The Democrats are on the run. Seriously. They had attacks lined up for all the supposed VP choices - Romney, Pawlenty, Ridge, etc... but Palin was completely out of left field and they are like chickens with their head cut off. Polls don't mean squat until election day, but they do offer up some insight as to what the public perception is.

Right now, McCain has made an amazing comeback. The majority of this is due to the choice of Sarah Palin, while the remainder is so small it could be classified as "miscellaneous." What has happened is completely amazing - the Democrats had the next JFK, the first serious African-American candidate, a country in economic shambles, an unpopular war, and the majority of problems blamed on Republicans and Bush. It should have been a slam dunk election.

Sadly, for Democrats, this wasn't the case. They had a gruelling primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and the far left fringes got the candidate they wanted. By choosing the charismatic candidate with the lesser experience, the Democrats appeared to be in cruise control, ready to pop open the bottle of champagne. But then something amazing happened - the candidate overlooked the person he barely beat in the primary, thus alienating many of her voters, and chose a man with a vast amount of foreign policy experience - something to complement his weaknesses.

On paper, it seemed like a good, safe pick. That is until people realized Joe Biden wasn't at all interesting, had more Washington experience than John McCain and threw out the whole notion of change, until the change Obama was running on was redefined as a different kind of change, which simply meant "Not Republican." This unfortunately, is the same "change" any politician runs on when challenging the incumbent party.

Even with all of these issues, the race seemed like it would be close, but still a Democratic win. That is until today. Earlier I was speaking with my wife and I said that my gut feeling right now is that McCain is goin to win big. All the momentum is going his way, and Obama's actions lately have showed him appearing to crack under the pressure. What happened today at a rally in New Hampshire took everyone, including myself by surprise when Joe Biden said the following:

"Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she’s first rate, so let’s get that straight."

Now, this does a couple things. First, it knocks down any prestige that Biden had, and further elevates the star of Sarah Palin above his. Second, and more importantly, it digs at the heart of Obama's credibility. If Hillary was more qualified and would have been a better pick, then why didn't Obama forsee this? Of course, I believe that Obama knew this all along - the most difficult ticket to defeat from a Republican perspective would be an Obama/Hillary one.

There has been talk of Biden stepping down for various reasons because of the way the election is going. Obama couldn't ask him to do so without destroying his chances, and Biden would need a legitimate health or family reason. On top of that, if this were to open a door for Hillary, I can't imagine her accepting the VP slot. She was originally passed over, and joining now would lower her prestige as well. She also may see the changing political tides and realize she'll have a better chance in 2012 to run if Obama loses, than to hope and run in 2016 with her age.

With everything that has happened in the last few days in the political world, I believe that today will be the day when Americans finally wake up and go to McCain in droves.

The big guns are out — the Democrats have sent Hillary to Florida to try to go after Sarah Palin. That makes two Clintons trying to nail her now. - Jay Leno

And filed under the, funny because it's true category...

There is some good news for John McCain: According to the latest polls, McCain has started to open up a lead over Barack Obama. The USA Today poll has McCain ahead by 10 points; CBS news poll has the two tied; and the MSNBC poll says that Obama won the election last week. - Conan O'Brien

