When I heard that McCain was considering Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, I started reading up on her, and I must say, I’m impressed. The more I’ve thought about it, the more I think she would be a brilliant choice both on the merits and as a political maneuver. Palin is known for her high integrity and staunchly conservative credentials. She’s 44 years old, female (obviously), and as a governor she has experience that none of the other candidates have.

Read her bio on Wikipedia and I think you’ll agree, even if you’re not Republican, that it’s an inspired choice for the party’s VP nominee. It’s official.

CBS 4 in Denver has the story:

Denver’s U.S. attorney is expected to speak on Tuesday afternoon about the arrests of four people suspected in a possible plot to shoot Barack Obama at his Thursday night acceptance speech in Denver. All are being held on either drug or weapons charges.

One of those suspects spoke exclusively to CBS4 investigative reporter Brian Maass from inside the Denver City Jail late Monday night and said his friends had discussed killing Obama. […]

Maass reported earlier Monday that one of the suspects told authorities they were “going to shoot Obama from a high vantage point using a … rifle … sighted at 750 yards.”

Law enforcement sources told Maass that one of the suspects “was directly asked if they had come to Denver to kill Obama. He responded in the affirmative.”

At the last blogger bash, someone said they fully expected Obama, if elected, to be assassinated while in office. Several people were shocked by the statement. And it is shocking when you say it out loud like that. But to be honest, I had thought the same thing. I’m not sure why — maybe because the first African American president on the FOX TV series 24 was assassinated. Or maybe because there are still people like Matt Hale running around spewing their hate and looking for ways to be a martyr for their racist cause.

In any case, I didn’t expect it to begin so soon — even before the official nomination. And it was white supremacists, natch, who were plotting to kill Obama. One of them was even wearing a swastika. Charming, huh? One of the four arrested, Nathan Johnson, 32, told Maass, “He don’t belong in political office. Blacks don’t belong in political office. He ought to be shot,” according to the CBS 4 story.

We’ve come so far in our nation, and yet there are still people like these four idiots out there. Hard to believe, and a little depressing.

The New York Times reports that bloggers en masse are being credentialed as the press at the Democratic and Republican national conventions:

This year, both parties understand the need to have greater numbers of bloggers attend. While many Americans may watch only prime-time television broadcasts of the convention speeches, party officials also recognize the ability of bloggers to deliver minute-by-minute coverage of each day’s events to a niche online audience.

“The goal is to bring down the walls of the convention and invite in an audience that’s as large as possible,” said Aaron Myers, the director of online communications for the Democratic National Convention Committee. “Credentialing more bloggers opens up all sorts of new audiences.”

So Peoria bloggers, if they wanted to, could travel to Denver or St. Paul to cover national conventions and be treated as the press. Meanwhile, here in Peoria, bloggers are excluded from District 150 press conferences.

As I mentioned before, McCain released a new ad almost immediately after Biden was announced as Obama’s running mate. Biden, of course, ran against Obama in the primary and had some pretty harsh criticisms of him at the time. Perfect fodder for a McCain ad:

There’s only one problem with this ad: people today don’t care. We live in a world where cognitive dissonance is the norm. We’re so conditioned by our society toward relativism and cynicism that an about-face in opinion like this doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. It’s a modern ad in a postmodern world.

In earlier times, people would look at this ad and decide one of three things: Biden was lying during the primary, he’s lying now, or he was grossly ignorant of Obama’s “readiness” during the primary and in just a few short months has discovered his error. Whichever one they landed on, Biden’s credibility and trustworthiness would be severely damaged. People still believed in integrity; they believed that insincerity in one area was a character flaw that would affect all areas of a person’s judgment. That is, they would think to themselves, “if we can’t trust what he says about Obama, how can we trust what he says about how he would improve the economy?”

Not so today. Today we shrug our shoulders and say, “that’s politics.” We can do that because we have replaced the values of integrity and character with the values of pragmatism and utilitarianism. In other words, no one cares whether Joe Biden has personal integrity; they care whether he’s going to help or hurt the Democratic ticket, and whether his ideas for change will benefit the nation.

We’ve been conditioned to think this way over many years, through many political campaigns and administrations.

