The next President of United States should not be Barack Obama. This is not to say John McCain is an excellent choice, because he isn't. Instead, this opinion is based on Obama’s record.

    First, Barack Obama is comfortable promulgating his version of neo-morality. Liberal politicians have accused their conservative brethren of trying to impose traditional morality on society for decades. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Obama is guilty of a similar transgression. When he was asked about subtly encouraging young children to view gay and lesbian relationships favorably, the Democrat nominee had no qualms with the idea. Like the conservative politicians liberals often decry, Mr. Obama is comfortable using the strong arm of the government to promote a particular values system. Apparently the double standard is unimportant.

    Second, Illinois’ junior senator is consistently and exceptionally liberal. Needless to say, conservative groups regularly give him poor marks, while their left-wing counterparts laud his votes. In fact, the National Journal concluded he was the Senate's sixteenth most liberal member in 2005, tenth in 2006, and the most liberal member of the Senate in 2007. Senator Obama's ideology is unmistakable.

    If that were not enough, political scientists Jeff Lewis and Keith Poole conducted an unrelated mathematical analysis of Senate voting patterns in 2007. The tenth most liberal member of that august body was Barack Obama. Given these ratings, it is only natural to assume that the Democratic nominee will bring change, but probably not the change many moderate voters expected.  

    Third, candidate Obama is a highly partisan politician. According to research by Congressional Quarterly, when polarizing issues divided the Senate, Barack Obama voted with his party more than 96% of the time. Is that what change looks like? Hopefully not.

    More importantly, Senator Obama has built his campaign around the message of hope and unity. Now his credibility is in jeopardy. Either Mr. Obama actually believes his one-size fits all approach to polarizing issues will promote hope and unity throughout America, or he is simply misleading voters. Both answers give rise to serious questions about the Senator's credibility, a fact that few voters have noticed.

    In short, Senator Obama is not a new kind of politician, and he will not live up to the hype. Instead, his hypocritical broadmindedness, a left-wing agenda, and the discrepancy between his message of unity and his partisan voting record, will lead open-minded voters to one conclusion: Obama should never occupy the Oval Office.

    In sports as in life, there are real underdogs and perceived underdogs. Governor Sarah Palin fits into the latter category. Some observers contend stage fright may be an issue. They are wrong. Stage fright was not an issue at the Republican convention, and it won't be an issue in Governor Palin's first debate.

    The chattering classes – both Democrats and Republicans – have forgotten the lesson of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: the intricacies of protocol may sometimes prove perplexing, but a fearless commitment to principle can certainly overcome stage fright. Even if this was not true, Sarah Palin has four characteristics that suggest she will succeed.

    Foremost, Governor Palin has the right make-up – and not the kind you buy at the store. A little more than 25 years ago, her high school basketball teammates nicknamed her Sarah Barracuda. Unfortunately for Joe Biden, this is not an irrelevant fact. If the nickname means anything, it means Sarah Palin is tough, intense, and competitive.

    Governor Sarah also has poise and confidence. Maybe this has to do with being a beauty pageant winner, the wife of a commercial fisherman, a small town mayor, or the governor of the largest state in the union. Regardless of it's source, it will serve her well – particularly given Joe Biden's penchant for withering attacks.

    In addition, Governor Palin has proven herself in a debate before. In the Republican gubernatorial primary two years ago, Sarah Palin participated in a debate that featured Frank Murkowski - the sitting governor and longtime senator. The result? She did well – very well.

    Finally, while Joe Biden has spent a majority of his adult life inside the Washington beltway, Palin is an outsider. If she is careful and well prepared, governor Palin will have a chance to turn Joe Biden's experience into an albatross that hangs around his neck.

    With the debate just days away, one candidate might be surprised and uncomfortable, but I doubt it will be Sarah Palin, a great example for young women everywhere.

If, as many pundits expect, Barack Obama wins the Democrat nomination, conventional wisdom says that he needs to balance his presidential ticket with experience, particularly in the foreign policy arena. As far as it goes, conventional wisdom is absolutely correct. In contrast to John McCain, Obama is young, untested, and inexperienced – a cocktail of traits McCain and Republicans won’t let voters forget. However, pundits are sometimes myopic.

Recent political rumors have pointed to Virginia Senator Jim Webb and former Virginia governor Mark Warner as possible running mates for Barack Obama. The presence of either of these men on the Democratic ticket would pose a serious problem for John McCain, perhaps even destroying his chances of winning the general election. 

