I suppose that since I am now officially a pundit, I should weigh in on what is purported to be the most important night in politics since Joe Biden\’s name moved to the top of the hair donor list. In fact, Biden (who once described Obama as \”clean\” and \”articulate\”) was probably surprised his running mate was able to deliver the speech without wearing gold teeth or taking a drink of Pimp Juice from a goblet.

Leading up to Obama\’s speech tonight, there was plenty of criticism with which I disagreed. I heard several of my pals wonder whether it would be creepy for Obama to give a speech in front of so many people, even likening the event to a Nazi rally. (Apparently, we don\’t like Nazi references until we need to utilize one.) I actually thought the idea to have Obama speak in a large outdoor arena was a good one – whatever \”creepiness\” people felt about the venue was more than offset by the the bottom line – 80,000 f\’ing people showed up to a political speech.

(My inside sources have told me that as a response, John McCain has now upgraded and asked for the smoking section to be reserved at the Denny\’s where he is expected to make his acceptance speech next Thursday.)

That being said, while I think the venue was electric, I thought the speech itself was a little under-done. It was basically a paint-by-the-numbers Democratic speech – sprinkle in some personal examples, overpromise a laundry list of new programs that will never happen, and offer a pre-buttal to the GOP convention next week. As I\’m sure most GOP observers will note (and already have in the post-speech analysis on television), it seemed like a pretty static speech for the candidate of change.

(In March, on this very blog, Dr. Emil Shuffhausen posted his \”Do-It-Yourself Democrat Speech,\” which is worth a re-read.)

In fact, the most appealing aspect of the speech is the way in which Obama delivered it. He looked and sounded up to the challenge such a large crowd commanded. You could have watched the speech with your television on mute and you would have known just based on his delivery what point of the speech he was in. Obama could read the back of your cereal box to you in the morning and it would sound like he was saying something profound.

\”And I say to you this morning… YOU NEED MORE RIBOFLAVIN!\” (You applaud, perhaps start crying.)

But the speech didn\’t really offer us anything new (and if McCain\’s next week doesn\’t, I won\’t be afraid to say so.) At one point, he used the example of out of work auto workers to hit McCain on the economy – yet just minutes later, he pushed for higher fuel economy standards, which would have left many of those workers jobless even sooner. He finished his speech by trying to convince us he is a uniter by saying that there is no \”Red America\” or \”Blue America,\” while spending the first 40 minutes explaining why Republicans would really rather you not have health care. He called for more parental involvement in their kids\’ lives, but opposes allowing them to send them to the school of their choice.

(Incidentally, I appreciate the line about more parental involvement. John Edwards, not so much.)

As I mentioned, a good portion of the latter half of Obama\’s speech was spent pre-emptively protecting himself against charges that are likely to surface at the GOP convention next week. He told us not to listen to charges that he\’s a celebrity, or that he hates America, or that he is untested. What would have been a good strategy, I think, would have been to throw the GOP completely off by pre-butting arguments that they never would have made:

\”And don\’t let the Republicans tell you I don\’t like peanut butter and jelly. I have enjoyed a variety of spreadable dressings throughout my life growing up fatherless in Hawaii.\”

Guarantee half McCain\’s staff would start scrambling, looking for inconsistencies in Obama\’s sandwich consuming habits. Lexis Nexis would be deluged by searches for \”Obama\” and \”salami.\”

At the end of the speech, the music started playing, and it was… some horrible country song. Thousands of African-Americans showed up in Denver for this watershed civil rights event, and the DNC punishes them with that crap? Wouldn\’t that have been a good time for a nice Isaac Hayes tribute? Playing country music after Obama\’s speech is akin to following McCain\’s speech up with a video tribute to Alec Baldwin.

As the music played, unable to stomach coverage on MSNBC, I switched over to Fox – and immediately heard Brit Hume refer to to \”Barack Hussein Obama.\” I remain firmly planted in the camp that this is obnoxious and plays to the least common denominator. I also think any network that features a reptile like Dick Morris so prominently is undercutting any legitimacy they may be trying to convince us they have.

And… scene.

I\’m off to Ann Arbor for the weekend – have a good one, honkies!

Political observers on both the left and right are slamming the uninspiring selection of Senator Joe Biden as Barack Obama\’s running mate. The left thinks Obama missed a chance to have a truly historic ticket by passing over Hillary Clinton, who could have been the first woman elected Vice President. The right simply recognizes Biden as a blowhard\’s blowhard, capable of fitting both feet in his mouth, yet still able to hear the sweet sound of his own voice.

But while some think Biden\’s selection was a step back for gender relations, it\’s clear that it\’s just the opposite. See, for years, female politicians have been held to a different standard when it comes to appearance. While the physical features of male politicians are rarely discussed, women are constantly criticized for their hair, makeup, scarves, and the like. Just look at coverage of Hillary Clinton over the past few years.

Now, with Biden, we have a perfect opportunity to level the gender playing field, as his outrageous hair plugs lend themselves to a discussion of his appearance. Now, when women accuse us of unfairly criticizing their appearance, we can always point to Biden as an example of where we ridiculed his hair. It\’s open season on both genders, and we have the ghost of Biden\’s old hair to thank. Equity!