Over the weekend, we all saw the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the government. This is truly scary when looking at the bigger picture. The takeover, at best, is terrible economic policy. At worst, it is reminiscent of socialism. Many of the media outlets are reporting a number of $200 billion to bailout Freddie and Fannie. This is only a half-truth though, as the $200 billion figure is what is being spent today to bail them out. Some economists believe that over time, this figure can jump up to $1.6 trillion, if not more. Suddenly, the aft repeated quote of $10 billion per month in Iraq doesn't sound like much... I've got a question in all of this for those with common sense - Why haven't the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie gone to jail yet? Does anyone recall Enron and Ken Lay? Fannie Mae cooked the books, so it appeared they were making budget. This was however a sham so that the top executives were able to claim a large bonus. After the bonuses were received, they "magically" discovered that the budget needed to be readjusted and it turns out, they didn't make the budget. Fannie Mae was fined $400 billion for cooking the books in 2004. They over estimated their earnings by $6.3 billion. Compare that to the evil Enron, who over estimated their earnings by a paltry $567 million. At the time this occurred, the CEO of Fannie Mae was Franklin Raines. How corrupt was Raines? While being investigated by the SEC for cooking the books, he decided it was time to take an early retirement. However, he wasn't completely off the hook - rather than going to jail for his actions, he bought his freedom for a $24.7 million settlement. However, here's the kicker - Of that $24.7 million, $15.6 million was in stocks, but was from stock at the time when the transgressions occurred. What that means is that he was paying $15.6 million of stock valued at $77 per share, but the stock was now worth $9 per share. So - that money was $15.6 million in 2004 - which was now devalued to only $1.8 million. In addition, Raines paid another $2 million, but surprise surprise, that was covered by the insurance policy to protect against things like that. He also donated an additional $1.8 million in stock, but another shocker - It wasn't even his. He was involved in a lawsuit with Fannie Mae, in which both sides claimed the stock was rightfully theirs. Finally, he agreed to part with $5 million in unspecified benefits...which really shouldn't be unspecified since they are public funds! By the way, Raines still gets a monthly pension of nearly $114,000 per month, for life, and then if necessary, for the life of his wife. So where was the media in all of this? When the Enron Scandal hit, the following nine months saw over 3000 stories in the media about it. In comparison, Fannie Mae has a total of 37 stories in that same time frame. A greater than 80:1 ratio in news coverage, but only about 1/19th the accounting errors. This however, doesn't fit in with the agenda to praise publically run programs and criticize the capitalist system. There was however one exception to this, and that is the Wall Street Journal. Think of how this bodes for society as a whole - if you succeed, the government will classify you as being too successful, and implement a windfall profit tax on you as we've heard will happen to the oil companies. However, if you fail, the government will bail you out, thus giving no incentive to improve. Ironically, this exemplifies one of the major themes of Barack Obama's political message. Obama constantly tells us how hard it is to succeed in this environment. However, if things are so bad, how was he able to succeed? On the contrary, if someone with a background and life story as his, with a father from Kenya and being raised by a single mother can succeed, then this only proves the American dream exists. Barack Obama knows this, but as a very intelligent politician, he also knows that he can't win the election unless he can convince the American people they can't succeed as he did.

With a little less than two months until the election, I'm adding a new feature to the site - that being predictions of the Electoral College from each state, each Monday, until election day. Without further adieu, here's the inagural map:

This map is essentially the same as the 2004 election, with the exception of New Mexico and Iowa flipping for Democrats. It puts the race at 274 - 264 in favor of the GOP, which I realize is counter-intuitive to many of the other maps being shown on CNN and Fox News, but nonetheless, is how I feel the states will fall at this time.

I didn't bother to label any of these states as too close to call, but rather decided to roll the dice. Naturally, I expect to revise the map each week as new information/polling/gut feelings sway my opinions. I don't at this time see the Republicans capturing any additional Democrat states, although Michigan could come in play later in the election, but the Democrats have a great opportunity in both Nevada and Virginia.

Here's something perhaps you weren't expecting me to say... It doesn't matter. Don't have a clue what I'm talking about? There was a big fuss over the "alleged" ban of Sarah Palin going on the Oprah Winfrey show. From the Drudge Report:

Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket! Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. "Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama." One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash! It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin's historic convention speech. Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography. Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment. Developing...

Oprah then responded:

"The item in today's Drudge Report is categorically untrue. There has been absolutely no discussion about having Sarah Palin on my show. At the beginning of this Presidential campaign when I decided that I was going to take my first public stance in support of a candidate, I made the decision not to use my show as a platform for any of the candidates. I agree that Sarah Palin would be a fantastic interview, and I would love to have her on after the campaign is over."

While Obama was on the show, and arguably used the appearance as part of his jump towards the presidency, his appearance was before he announced his run. In addition, she's come out wholeheartedly for Obama, which wasn't all that unexpected considering the many similarities the two share. While the election is still in session, a Palin appearance on her show would have a high amount of tension, since everyone on Oprah's show knows she supported Obama. Finally, and the most important point in my book - It's Oprah's show dammit! She has every right to allow who she wants on the show or not, no matter how dumb the decision may appear. A couple things may transpire because of this - Oprah, sensing her core audience wants to see Palin, will cave in. However, she may stick to her principles, and not have any candidate on her show until after the election. This works beautifully for Oprah, in that if Obama/Biden win, then it will be a "nice try, sweetie" type show, while if McCain/Palin wins, Palin might not have time to come on the show with the new responsibilities the VP job would entail and the preparation required before inauguration. Personally, I see Oprah the businesswoman making the decision, rather than Oprah the politician. This is where she invites Sarah Palin on the show, because not doing so now makes her look like a political hack, and alienates half of her viewers, just like her endorsement of Obama originally hurt her ratings a bit.

