The Democrats had an historic moment last night. But today Republicans dunked the ball right over their heads, stealing their thunder and effectively ripping the change mantra right out of the Obama - Biden ticket's clutches with the selection of Sarah Palin as the running mate for Senator John McCain.

The pick is brilliant. Palin is smart, successful, youthful and irreverent; the complete opposite of Obama's choice for VP, Joe Biden, a Washington insider. Democrats will try and say she is unexperienced. I say, let them try. Their top of the ticket is anything but seasoned. Palin presents another challenge for Democrats: it's very tough to go negative on a competent, popular woman. Plus the media has been accused of using sexism to sink Clinton's bid making the press very sensitive to any criticism. Any hints of sexism this time around will be seized on and aggressively shot down.

Her resume is impressive: she's run against corruption in her state and she embodies the American woman: a mother, a professional, a leader, trying to balance work and family with the pressures of every day. She can talk about the challenges of raising five kids with the girls and talk fishing with the boys. With a handicapped son she's had to be stronger than most mothers. I know this because my mother raised my brother, an autistic child. I believe these truly special children are given to truly special people.

She represents the future of the Republican party. A pioneer and a role model who can make conservatism cool again. She's solidly pro-life and pro-growth, without the staid, stuffy image the GOP has long carried. Palin will help solidify conservative support behind McCain while at the same time reinforce his Maverick, un-cola, un-Bush reputation. Talk about firing on all cylinders.

With millions of disaffected female voters, thanks to the failed Presidential bid of Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin presents a tremendous opportunity for Republicans. Obama is only leading McCain with women voters by a few points, when he should be far ahead with the colossal constituency that is a majority in our country.

While Democrats try to readjust their dropped jaws they should also cover their heads. The glass ceiling has just been shattered.

Tonight was all about Bill Clinton. But not in the obvious way you think. There was speculation that the former President was was going to make his convention speech very self-centered. And like his wife the night before, offer generic compliments and a luke warm endorsement for Barack Obama. We heard reports that camp Obama had given Clinton a topic and he didn't like it. He wanted to do his own thing. So they backed off and agreed to let slick Willy be himself. "Will he talk all about his record on the economy??" they worried.

Half of that is true. He offered a more convincing endorsement, but Bill still made sure he looked like a superstar. Why? Because Bill saw an opportunity to be the healer, the uniter and the hero of Democrats. For the last 72 hours the news stories have been focused on a party divided. If Bill mimicked his wife, he'd be just like his wife. And we know Bill can't be just like Hillary. And he'd be just like everyone else who won't come together and come to grips with reality. And Bill Clinton is not like everyone else. Noooooo waaay.

After tonight political pundits will say Bill went out of his way to endorse Obama and Democrats will praise him. This sentiment is already seeping onto TV:

Al Sharpton on the speech: "He went way beyond expectations tonight."

Howard Dean: "We just got an endorsement from the only one who knows what it's like to be President." (Someone should alert Howie that there are 42 others.) Fortune's Nina Easton: "Bill Clinton knew exactly what to say to these folks. It was better than I've heard from the Obama campaign." This is just the start. He will be revered because he didn't talk about his legacy instead stressing why Obama deserves his own legacy. Why is this worthy of adoration and gratitude?? In point of fact, Bill should have been behind Obama from the start. No Democrat should have to thank a former Democratic President of the United States for his late in the game alignment with his party's nominee.

In a very indirect way, Bill's speech made Hillary look pretty darn bad after she looked pretty damn good last night. Why couldn't Hillary say what Bill did? Did Hillary not exceed expectations? Did Hillary not deliver what her husband could? She can't can't unite like he can. She's still bitter. She's no Bill. And so on and so on...

If Dems come together, Bill will take the credit. It was him who brought the DNC to coagulate. It was him who made the case for Obama, despite his inexperience because HE faced the same criticism. And look what HE did for America. That was his goal tonight. To be the game changer, the turning point. To be the only person at the convention--or at least the first--to get the party on the same page like nobody else could.

Clinton said that this is Obama's time to be on the right side of history. That may hold true for tomorrow night with Barack's coronation. But for tonight, like it always has been, it was about Bill making sure that he was on the right side of history.

It was probably tough to tell watching from home, but the most deafening applause during Michelle Obama's speech followed her line about Hillary Clinton. I'm sure it was tough for Mrs. Obama to deliver. Hillary had some pretty harsh words for her husband that could be tough to forget.