Biden\’s plugs also raise other questions. Wouldn\’t it be cool to be the guy who donated his hair to the Vice President? Shouldn\’t that give you at least a say who should be labor secretary or something? Maybe partly eligible for the VP\’s pension when he leaves office?

There are some other weird things about the Biden selection. First, they announced it late on a Friday afternoon, at exactly the time when politicians are trying to bury stories. When your congressman is caught trolling for dates at Chuck E. Cheese, chances are he\’s going to tell his side of the story while you\’re driving home on Friday. Apparently, the same goes for announcing the name of a running mate who wears other people\’s hair.

This odd timing might be part of the reason Obama hasn\’t seen any kind of bump from making the Biden selection. It\’s possible not enough people have even heard Obama even selected a running mate, much less be able to judge how good of a pick he is. (For those who aren\’t sure how great Biden is, just listen to Biden himself – he\’ll tell you.)

Perhaps the funniest part of the whole Biden selection is the talking point, repeated religiously by Obama\’s surrogates, that somehow Biden would help Obama with \”blue collar\” workers. Apparently, people working in Washington DC have become so insulated, that they actually believe this. The idea that a 35-year U.S. Senator reflects \”blue collar\” America is simply preposterous. It\’s not like the guy\’s been soldering pipe or sweeping the sawdust out of new homes for the last 20 years. The last time he drove his own car, he was probably listening to the hot new Spandau Ballet hit on the radio.

In the end, the pick of Biden won\’t make any difference either way – just as McCain\’s pick likely won\’t, either. But at least McCain has the decency to man up and sport a good old-fashioned combover. That guy\’s tough as leather.

Other fun fact of the day: An anagram for \”Obama/Biden\” is \”Babe Domain.\”

As I\’m sure you read in last week\’s Wispolitics Report, I have signed on to cover the GOP convention in the Twin Cities next week for Wispolitics.com. I\’m a little nervous, as I have never been to a national convention, and I\’m not exactly sure what goes on there. I imagine a full 60% of my posts will deal with funny hats. I\’m also not sure I have a hotel room, so I\’m thinking it might be a good week to try crystal meth, as I will need to stay awake for four straight days.

I also am not sure what kind of credential I\’ll have – although I think there\’s some value in describing a convention as virtually all the attendees experience it – from the outside. If you want hard hitting interviews with Ralph Reed, you should probably stick with the fully credentialed bloggers. But I imagine trying to put together some man-on-the-street stuff like I did for the Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee campaign rallies here in Madison.

Coincidentally, the New York Times today ran a story about bloggers at the conventions. (I think I\’m a blogger, I guess.) You can always count on bloggers for examples of healthy self-esteem. From the NYT article, some lefty blogger who thinks he deserves full access:

But some bloggers see the procurement of credentials as less of a privilege and more of a right, in recognition of their grass-roots influence. “This is stuff we deserve — we helped the party get people elected,” said Matt Stoller, a political consultant and a contributor to the blog Open Left, who worked as the volunteer in charge of getting credentials for bloggers at the Democratic convention four years ago. “Maybe in 2004 it was about being accommodating and innovative — but this time around there’s a real fight for power in the party.”

I\’d love to see a list of candidates this dope thinks he helped get elected. Or any blogger of any party, for that matter.

The article goes on to detail bloggers who are raising money to attend their respective conventions by soliciting contributions on their blogs. I won\’t do that (although I will happily accept tips on good sandwich places in Minneapolis). Just read the stuff I post on Wispolitics and the WPRI site while I\’m there. Deal?

Next weekend, I\’m heading to Ann Arbor to watch the mighty Michigan Wolverines suffer their first loss of the Rich Rodriguez era to one of my alma maters, Utah. (For those who keep track of these things, I have three former colleges – Virginia Tech, Utah, and Marquette.* There will be a quiz.)

On this trip, I\’m going to be meeting up with some of my fraternity brothers from college, most of whom I haven\’t seen for at least 12 years. So I\’m excited for the reunion.

In getting ready for the big event, I went back and watched some of the unfortunate video that exists of me from my college years. Sadly, almost none of it is appropriate to post. But I did find one clip that should silence those who don\’t buy my whole story about not being able to get a date in college.

Here\’s the setup: in March of 1994, I piled into a car with my housemates George and Hutton, and we took a bargain basement spring break trip to Arizona State. (It was pure genius to go to a college campus during spring break, incidentally – as it was completely empty.) We were virtually penniless, and the trip involved a lot of sleeping in the car. George, who was from Seattle, remembered a girl he went to high school with (nicknamed \”The Watts\”) who went to Arizona State, so we decided to crash her apartment and plead with her to let us stay there.

As it turns out, she said yes – but the best part was, she had some smoking hot roommates that we convinced to drink with us. What follows is a video of the general tone of the evening – you\’d think I had never seen a woman before in my life (I was a month short of 21 years old.)

Good grief. As I recall, we spent the night there, were asked to leave, and ended up sleeping in the car on some side streets in Vegas for a few nights. And, sadly, I kind of miss those days.