Well, the amount of viewers Sarah Palin received didn't really surprise me, but the Nielsen ratings for McCain did... As the title implies, the Democrats will find excuses as to why McCain could have possibly garnered a larger audience. You know, the same smarmy, pretentious ones who refer to John McCain as "Johnny." Don't worry, you're entitled to your viewpoints, and Republicans have the same smarmy, pretentious folks as well - those that refer to Barack Obama as Barack Hussein Obama or Joe Biden as "Joey." In any event, the Democrats will have a couple arguments regarding the numbers given:

• McCain got a huge boost from the NFL game on NBC
• Nielsen doesn't factor in PBS, and doing so puts Obama over the top

Here's the issue with each of these - While McCain did give his speech immediately after the NFL game, there was no net change from the NBC averages of the previous night. In fact, Republicans were worried that the NFL game would push back the speech later into the night, thus having many potential viewers go to sleep. The PBS argument, while valid when presented at face value, overlooks some important details. The ratings throughout the DNC were from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo. The RNC did not have any coverage from BET or TV One, and the Univision and Telemundo coverage was only during the final hour of the night. On a side note to this, why Nielsen would rate BET, but not PBS or C-Span is beyond me. Don't the cable and satellite providers automatically have info over what customers are tuned into what channel on their box for statistics? Here's my take on all of this - McCain getting more viewers for his speech than Obama is a surprise. The other surprise I had was that the RNC actually averaged more viewers per night than the DNC at a 34.5 to 30.2 million viewers. This could also be taken a couple ways - first, the Republicans only had three days in the convention, rather than the scheduled four, due to Hurricane Gustav. This allowed them to cram in more "headline" speakers into a shorter time frame. In addition, while Sarah Palin's speech boosted numbers for the GOP, Joe Biden's speech night actually lost viewers from the night before when Hillary spoke. Because the conventions were a different amount of time, it isn't comparing apples to apples and therefore, isn't a realistic comparison. What the pure numbers show, however, is that a McCain-Palin ticket has just as much attention from the American people as the Obama-Biden one does, if not more. Regardless of what the pundits and partisans say, we've got a tight race on our hands and the next two months will be very exciting for political junkies.

Even with all the hype, Sarah Palin delivered a knockout speech. I was a bit leery after finding out she would be writing the speech herself, rather than allow a speechwriter to do so. But perhaps we underestimated that small town governor with no experience... For all the talking down of her credentials, people still turned in, with 37.2 million viewers according to Nielsen. As I predicted yesterday, the speech easily blew by the 30 million viewers I originally foretold. It didn't surpass Obama's record setting 38.4 million viewers, but as I mentioned, by getting a viewership of greater than 35 million, the Obama camp is worried. And while she didn't surpass Obama, she edged by Biden's speech with the wee margin of 13.2 million, a 55% increase in viewers. MSNBC's resident jackass Keith Olbermann summed it up best:

Case, I think, closed. If that speech was to be more about tone than content, pitch-perfect. If it was supposed to be more about content than tone, pitch-perfect. If that was supposed to be friendliness and what they call accessibility, couldn’t have done it better. Couldn’t have done it better.

He then went on to add:

It’s wonderful. It really was terrific. And notice—did you notice that throughout that, especially as it built towards its conclusion, the women in that convention hall, the ones we saw at least, we can’t say every one was this way, but there were tears throughout among the women. And it was not a maudlin speech, it was not a—it was not a salesmanship speech, there was just a—I know, I’m beginning to sound borderline sycophantic on this.

Of course, Keith Olbermann wouldn't say a thing like that about Sarah Palin's speech. Didn't you know, she's got an "R" next to her name. No, those comments were about Michelle Obama's speech last week at the DNC. Before blasting her for criticizing the media, CNN had something positive to say:

Well, let's just start with an obvious point that I don't think anyone has made yet. This speech was a heck of a lot better than Joe Biden's speech. I mean, it just was much more dramatic, much more interesting, much more entertaining.

