a woman in a man’s game, and therefore an underdog.  Her story is also compelling in that she has been constantly berated in the media.  McCain’s pick of Palin will releive the guilt that some of these voters may feel for voting against an “historic” nominee.

On balance, Sarah Palin, in addition to being an accomplished leader in her own right, will help McCain politically with almost all of Hillary’s voters.  Part II, tomorrow (I hope) will deal with what should be the absurd claim that a Pro Choice voter cannot ever vote for a Pro Life candidate and vice versa.

(You’ll notice, I hope, how the above analysis was bereft of reference to gender.)

[In an alternative world, perhaps with an Ayn Rand School of Journalism...]

Democratic presidential nominee and Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) has been forced to defend the vetting of his vice presidential running mate, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL).  The Biden campaign, who has refused to release confidential information regarding the vetting process, has been hammered by allegations that the former community organizer was not properly vetted by the Biden campaign.  “Joe Biden really wanted a more centrist candidate, like John Edwards, but was forced at the last minute to pick the relatively unknown Obama,” claimed one Democrat with close ties to the campaign.

These continued problems come amid further revelations regarding the freshman Senator Obama’s personal life.  Daily Kos has reported, since last Friday, of “peculiarities” regarding the Obama’s eldest daughter, Malia.  Dips!t69, an anonymous blogger on the site, has uncovered evidence that Michele Obama was known to have been unfaithful to her husband, especially during the time Malia was conceived.

Dips!t69 also claims to have a credit card receipt showing that, exactly nine months before Malia was born, Barack Obama was in Detroit while his wife Michelle was in Chicago.  In addition, facial recognition software has been used to show that Malia only has an 85% chance of being related to Barack Obama.The Biden campaign has repeatedly refused to provide DNA samples of the two Obamas to conclusively disprove the rumors.

Regarding the vetting process, a Biden spokesperson has said that “Michelle’s infidelity was widely known in Chicago.”  Senator Obama also faces criticism for accepting the vice presidential nomination.  “He has two young daughters at home.  Can he really manage being a loving father with the duties of vice president,” noted columnist E.J. Dionne.

Since the announcement of Obama as the vice presidential pick, the Biden campaign has tried to fend off rumors that Obama was picked only because of his race.  “The Biden camp only picked Obama as a desperate effort to attract Colin Powell supporters.”  Former Secretary of State Powell ultimately lost a close Republican primary fight with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  “It’s clear that Barack Obama is only where he is because of his skin color.”  Indeed, according to Eleanor Clift, the announcement was met with laguhter in most newsrooms across the country.

The Biden campaign contends that Obama is a “strong liberal, with socially liberal views,” who was picked to bolster Biden’s liberal base.  In his acceptance speach, however, Senator Obama made explicit reference to Colin Powell and his “historic campaign.”  Some critics viewed this as an overt attempt to solicit Black voters.  Governor Palin and her vice presidential nominee, John McCain, have both denounced any inquiry into the Obama family’s “private matter.”  Palin picked a far more experienced running mate in John McCain to bolster her already impressive credentials.