* – Sadly, I was unable to complete my degree at the Institute for Equine Therasage, as I never figured out whether it was the horse giving or receiving the massage.

Sorry things have been slow over here – I\’ve been writing like a sweatshop blogger over at WPRI.

In the year or so that it\’s been open, my wife and I have grown to be fans of the Roman Candle pizzeria in Middleton. A couple weeks ago, we got together with our neighbors and decided to order a pizza from there. I looked at the menu, and decided on a pizza they call the \”Animal Lovers.\”

As it turns out the \”Animal Lovers\” pizza is actually for vegetarians. It\’s \”animal lovers\” as in \”I really wouldn\’t want to hurt that poor animal,\” not \”man, these animals are tasty!\”

So consider yourself warned. They really need to change the name of that pizza.

Okay, so explain this:

Just For Men hair coloring sauce, or however you\’d describe it, is really pushing the fact that you only have to keep it in for 5 minutes. They actually have one commercial (that I can\’t find online, you\’ll just have to take my word for it) where a woman offers a guy her hair coloring product, but he eschews her proposition, complaining that it takes a whole 30 minutes for her hair coloring to sink in.

Now, I recognize there are guys out there who color their hair. That\’s fine. The amount members of Congress collectively spend on hair dye probably dwarfs the GDP of Tanzania. In fact, according to this ad, once I start coloring my hair, I will immediately be able to go onstage and start playing guitar while a 25 year old blonde sticks her tongue in my ear.

But how many men choose their hair coloring product because they\’re always in a rush? Has any guy ever been like, \”I\’m meeting with my boss in 20 minutes to ask for a raise – if I only had time to color my hair. Oh really? Just five minutes? Give me that.\”

That point is made in a more subtle fashion in this ridiculous ad:

What in the hell is going on here? Did Mommy leave because Daddy has gray hair? Was Daddy bringing home some substandard tail because he looked too old? Was this all some elaborate plot to get the old man out of the house so they could watch more Hannah Montana videos?

The real oversight is obvious – everyone knows that if these girls wanted to get hot women to throw themselves at their dad, they would have just told people he was a blogger.

When you have little kids, it\’s kind of hard to tell where exactly on the intelligence continuum your children are. I mean, I don\’t really hang out with a lot of three year olds (unless I\’m buying them beer) so I\’m not sure whether my son is smart compared to another three year old, or smart compared to cauliflower.

But there\’s one thing that he does that just kills me, and has me completely convinced he has a career as a lawyer ahead of him. Right now, we\’re trying to potty train him. And as \”incentive\” to tell Mommy or Daddy that he has to go potty, we offer jellybeans as a reward. (The burning him with cigarettes as punishment for pooping his pants didn\’t seem to work well.) The rule is: tell Mommy or Daddy that you have to go on the toilet, and you get two jellybeans, payable upon washing your hands afterwards.

Naturally, once the pants are off and he\’s squatting on the can, the negotiating process begins. \”I get five jellybeans,\” he announces, knowing he has to start high, to get me to up my offer. \”Two is the rule,\” I say. \”Okay, four jellybeans,\” he retorts. I\’m telling you, in a past life this kid had to be running a Turkish bazaar. But it\’s just so cute, it\’s impossible not to give in. I have to admit, I have occasionally caved and upped my offer to three jellybeans, because when he looks at you with those big eyes while crapping, it really tugs at the heartstrings.

But this is why I\’m convinced his negotiating skills are going to lead him to be a good lawyer. In effect, when he\’s on the toilet, he\’s \”passing a bar\” anyway. Although when he finally is serving as U.S. Solicitor General and arguing cases before the Supreme Court, he may need to refine his tactics a little:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \”Mr. Schneider – exactly what constitutional principle is your client invoking when he asserts his right to publicly offer \’mustache rides for five cents?\’\”

SOLICITOR GENERAL SCHNEIDER: (Pulls down pants, squats in the middle of chamber, looks at the Chief Justice with sad eyes and quivering lip) \”Chief Justice Roberts, I will gladly answer that question for five jellybeans.\”

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: \”I only have four here, and one of those is a black licorice jellybean. And as the Court ruled in 2013, black jellybeans don\’t really count as regular ones.\”

As a side note, we had to go to the grocery store this morning to pick up more jellybeans (the Starburst kind, which are outstanding), and as we wheeled through the store, he would hold up the bag and announce to whoever passed by that \”THESE JELLYBEANS ARE FOR MY POTTY TRAINING.\” Some people seemed annoyed, but others appreciated knowing the true purpose of the jellybeans. As a result, I think I am now going to announce why I\’m buying certain products to everyone in the store. I\’ll walk by people and yell \”I\’M BUYING THIS SOAP, BECAUSE QUITE OFTEN, I SMELL BAD,\” or \”I\’M BUYING THIS JACK DANIELS BECAUSE MY DAD DIDN\’T COME TO ENOUGH OF MY LITTLE LEAGUE GAMES.\”

Incidentally, as far as potty training goes, we have now been accident-free for two straight days. Or, I should say, \”he\” has been. Daddy is still hit-or-miss.