As the election of 2000 so powerfully reminded Americans, presidential elections are about electoral maps – not raw votes. Hence, while Barack Obama might get more popular votes with an experienced political heavyweight as a Vice President, he might stand a better chance of winning the electoral vote if he could pry Virginia away from the Republicans. Although that has not happened in over 40 years, Jim Webb and Mark Warner could make it happen.

 In 2006, Virginia elected political novice Jim Webb, thereby ousting incumbent Senator George Allen. While the war in Iraq was not the only reason for Webb’s surprising victory (Allen made numerous blunders), it was an important part of it. Furthermore, Senator Webb’s military experience could go a long way to neutralizing McCain’s war-hero status. Virginia’s former Governor Mark Warner would also be a potent Vice Presidential pick: a few years ago he left office as one of the most popular governors in recent memory.

If Virginia’s 13 electoral votes are captured by the Democratic candidate this fall, McCain will be a breath away from presidential oblivion. Not surprisingly, New Mexico and Iowa will hold the key to victory or defeat. In 2000 Al Gore won both states by less than one percent - combined. Likewise, George W. Bush won both states by margins that were almost as slim in 2004. A loss in either New Mexico or Iowa, coupled with a loss in Virginia, will spell the end of John McCain’s presidential ambitions.

            No matter what the pundits and political professionals contend, John McCain’s chances for victory this fall are tenuous, largely because swing states like Virginia. Unfortunately, his political problems are akin to heart trouble. He may feel fine, but the big one could be around the corner. The truth is, if Barack Obama picks a popular Virginian as a running mate, McCain may find himself in the political emergency room election night.       

     When it comes to choosing a Prom King, popularity is overrated. A Prom King only needs to be more popular than each of his competitors. The same is true in presidential politics. Over the years, a handful of presidential elections have resembled the selection of a Prom King – with each candidate backed by a cadre of loyal supporters.

     The 2008 Republican primary is no different, and the end result could be a marginally popular candidate: Rudy Giuliani. Nevertheless, this would not be without precedent. The most outstanding example occurred in the Presidential election of 1912 .

     When Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912, his win was far from convincing. His two main opponents, Theodore Roosevelt and William H. Taft, were favored by a combined 50% of the electorate. Only 42% supported Wilson. Even so, success in the Northeast and South, aided by a fractured opposition, enabled Wilson to turn a tenuous plurality into a stunning victory in the electoral college. Now more than 90 years later, Rudy Giuliani's path to the 2008 Republican nomination bears an eerie resemblance to Wilson's electoral triumph.

     For months, poll results posted on RealClearPolitics.com have indicated that Mayor Giuliani's strongest support comes from Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific coast states. Since a large percentage of the Republican primary delegates reside in these areas, his campaign is on decent footing. Unfortunately for Giuliani, his appeal in the Republican primary is akin to Wilson's popularity in the general election: noteworthy, but not strong enough to garner a majority of the votes. Given this Wilsonian reality, Rudy's campaign has adopted a big-state strategy that seeks to capture delegates, not individual primary votes. But the key to his success is a divided opponent.

     Woodrow Wilson faced two strong opponents in 1912; Giuliani faces four – Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. However, the composition of the race will empower the former mayor the way it benefited Wilson – by splitting the opposition's votes. With five strong Republican candidates currently polling above 11%, Giuliani has a chance to win a handful of relatively early primaries that he would otherwise lose. Not only would this provide the former mayor with vital convention delegates, but it would also make it difficult for an otherwise viable candidate to build the momentum necessary to challenge New York's former mayor.

     Although the aforementioned series of events may seem unlikely, Wilson may have won the presidency because of a similar scenario. According to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, candidate Wilson won 14 states with less than 40% of the popular vote. That was the result of a three way race. Huckabee, McCain, Thompson, and Romney will be Giuliani's Roosevelt and Taft. Critical pundits might suggest that the election of 1912 was an anomaly. It was, but so are presidential primaries when they are compared to the average presidential election.

     Rather than being enthralled with Rudy Giuliani, the vast majority of Republican voters are dissatisfied with his candidacy. Yet unless dissatisfied primary voters quickly rally around an alternative, they can expect Rudy to capture the Republican nomination by conquering the divided. The funny thing is, marginally popular Prom Kings are chosen the same way. Maybe the conservative electorate failed to learn a few important lessons in high school.