You can watch the speech right here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCDxXJSucF4[/youtube]

I just saw a blurb on Drudge Report, comparing the ratings of the DNC's second night versus that of the RNC. Recall that DNC had Hillary Clinton as a headliner. Ratings were very high, with just under 26 million viewers. Compared to 21.5 million for day two of the RNC, I have to believe they are very pleased with the results - there were no headliners speaking yesterday, and the convention was still slow to pickup after Hurricane Gustav. In any event, tonight is THE night for the RNC. Forget about John McCain's speech for the time being. Tonight has the big speakers - Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and the most important - Sarah Palin. Barack Obama's historic speech had 38.4 million viewers. After talking with friends and family, Democrat and Republican alike - they are all interested in seeing the Palin speech. Drudge briefly had the headline:

All Eyes on Sarah; Nets Prepare for Record Audience

Now, the ratings matter for one very good reason in my book - If the ratings are near that, or surpassing that of Obama's speech, it will not guarantee anything with the election, but it will show that the Republican ticket has officially got the mojo back is was missing. Demographics hint that the Palin speech could indeed have those ratings. Lets face it, women outnumber African-Americans by a large margin in the country, and many of us are too young to remember the last time a Woman was in this position, as Geraldine Ferraro was in 1984. Yes, Hillary was close this year, but she wasn't actually on the ticket. I expect the Palin speech tonight to push the night over 30 million viewers. Should it push that number to 35 million, the Obama camp should be extremely worried by the shift in momentum - not in the polls, but in the interest of Americans. If it somehow *gasp* passes the Obama speech which was so lauded in the media, the Democrats will officially have wet themselves. Of course, this is dependent on Palin delivering a rousing speech. Anything other than contempt from the media will be a success for someone who they are looking for any reason to claim failure, which is shown from all of the shameless attacks. This is the make or break night for Republicans. Either McCain was a genius, or we've all been played the fool.

Hat tip to Neowin...

Google has released the very first beta of their new web browser, Google Chrome. Chrome is a browser that, for now at least, is focused on offering a full browsing experience within a minimalistic user interface. To skip past the P.R. phrasing, Google Chrome is designed to be simple to use without sacrificing any of the features required for daily web browsing. To get a little more in depth, Google Chrome uses the same rendering engine as Apple's Safari browser, named Webkit. In recent history, the developers of Webkit have made great strides in creating what is, as of today, the fastest browser engine in terms of rendering speed. Google Chrome, currently version 0.2.149.27, seems to use a slightly older build of Webkit (version 525.13, to be precise), however, so some of the recent Webkit development gains will not have made it into the first release of the browser. Other features of Chrome include a dynamic tab system which allows you to drag and drop tabs inside and outside of the browser window, an "incognito mode" in which the sites you visit are not added to your browsing history, and a feature similar to Opera's Speed Dial, in which you are presented with your nine most visited websites, in thumbnail form, when opening a new tab. If you wish to give Google Chrome a try, click the download link below. It's an early beta, though, so don't expect it to be perfect.

Link: Google Chrome Screenshot: View I've actually posted this entry via Google Chrome and find it to be decent for a beta (although isn't everything Google does always in beta?) but it misses some key things like the Firefox extensions such as AdBlock Plus...

The newest political argument seems to be that of experience - the experience of Presidential Candidate Barack Obama versus Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin. Palin's claim is simple - She started her political career in 1992 - four years before Barack Obama began his is 1996. Obama's claim to more experience is that his is more relevant, whereas Palin's tenure as a mayor doesn't matter as much. So which one is more experienced? That all depends on who you want to believe. Those in the McCain camp will undoubtedly say Palin, while those in the Obama camp will side with Barack. The only voices that matter are the independents who will decide the race, however. I'm a statistical oriented person, so from pure experience I'm inclined to say Palin, my support for the McCain-Palin ticket notwithstanding. A couple of thoughts though to put this into perspective. Sarah Palin isn't running for President - John McCain is. To make a valid comparison, you need to compare apples to apples. The whole premise of this argument doesn't knock Palin's credentials, but lowers those of Obama. By getting sucked into an argument comparing the Democratic #1 to the Republican #2, it elevates McCain above them both - naturally, otherwise the roles of Palin and McCain would be reversed. It also diminishes the idea of Joseph Biden, since he isn't talked about either. The other argument I hear is that she is only a "heartbeat away from the Presidency." Well, if she is being compared to Obama, then he doesn't even need a heartbeat, since he'll be there if voted in. The notion that Biden will be there for advice is also invalid because if, God forbid, something was to happen to a sitting President McCain, then Palin would select a capable Vice President as well. Democrats are trying so hard to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, that they've simply looked at best foolish - by falling for arguments such as this - to downright mean - for making up allegations claimign Palin's son is really her grandson (albeit false) and then prying into the family life to find out her seventeen year old daughter actually is pregnant.