This isn’t the first time a bitter primary opponent became a cheerleading running-mate. Remember the 1980 Republican primary? Who was it that ridiculed Reagan’s proposed economic policies as “voodoo economics”? That would be George H. W. Bush, during the primary. Later, of course, Bush became Reagan’s veep and suddenly supply-side economics was okay. Nobody cared about that — but they did care when he pledged not to raise taxes and then broke his promise. When it impacted policy and, ultimately, people’s pocketbooks, it cost him reelection. We learned.

Then there was Bill Clinton. Sure he was a louse — unfaithful to his wife, lecherous in the Oval Office — but nobody cared as long as the economy was going well. Since his moral lapses and character flaws didn’t appear to impact public policy, everything including perjury was rationalized away. We learned.

Meanwhile, we’ve learned about and highlighted the moral failings of earlier presidents — Kennedy and FDR having mistresses, Washington and Jefferson owning slaves, etc. — and these facts have been used to convince us that no leader has ever had real integrity. All perceived heroes are deconstructed. We’ve given up hope of the possibility that any candidate could ever really be a person of character, so all that’s left to us is the practical and utilitarian.

And that’s why McCain’s ad doesn’t work. He’s not going to get any traction trying to tear down his opponent’s integrity, or for that matter playing up his own integrity and heroism (’96 also-ran Bob Dole was a war hero, too). What voters want today is someone whom they perceive as competent and having domestic (primarily economic) and foreign policies that will benefit them (voters) the most.

Pragmatism and utilitarianism are the only currency in modern political campaigns. Integrity is passé.

I fell asleep before the announcement was made last night that presidential hopeful Barack Obama had chosen Delaware Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate. This morning I see that, not only has the choice been revealed, there’s already a Washington Post-ABC News poll published on the “impact” of Obama’s choice (conclusion: no impact). And the McCain campaign has already released an ad using Biden’s words against Obama.

The speed at which things happen these days is amazing.

UPDATE: For any of you interested in following the big speech today in Springfield (which will be carried live on WCBU 89.9 FM and 1470 WMBD-AM), the Springfield Journal-Register has set up a blog called “Obama Blog” that they’re updating throughout the day leading up to the speech. It’s almost like being there, but without the crowds.

The debate last night between State’s Attorney incumbent Kevin Lyons and challenger Darin LaHood was focused completely on the issues. The format called for opening statements from each candidate, followed by questions from the audience, and then closing statements. Of the ten audience members who asked a question, including one reporter, none of them asked about the recent flare-up between the two candidates, and the candidates didn’t bring it up either.

The opening statements laid out the main talking points of each candidate. LaHood gave his qualifications, then proceeded to show a map that indicated Peoria is one of two counties with the highest crime rate in Illinois. “I’m the only one who has a plan for how we can do things differently,” he said, summing up his main issue that the State’s Attorney needs to do more to lower the crime rate. Lyons said the State’s Attorney job is about “balance” and “judgment,” a theme he came back to numerous times when answering questions. He said he rejects a cookie-cutter approach to prosecuting, preferring instead to treat each incident “one case, one face, one person at a time.” He also touted his 94% conviction rate for murder and said, “Every person I’ve put in prison for murder is still there.”

The format allowed for both candidates to answer every question, which led to some comic relief. The first question was to Mr. LaHood: “Where do you work now?” LaHood answered that he’s in private practice and has an office downtown. Lyons responded, “My rebuttal is that is indeed what Darin does… and I want him to keep doing it.”

From there, questions ranged from budgeting ability to experience in the courtroom to the perceived overuse of plea bargaining. We learned that LaHood has done 30 jury trials in the past eight years, but has not prosecuted any murder, rape, or armed robbery cases. Lyons has personally prosecuted 200 murder cases over his career, but he now only prosecutes one or two cases a year. Lyons also pointed out that he’s prosecuted two serial murderers.

LaHood stated that “the people who know the State’s Attorney the best are law enforcement,” and they’re all supporting LaHood. Lyons responded that he doesn’t take money or endorsements from police departments or unions as a matter of policy because “the State’s Attorney’s office is not for sale” and “shouldn’t be beholden to anyone, not even the police.” He said that he’s prosecuted 23 police officers in his career as well.