    Recently Rudy Giuliani lost a Values Voter straw poll. He was not last, but he lost nonetheless.  Attendees at the Values Voter Summit offered Giuliani an underwhelming level of support: 6.3%.When the online returns were tallied, less than 2% favored the former mayor. While the poll was arguably not representative, the poll numbers, combined with the importance of social conservatives in the Republican party, raise serious questions about Giuliani's electability.

    From the outset of his campaign, Rudy and his advisors have known that social conservatives would be a troublesome constituency. Consequently, supporters of the former mayor have argued that Giuliani's liberal stand on social issues, a weakness in Republican primaries, will actually be strength in the general election. In other words, the support of socially moderate voters will make Giuliani competitive in traditionally Democratic areas. As appealing as it sounds, his status as a second tier candidate among social conservatives makes this assertion tenuous.

    Heretofore, the Giuliani campaign has assumed that the prospect of another President Clinton will keep most uneasy social conservatives inside the Republican fold. The campaign is unduly optimistic. A substantial percentage of Values Voters cast their ballots on the basis of moral principles. These individuals view social issues in terms of right and wrong, a fact that makes it morally impossible to support a socially liberal candidate. Consequently, this traditionally high-turnout voting bloc could easily stay home on Election Day, or defect to a third party. The loss of these critical votes in a handful of key states would severely jeopardize Giuliani’s ability to win a majority in the Electoral College. 

    From a strategic perspective, low turnout among social conservatives in Republican leaning states makes moderate voters critical. For example, in 2004 George W. Bush carried Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and Ohio by minuscule margins. If Giuliani is to retain these states, absent social conservatives must be replaced by the social liberals who shunned George W. Bush. Otherwise, the Democrat nominee will carry these states. Naturally, the scenario is more complex if the state was narrowly carried by John Kerry in 2004. 

    Analysts have pointed out that Rudy could win Democrat-leaning states such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. A definite electoral possibility, these states do however present a serious challenge. If the former mayor looses the support of many social conservatives, he must offset these losses with new votes from the political center. Only then can he search for the additional centrist votes necessary to defeat the Democrat candidate. The question is, does the Giuliani campaign have a message these voters will embrace?  The answer is no.  

      Until now, Rudy has drawn skeptical Republicans into his camp by casting himself as a tough leader who is committed to reducing the size of government – a fine message for the Republican primaries. But if he wins the Republican nomination, his message will not fit the voters he most needs to impress. This message/voter mismatch could doom his bid for the White House. In this regard homeland security and health care reform are illustrative.

    When it comes to homeland security, the former mayor has embraced the sports witticism that the best defense is a good offense. Hence, unlike many of the voters he needs to woo, Giuliani favors aggressive foreign policy measures aimed at destroying terrorism abroad. Likewise, Rudy appears to have an elastic view of Presidential authority. This belief holds that warrant-less wiretapping and controversial top-secret interrogation techniques are useful intelligence tools, not signs that American ideals have been compromised. Many moderate voters will not agree.  

    Giuliani's ability to win the support of centrists voters will also be hampered by concerns about health care reform. While many Americans believe health care reform is important, the sentiment is particularly strong among center-left voters. Democrat presidential candidates have seized the opportunity. All of the top candidates have proposed bold plans for covering the uninsured. In so doing, the Democrats have cast themselves as pro-change. In comparison, the former mayor's focus on health savings accounts is, relatively speaking, a status quo solution. Fueled by Democrat rhetoric, centrist voters are bound to react negatively, an outcome Rudy can ill afford.

    An albatross in any election year, Giuliani's social liberalism is a greater liability in 2008 than his supporters want to admit. Not only does it promote apathy among social conservatives, but it also increases the importance of his polarizing message. In so doing, the former mayor could alienate the very voters he so desperately needs, thereby undermining his electability. Since this message/voter mismatch is nearly irrelevant until the general election, it will be impossible to know if Pat Robertson's recent endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will translate into conservative votes. By then it will be too late.

     When conservatives openly wonder about the prospect of a pan-American currency, many liberals deride them, calling them conspiracy theorists. The irony is, the same liberals who actively defend dubious constitutional rights, will most likely miss one of the most important Constitutional challenges in United States history.

      The Constitution unequivocally gives Congress the authority to print and regulate money in the United States.  Long ago, Americans decided the ability to “regulate the value thereof" empowered the government to establish a national bank, and more recently the Federal Reserve System. However, the concept of establishing a pan-American currency is another matter entirely.