Though Michelle is the candidate's wife, she wasn't exactly a show stealer. But that was the point. Because she is plagued by the militant black woman perception, she had to be anything but. Her speech was another action item in her effort at a political makeover. (Innocuous, predicable speech at convention - CHECK!)

The hype surrounding Hillary's speech tonight is warranted. However, I don't think there is anything Clinton can say to sway her dissatisfied supporters at this stage in the game. Her kind words will be more about her doing due diligence to quash the rumors she's still sour. If only we could hook her up to a polygraph and watch that needle move. Because believe it: there is no question that the reports of discord among Democrats is very real, despite the spin. And for good reason. They want her to run in 2012. She wholeheartedly concurs.

Talk about timing. Today is Women's Equality Day and the 88th anniversary of women obtaining the right to vote. Her speech will be preceeded by female Democratic Senators touting the accomplishments of their sex. So Hillary doesn't have to praise her own candidacy, she can simply talk about the importance of shattering the glass ceiling. And on such a significant day for women in America, how can anyone feasibly criticize her for that?? [insert sarcastic tone here.]

Clinton will fill a gaping void tonight. Quite a few pundits are calling the first day of the convention a wasted opportunity. As the McCain camp pounds away at Obama, his camp does little to reciprocate, frustrating many Democrats who are urging Obama to learn from John Kerry's mistakes and fight back. Enter Hillary, stage left. She'll take biting swipes at McCain and the Republican establishment. I predict she'll do so well playing the heroine/attack dog that it will inevitably invoke buyer's remorse among Democrats. At a time when they need buy-in the most.

Tonight, all Hillary has to do is look better than Barack. And gauging from his lackluster performances over the last few weeks, that won't be too tough.

I'll be doing my regular spot with Bob Beckel from Denver today, Monday, at 10:30am ET on Fox. I'll be on Fox the rest of the week as follows: Tuesday, 8/26, 8:45am ET Tuesday, 8/26, 7:15pm ET Wednesday, 8/27, 1pm ET Thursday, 8/28, 6:15am ET

The last few months have been nothing but one massive speculation game surrounding possible McCain running mates worthy of a chart that resembles that of March Madness.

The first bracket was comprised of Beltway-perpetuated bores: South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Former Massachusetts Governor Pitt Romney and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. ZZZZZZZZZ. Get me a Red Bull please.

The names slowly progressed into exciting, exotic prospects: Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (female), Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (Indian), and Rep. Eric Cantor (Jewish).

The third wave was more believable, but each had their own controversy: Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge (pro-choice), NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent) and the most jaw dropping, Senator Joe Lieberman (not at all a Republican).

As we close in on the final four, we've somehow made it back to the snoozers on that first bracket, which begs the question: were these atypical, arousing names ever really a prospect at all? Not exactly...

McCain needs Independents and Reagan Democrats to win. So he gives names of pro-choice moderates--even Democrats--to give the appearance he is pragmatic, bipartisan, and willing to compromise. After weeks of chattering, people start to believe the hype. But McCain also needs the Republican base to win, a group that will be unhappy about Ridge and border on apoplectic with a Bloomberg or Lieberman selection. Thus these choices will never materialize into anything but urban political legend.

In roughly a week don't bet on being too shocked. Mr. Maverick is not going to venture off into some unchartered Republican territory like pundits predict. McCain will play it McSafe.

 

 

 

 

People have been chattering for weeks that Obama needs to start fighting back. What they meant was fight MCCAIN, not the pro-life movement.

Here's the back story: The solidly pro-choice candidate told Pastor Rick Warren on Saturday during a forum at Saddleback Church in Orange County, CA, that he is in favor of limits on late-term abortions provided exceptions are made for the mother's health. (Note: For all of you that think this is a pragmatic position, it's not. True lefties use the phrase "health of the mother" instead of the stronger "life of the mother" so that women who wake up feeling blue in their third trimester can get an abortion. Feeling gloomy in the minds of far left liberals could be bad for their "health.")

B.O. followed that forum with an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said the National Right to Life Committee was “lying” about his voting record in the Illinois Senate.

The committee says Obama worked in the Illinois Senate to kill legislation “virtually identical” to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was intended to extend legal rights to an infant born even after an attempted abortion.

“I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying,” Obama said in the interview. “I have said repeatedly that I would have been … fully in support of the federal bill … that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born — even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion.” (To give you an idea of the politics around the federal bill, it passed the House overwhelmingly 305-15.)

But he said that was not the bill presented at the state level. Obama said that bill was trying to “undermine” Roe v. Wade and that the Illinois legislature already had a law in place to ensure life-saving treatment is administered to infants.

