The Vice Presidential LP

ROCHESTER - Two related topics to cover here one a VP hopeful and one an ex-VP hopeful. So, in honor of the upcoming appearance of Riders on the Storm (featuring original Doors members Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek) in Rochester, I offer two 'sides' to this blog LP, inspired by the Doors' best studio album, Morrison Hotel.

SIDE A-Hard Rock Cafe-If Joe Lieberman was in the mafia instead of politics, he would be sleeping with the fishes. Or at least he should be. Right now he has turned informant, and will become a man with no country. I don't think he can ever be accepted by the Republicans, and I don't think he can ever regain the trust of Democrats. His speech was little more than a holier than thou enterprise to a lukewarm audience. Telling a distinctly partisan crowd the benefits of being non-partisan is a little silly at best. Sure, we all like a kiss ass. They tell us things we want to hear. But who believes or trusts a kiss ass? No one. Explaining his Michael Moore joke was downright sad and completely unnecessary. The crowd got it Joe, it just wasn't that funny. I can see why Al Gore chose this guy though, as he makes Gore look like Bill Clinton.

SIDE B-Morrison Hotel-Oh those hypocritical Republicans! For a party that once touted (correctly) George H.W. Bush as the 'longest resume in the West', Governor Sarah Palin is an interesting choice as certainly she has the shortest resume in the country. Not that VPs win or lose elections (as the aforementioned Bush proves), but I think they can have some effect if they are either really good choices, or really poor ones. I think Palin is the latter. For one, if they are to hammer Obama for being inexperienced, how can they have someone with less experience than he on their ticket? Furthermore, she is from a small town in a small (population wise) state. If she had been governor of California, Texas, New York or Pennsylvania, that might be okay. But two years in Alaska isn't too impressive, and I am not alone in thinking so. Add to that she has investigative baggage. She may or may not have abused her gubernatorial powers, but the fact she is under investigation should send the Republicans running away. I also don't buy her as a maverick. Fred Thompson says she stood up to the special interests in Alaska. Am I the only one that hasn't a clue to what that means? Dog sledders? Loggers? Crabbers? Honestly, I don't know. It could be true (although mixed in with Thompson's fragmented 1980's style stump speech doesn't give it great credence), but it sounds too generic for my taste. Just for good measure, she is tangled up in questionable lobbying and earmark practices, maybe including support for the famed 'Bridge to Nowhere.' I don't doubt this stuff came up when they searched her background, and altogether they amount to a whole lot, but with these flaws she was still the best choice? It begs the question, exactly how many candidates said no to McCain first?

I am glad Republicans are trying to be progressive, and I could care less about her family's personal issues, but I think she is a stretch for a party so adept at playing it safe. I just hope the debate centers around her amazing inexperience and avoids the tabloid junk that can give her sympathy. I also hope the media and country see McCain for what he really is, a power hungry kiss ass, trying to say what you want to hear until he gets what he wants.