I note that neither you, HamboneWilkins, nor Red Molly, offered a reason why Governer Sebelius is the best choice. If you and/or Red Molly believe that she is, would you please make the case? There is no sarcasm in that request. I would really like to hear your perspective on why she would be the best vice presidential nominee.

Can I play?

She has executive experience that Obama would lack with any running mate from Congress. She has terrific experience campaigning and winning as a Democrat in a Republican stronghold, without turning into a Blue Dog Democrat. She's an exceptionally good retail level politician, which is good for a veep candidate because they spend most of the campaign out of the media spotlight. She'll make Kansas more competitive and help Obama a little in Missouri, which might be all it takes to win that state. She can speak with authority on the problems with health insurance and she's got a track record of winning for consumers against the big for-profit insurers.

Her strengths compliment Obama's weaknesses and vice-versa. She's not the best in any one area, she has a couple small weaknesses of her own, but no one that I'm aware of brings a better total package to the table.

Now a question for you, and I'm equally sincere. Do you think Hillary Clinton could win a national election with what two of her brothers did in 2000 as Bill was on his way out? Hugh and Tony Rodham each took six-figure payments from convicted felons who were trying to get pardons from Bill. Those people got their pardons, some over the objections of the DOJ. In 2001, when it came out, the Rodham's said they had repaid the money but last year a $100K payment made to Tony in 2000 came up in a bankruptcy case because it had not been repaid.

Have a look at these stories:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E4D71F38F932A35750C0A9679C8B63

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/06/america/NA-GEN-US-Hillary-Clinton-Brother.php

Not one word has been said about this in the press this year because none of Clinton's opponents in the primary made an issue of it and the Republicans were uncharacteristically quiet about a potential Clinton scandal. But the facts are on the table: Hillary's brothers took six-figure "consulting payments" and loans from people seeking presidential pardons. The brothers personally lobbied Bill Clinton about the pardons, and he granted them sometimes over the objections of his own DOJ.

I don't see how this does not become a massive liability in a national election if an opponent chooses to make an issue of it. This is the kind of thing you dream about finding on your opponent if you want to run that kind of campaign. It's also the kind of thing that keeps you off of VP nominee list.

But that's my take. Do you think the Republicans would continue to ignore this if Obama taps Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and do you think voters wouldn't care?

Take that art and put it under the American Spectator or Newsmax logo. Would it still be satire? No, it would just be everything the right wing believes about Obama in one convenient drawing.

It only becomes satire when you connect it with the New Yorker's reputation for being a leftist magazine - it is using myths about the Obama's to satirize the New Yorker, not the other way around.

And before Kamiya breaks his pearls over the liberals losing their sense of humor, let some national magazine run a cartoon of John McCain asking for more torture in Hanoi because he wants to run for president someday and see what the Fat Junkie has to say about that.

EOM.

If they know of any evidence that would show he has stolen votes or violated any election statute, let them report it to the state law enforcement authorities. And if they don't, perhaps they will at last have the decency to shut up.

We could only wish.

Joe, I miss hearing you on Franken's show. After he announced he was leaving, I was hoping you would get the job. Of course, you probably hope to work at a place where you can depend on a regular check...

Everyone should check out The Rude Pundit's comment on Franken. (http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/al-franken-lives-for-our-sins-lets-face.html)

He's not a lock for reelection in 2010. His approval numbers in Arizona are in the low fifties and the Republican base that has never liked him thinks he's vulnerable.

The only chance the Dems had to knock him off evaporated when Janet Napolitano became Obama's Director of Homeland Security. But he's very vulnerable to a primary challenge. The hardcore base of the GOP has never trusted McCain and they think this year is their best chance to get rid of him. McCain will have the fight of his life if former congressman JD Heyworth decides to challenge him.

I think he's being a jerk in an attempt to thwart that challenge.

Media Matters caught last week where Juan Williams went on The O'Reilly Factor and compared the murder of George Tiller to civil disobedience in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906150041)

What MMA missed is that Williams earlier made the same ridiculous claim on Diane Rehm's NPR-syndicated show three days earlier and made the same insane comparison, with barely more than a raised eyebrow from Rehm or the two other beltway reporters on the panel. (http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/06/05.php#26846 - the insanity starts at 38:18)

I swear to God, if NPR applied its standard of balance for conservatives to stories about child molestation, they'd include spokesmen from NAMBLA for a non-confrontational explanation of their side of the issue.