      In 1999, the Fraser Institute's Herbert Grubel used a carefully reasoned paper to advance the idea of creating a pan-American currency - the Amero. In it, he touted the economic benefits that would follow a common currency. More recently, Ben Steil wrote in Foreign Affairs that "globalization and monetary nationalism are a dangerous combination." "Governments" Steil opined, "must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory." Accordingly, Steil argued that "dollars, euros, and multinational currencies as yet unborn" would be the appropriate remedy. Instead of replacing the dollar with the Amero, the Americas would “dollarize” - that is, accept the dollar as their official currency. El Salvador did just that a few years ago. 

      Steil suggested that the trade-off would be simple - "independent monetary policy" would be jettisoned in favor of healthier national economies.  Superficially, everyone would benefit. New markets would be stabilized, poorer countries would gain foreign investment, and the US government would retain monetary sovereignty. However, a deeper analysis suggests widespread “dollarization” could actually jeopardize American sovereignty. 

      Historically the United States has been relatively active in politics south of the US/Mexican border. During the 19^th century, our involvement led to significant military conflicts. The 20^th century was marked by less obvious, yet almost as odious, psydo-political actions throughout Central and South America. Consequently, many people residing in area of the world view the United States suspiciously. 

      If a handful Central and South American countries dollarized, their center-left political parties would most likely oppose US monetary hegemony. At that juncture, either the countries would step back from their decision to dollarize, or they would seek a voice in US monetary policy.  Although the government would not be forced to oblige, the pressure to do so would be great.  

     American politicians would face lobbying from all sides. International business interests, for example, would lobby Congress to keep dollarized Central and South American countries from abandoning the experiment. Likewise, many Central and South American leaders would be loath to abandon the economic advantages that dollarization would confer. Moreover, the international community would probably favor, if not actually endorse, the idea of giving dollarized countries a say in US monetary policy. 

     Unfortunately, there would be no guarantee that a catalyst would not coerce American leaders to give dollarized countries some form of decision making power. This possibility, however remote, is reason enough to be highly skeptical of arguments in favor of pan-American dollarization. Indeed, whether it is the Amero or dollarization, the end result would be much the same – a critical loss of constitutional sovereignty.  That prospect should make US citizens of every political affiliation shudder.  

    In the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Barack Obama possesses enough charisma to make the other candidates green with envy. However, his campaign lacks one important ingredient: a credible theme. Regrettably for Senator Obama, this shortcoming could sink his candidacy.
    Ideally, an effective campaign theme will unify a candidate's key proposals and explain his or her past record. However, Barack Obama's situation is far from ideal. He has a great theme - ending “divisive ideological politics” - but his key proposals and past record contradict it. Instead of offering a non-ideological agenda, he has repeatedly advocated left-wing ideas like universal health care, a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and executive-level meetings with anti-American dictators. More damning still, Obama's senatorial record paints a similar picture.
    Contrary to popular perception, Barack Obama's votes in the Senate reveal a dedicated liberal - not a pro-change, bridge-building, reformer. In fact, the Senator's consistently liberal approach to controversial issues has garnered applause from many liberal interest groups. Senator Obama's extraordinary rating from Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a highly respected liberal advocacy group, emphasizes this fact. Interestingly enough, the ADA is not alone.
    When the right-leaning National Journal analyzed 70 important Senate votes from 2005, Barack Obama had the distinction of being the Senate's 16th most liberal member. The Senator's record in 2006 was even more impressive: he was 12th, well ahead of Hillary Clinton. Considering Barack's voting propensities, the credibility of his campaign theme rests solely on his “record of bipartisan success.”
    Surprisingly enough, Congressional Quarterly's annual party unity scores show that Senator Obama tends to be highly partisan. When contentious issues created party-line battles in 2005, only seven Democrats were more partisan than the junior senator from Illinois. He was in elite company once again in 2006: only 5 Democrats were more hesitant to eschew their party's position. Is Barack bipartisan? No, and his record proves it.  
    Senator Obama's presidential campaign has a credibility crisis. His affinity for the “common ground” found only the left side of the political spectrum contradicts his pleasant theme of change and bipartisanship – a malady that will drive away centrist Democrats. If candidate Obama hopes to win the Democratic nomination, he must carefully re-craft his theme and add polish to his friendly, bipartisan, image. Without these changes, it will be almost impossible for his campaign to regain its lost momentum.