Regarding plea bargains, or “plea agreements” as Lyons called them, both candidates agreed that they are necessary to keep the system from grinding to a halt. “You can only push so much through the pipeline,” Lyons said. Lyons pointed out that these agreements don’t mean the perpetrator is getting off, just that the case is taken care of without a trial, and that each and every agreement is approved by a judge. Furthermore, even with all the plea agreements that are negotiated, Peoria county still has more trials than other similar-sized counties. LaHood would like to “reevaluate the whole system,” saying that “thugs aren’t scared to walk in the courthouse” because “it’s a revolving door.” A couple of things he would change: He believes that if someone gets caught with a gun, or if they’re a two-time violent felon, they should get no plea bargain.

LaHood touted his plan to establish, if elected, a “community prosecution program.” This would assign a prosecutor to a defined geographical area, such as the East Bluff. That prosecutor would partner with law enforcement, community groups, churches, etc., and try every case in that geographical area. “Everywhere it’s been tried, it brings crime down,” LaHood said. “It works.”

When asked what he would change if reelected, Lyons said the system is clogged in large part due to people who fail to appear in court; he would work to establish a greater consequence for failing to appear. He would also look for ways to use civil courtrooms and staff more efficiently, and ways to move people through the system quicker — including establishing more online resources. LaHood’s rebuttal was that none of those issues focus on how we can do a better job fighting crime. He said the State’s Attorney needs to be “the city’s number one crime fighter.”

The debate took place at West Peoria City Hall in a relatively small room considering all the media who were there. The event lasted about an hour. Lyons was a few minutes late arriving. About 50 people attended, including all local news media. The debate was moderated by West Peoria Residents Association President David Pittman.

West Peoria Residents Association president David Pittman is faxing newsrooms around the area to let them know there’s a debate scheduled tonight between the candidates for state’s attorney. Here’s what it says:

Lyons/LaHood Debating
West Peoria City Hall
7-7:45pm
45 minute one on one debate.
West Peoria Residents Association

The Journal Star has it up on their site now. They also add that “it was scheduled before the two verbally sparred over LaHood’s visit to an alleged rape victim’s home this week.”

This promises to be one of the more entertaining debates of the campaign season. I doubt either candidate will be pulling any punches (metaphorically, that is).

Hat tip: Ian Schwartz

UPDATE: West Peoria City Hall, for those of you who don’t know (like me up until a minute ago), is located at 2506 W Rohmann Ave, West Peoria, IL 61604. Here’s a map.

Here’s my take: I think visiting a rape victim’s family to talk about a case that is set to go to trial soon was a terrible misstep for LaHood, and Lyons is using it to his political advantage. To that extent, both LaHood and Lyons are exploiting the victim and her family.

As for the specific accusations, they are all based on hearsay. Lyons says that the victim and her mother say that LaHood said this or that to the Child Advocacy Center and to someone in Lyons’ office who then reported it to Lyons. This is like the game of “telephone,” and I don’t find it particularly reliable, since it’s in Lyons’ interests to paint LaHood in the worst possible light. What information is he leaving out? Are the statements being taken out of context?

I don’t believe hearsay is admissible in court, so perhaps that’s why Lyons decided to try this “case” against LaHood in the court of public opinion. LaHood has denied the charges of improper conduct. Right now, it’s nothing more than he-said/he-said. Lyons isn’t taking questions or offering any further information.

That said, LaHood’s reaction has been a little overly-defensive in television and radio reports. He’s visibly agitated, talking fast and loud, and stumbling a bit over answers — saying at one point that he met with the father, then in the next breath saying he never met with the father. In other words, he acts as if he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

There’s probably something to this, but it’s hard to sort out fact from fiction in the absence of clear and unbiased information about the incident. How serious it is will be left up to the speculation of the voters. My guess is that those who favor LaHood will find plenty of reason to discount Lyons’ accusations, and those who favor Lyons will find plenty of ammunition here to blast LaHood.

Welcome to politics. Let the games begin.