They're all worthless

Except for in certain instances, no one in politics really wants to solve any real problems. People want fame, glory, power, and money, but very few are committed to actually improving life and resolving real issues. My beef at the moment is with the McCain Campaign.

Let me preface this display by saying that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. If it makes any difference to anyone, I have voted both Democrat and Republican lines (I won't tell you who I voted last time for President - you can guess that one). I see positives in both major parties as well as parties such as Libertarian and Green.

Getting to the point. Why is everyone so upset with the Obama Campaign for the Lipstick comment? Let's get the facts straight. Anyone with any morsel of a command of the English language would be able to see that the context of Obama's comment implies he was referring to McCain plans/policy/programs (economic in particular). Just because Palin happened to mention lipstick last week doesn't mean he was targeting her.

Don't flatter yourself Palin, or any of your goons - are you really that conceited that you would presume anyone even cares that you're on the Republican ticket? No one does, at least not more so than to the extent that Palin offers the potential to attract more votes to McCain (and maybe the fact that our gas prices are high enough that we are intrigued by the "let's drill for more oil" attitude). Other than that, no one cares. You're just a semi-hot Conservative babe with marginal experience. Certainly enough to hold down the fort and meet the basic duties of VP, but nowhere near the capacity to provide value-added advice to the Administration or take over in the event of the actuarial likelihood that McCain's arms will fall off or jaw implode while in office.

At any rate, Obama didn't need to call Palin a pig to address any inadequacies on her resume. The campaign has been busy targeting her with other negative campaigning. Calling her a pig requires more imagination on the part of the public to get the joke. It's much easier to say "she has little experience," or "she raised taxes on individuals and turned an in-the-black, fiscally responsible municipality into a debt-ridden, lavish spender" (both of which are true statements). The fact that some people think he was telling a sly, subtle joke (claiming he smiled and hid his face after he said it) is preposterous.

A more appropriate response for the McCain Campaign (rather than calling Obama a sexist and inciting the emotions of soccer/hockey moms across the country) would have been to understand what he meant ("McCain, your economic policy stinks") and respond appropriately. For instance, they could have attacked Obama's pant-less economic plan and called attention to Obama's lack of economic expertise (which would have worked). They then could have explained how McCain's is superior (good luck with that one).

This is all just evidence of the games the two parties are playing. It's all about beating the other side, one-upping each other, and making the American people think it's about issues. No one wants to really address the problems, being completely honest with the facts, because there is too great of a risk that the party will lose favor with you or that you might not win.

Take, for instance, Obama's statement on Letterman: Obama said that things right now are similar to when Bill Clinton took office in 1992 (implying that if he were elected something similar would occur). You have an economy not doing fantastic and people disillusioned with what the previous party had done while in office. Then in steps Clinton and you have this explosion of economic growth and wealth through the '90s. Neat Obama, except....you're full of crap. The alleged explosion of growth has now been exposed as exaggerated if not completely feigned in certain instances (Remember Enron, Worldcom, and other significant accounting frauds perpetrated to create the illusion of growth? Remember when the stock market bubble burst as a result of grossly over-valued tech companies running on pure emotion and consumer excitement?) I could list a host of other reasons the economic growth of the '90s wasn't what it seemed, admitting that there was indeed some quality growth that occured that should be noted.

Still, Obama had to act as if the '90s were the good ol' days. Back when Slick Willy was hooking up with fugly White House interns and exemplifying more conservative politics than George W. Bush. Back when Seattle was a veritable font of flannel-wearing musical geniuses and we were all trying to get our hair to look like Brandon Walsh and Kelly Taylor from 90210. In an effort to show how much change he stands for, Obama wanted to take us all back to the '90s. Joking aside, Obama had to take that opportunity to make himself more apt to win while ignoring some of the very issues at hand that need to change (and thus losing his credibility as a candidate for change). Remarkable.

So in the aftermath of all this, who do we vote for? What do we do? I am registered to vote - so I can't just say I didn't get around to it...I gotta drive down there in November and do it. Should I vote for a third-party candidate (none of whom I completely agree with) to send a message? Should I write my name or one of your names on the ballot just to give Washington a big middle finger? Or do vote for the candidate I think will least threaten my individual wants and needs while knowingly sacrificing the good of the public? Any ideas?