The NRTL is taking Obama to task. It released a statement Monday saying: “Senator Barack Obama’s four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions continues to unravel.” The Obama camp has since admitted they botched the history of the legislation.

Whether you believe Obama is lying or the converse, let's assess the situation from a political, not policy standpoint:

1. Obama doesn't appear to have his story straight on a very decisive issue. He cannot get bogged down on this topic if he wants to win. A majority of Americans aren't on the radical fringe of the abortion issue. This battle draws more attention to his record and gets him way off message.

2. He has a 100 percent rating from NARAL. You don't get that kind of perfect score as a moderate, middle-of-the-roader. Though he's trying to frame himself in that light, his record speaks for itself. Obama opposed the partial-birth bill that passed the House and the Senate and has criticized the Supreme Court for upholding the law.

3. This is a nightmare for the Democratic Presidential nominee. Conservatives may not have been planning on voting for him, but they may not have been aroused at the idea of John McCain either. Obama just handed them a reason to coalesce around McCain on a silver platter. Timing couldn't be worse for Barry, and better for his opponent.

3A. Launching a concerted effort to garner support among conservatives doesn't generally work when you impune the right to life crowd on Christian programming. Who's next, the NRA???

4. This screams rookie mistake (or borderline idiocy). Candidates must be mindful to get their past positions in order, particularly before they do a forum that focuses largely on religion. If you're nervous about them, take a cue from Rudy and come clean. Or say nothing. It's one thing to change your position and give good reason for it. It's another to distort it, play dumb or have to later admit that you weren't familiar with your own record.

Choice may be the issue that ultimately sinks Obama--and I don't mean abortion. When voters head to the polls it may be that they exercise their right to choose a candidate that's not so extreme, or so extremely injudicious.

I'll be on Hannity and Colmes tonight 9pm on Fox.

I'll be guest co-hosting Brian and the Judge on Fox News Radio Monday, August 18th from 9am - noon. You can listen to the show online at foxnews.com/radio/brianandthejudge or on Sirius channel 145.

They just can't get over it. Months after Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for President many in her camp and millions of her supporters are still in denial over their unhappy ending. Perhaps Democrats can't unite because Senator Clinton didn't acknowledge Barack Obama won the nomination the night he cinched victory, or because she has merely suspended her campaign and her supporters are planning protests in Denver. Maybe it's because her husband still hasn't thrown his full support behind Obama (When asked last week if he thought Obama was ready to be President, Clinton responded, "You can argue that nobody is ready to be President." Gee, thanks, Bill!) If Hillary and her hubby aren't 100 percent believably behind Barack, her camp sure as hell won't be. As my Greek father always says, "the fish stinks from the head."

Despite our looming suspicion that she's still not thrilled about her defeat, her former Communications Director, Howard Wolfson, cemented that hypothesis. Wolfson recently speculated on Fox News that had John Edwards' extramarital affair been revealed earlier and actually covered by the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton would be the candidate accepting the nomination in Denver later this month.

As an aside, if I hadn't lost my gymnastics competition when I was seven by one tenth of a point I'd be getting ready to mount the uneven bars in the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Wolfson continued, "The details about the affair would have forced Edwards out of the race and Clinton would have become the Democratic nominee... Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people."

Get him some group therapy.

Political strategists are often forced to deal in hypotheticals, and Wolfson is correct in saying that to some degree Edwards siphoned support from Clinton. However, when a former campaign communications director--not pundit, not surrogate--says his candidate would have won the nomination two weeks away from the party's convention and best opportunity to solidify, someone should drug test him for hallucinogens.

Attention Clinton camp: Hillary lost because she was too busy measuring the West Wing for new carpets instead of worrying about the new kid on the block formerly known as Barry. Apparently, reality doesn't just bite. It leaves a scar that resists fading.

Paramount to Wolfson's delusions, where's the unity? The healing? The "cumbaya" moments Democrats promised America postmortem? Their party desperately needs a group hug or some trust falls, and Clinton supporters need a serious come to Jesus. That still hasn't happened. But why?

A) Are the Clintonites sore losers?

B) Hoping to secure a spot as Vice President in the eleventh hour?

C) Hoping for a McCain win so she can run again?

D) All of the above.

I'm going with D. Call it a gut feeling.

Truth be told this is fun stuff for Republicans to watch. The more the Clintonites continue to live in a perpetual state of shoulda, coulda, woulda, the more it hurts their party and Obama's chances in November. Democrats are finally realizing what the GOP has known for years: the Clintons are excellent at division, and even better at arithmetic; 2008 + 4 is 2012, after all.