We're been waiting for... this?!?

This one gave me a laugh in the middle of a very hectic day - a just-released ad from the McCain campaign, telling us that McCain is "the president we've been waiting for." I find it interesting and just a bit sleazy that McCain uses footage from his time as a POW in Vietnam. He's a hero, and I'm not questioning whether he is or not, but I AM pointing out the hypocrisy in the Republican ranks; after all, John Kerry was vilified for bringing up his Vietnam service during the '04 race.

But hey, we all know from experience that Republican opinions don't transfer from one election to another. After all, Bill Clinton's draft dodging was fodder for the GOP cannon in 1992, but in 2000 then-candidate George Bush "served his country" by dodging the draft and "serving" in the Texas Air National Guard, leapfrogging over hundreds of men on the waiting list.

We're already seeing it this year, too; now, McCain's experience counts for everything in the world, but Bush's inexperience was "no big deal" in 2000. I will always feel for and admire McCain for surviving in the hellhole called the Hanoi Hilton, but I fail to see how being a POW for five years makes you an expert on foreign affairs. And based on his comments last week, the proof is in the pudding. This is a guy that's gotten everything wrong about Iraq, but now we're to believe everything he says?

Preposterous.

Bloomberg dumps GOP; Will he run?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the latest candidate for the 2008 presidential election who's running by not running, joining Al Gore and Fred Thompson.

On Wednesday, Bloomberg left the Republican Party, changing his party affiliation to "Independent."

However, immediately after doing so, he immediately declared that he has no intention of running for president, but of course he didn't slam the door shut, much less lock it with a dead bolt.

I've written it before - honestly, I do hope that he runs. I really want a viable third-party candidate, and Bloomberg seems as good as third-party candidate as any. He's a moderate who is beholden to no one, and he has the courage to take on big issues: global warming, stem-cell research, traffic problems, smoking bans in public places and tough choices on traffic, just to name a few.

Of course he's running. Why else would have change his party affiliation? He won't be running for reelection as mayor of NYC, and a man of Bloomberg's stature and wealth isn't going to run for governor of New York or any other state. Running for president is the logical choice.

He's smart to not declare right now. He can wait until next year because he doesn't have to go through all of the insane fund raising that the Republican and Democratic candidates have to endure. And, he leaving himself an out if he's really happy with the Democratic and/or the Republican presumptive candidate by early next year.

It's pretty entertaining to hear all of the talking heads on television saying he would have a "steep uphill battle," as I heard one put it the other day. Really? With $500 million (or more) that he'll deposit into this campaign account?

I'm already sick to death of the Ross Perot comparisons. Bloomberg is no Perot - he's got Perot's money, but unlike Perot in '92, Bloomberg has held elective office, and he actually has some ideas, not just Perot's empty, boastful blarney.

Best of all, if Bloomberg is elected, he'll owe very few, if any favors to big business and donors with deep pockets, because he will not have pimped himself for campaign cash.

I really hope that 2008 turns out to be 1992 all over again, in more ways than one. Bloomberg's entry into the race will be a very good thing.

AP Photo

My 2¢ on coverage of Hillary's announcement

I woke up to the news this Saturday morning that former first lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton threw her hat into the 2008 presidential race. I've written before at length (and I'll no doubt say it more than a few more times) that I have mixed emotions on her candidacy; there's no doubt that her name on any ballot will drive conservative morons crazy, such as Jerry Falwell (a.k.a. the great Satan) and his brother Pat Robertson; Bill O'Lielly; Rush Limbaugh (just hearing the news probably prompted him to take another 6 or 8 blue M&Ms); and all the rest.

Ultimately, I feel her candidacy will be good for the political process, though, whether she wins or not. She's one of the biggest leaders of the Democratic Party, and she'll bring on a lot of important ideas to the discourse of the 2008 race.

But, the garbage political coverage has already begun. I won't bore you with a recap of it all, save one example - MSNBC's mid-day coverage on Saturday.

Before I get to that, I have a confession to make - 1. I rarely ever watch cable news broadcasts these days - the coverage is atrocious, they focus on the superficial and idiotic, and I don't find them that informative, and 2. Of all of the cable news channels, MSNBC is the only channel I can stomach, but at times just barely. The lone bright spots seem to be Joe Scarborough and, of course, Keith Olbermann.

Just when I think that MSNBC isn't so bad, along comes Contessa Brewer (left), an MSNBC anchor who used to read the news for Imus in the Morning. (I won't even get started on Don Imus.)

Her coverage on Saturday primarily focused on two things (and I'm not exaggerating) - the Whitewater "scandal," and Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. My first thought after watching about 10 minutes of this coverage was "Are you f------ kidding me?!?" I kept waiting for Brewer to get to the real story - that for the first time in our nation's history, a first lady was running for president. I could have waited hours, but I could only stomach about 45 minutes of her ranting and sewage about the Clinton administration's lowlights.

A stupid land deal, where the Clintons were ultimately acquitted of any wrongdoing, and an affair with a White House intern (and a consensual one at that). In the wake of 9-11 and all that our current president has done to royally screw this country for at least a few generations to come, spending even one minute on dead-and-buried political witch hunts is a profound waste of time, but then again, so is watching MSNBC.

So, I did what any sane, educated American would - I changed the channel. Brewer should go back to reading the news for recovering cocaine addicts and leave the real reporting to people who focus on real issues.

But, Hillary's coverage from this past weekend is certainly a harbinger of things to come. We are in for an onslaught of superficial media coverage, focusing on things that most voters care little or nothing about.

And Hillary won't be the only one who has to endure this kind of coverage. Barack Obama (above, outside his future residence?) has also had to tolerate similar blarney, most notably about his confessed drug use during his teenage years. I've also said multiple times, and I'll repeat it once more -- Obama has been a lot more forthright and honest than President Bush has been about his alleged drug use.

I can't wait for the primaries to begin, but I also dread it, too.

Hearing Hillary announce her candidacy had me thinking back to 1992, when President Clinton was elected. It was the first election I was eligible to vote in, and I was very politically active - I couldn't wait to vote against President George H.W. Bush, and it was a thrill when Clinton won.

Above, Hillary and Bill Clinton on election night, 1992. I think I speak for millions when I say that I was so full of hope when he was elected. Personally, it was a time of political naïveté for me, though.

I'm sure the Clintons would say the same - both were also marked by naïveté when they moved into the White House, but no more. Above, Hillary testifies on Capitol Hill before a committee on health care reform. President Clinton put her in charge of getting universal health care legislation passed, and it backfired, big time, due in large part to the railroading of Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. Remember those two? Yea, I'm trying to forget, too.

The million dollar question that the Clintons will have to answer is what role will the former president have if Hillary triumphs? I'm sure the radical Republican religious right already has some made-for-hate radio answers on Bill's role. I look forward to hearing them, and laughing at them, too. How long do you think it will be before Pat Robertson is leading a prayer group, begging for Hillary's defeat?