In September, Senator Obama said the following to a crowd in Elko, Nevada:

“I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” he said.

I initially thought this comment was rather thuggish on Obama’s part. After all, the mainstream media is firmly in his camp, so getting his philosophy out there shouldn’t be that big of a concern for him. But I didn’t think that Obama supporters would really do it.

Then my wife pointed out something she noticed on a craft-related site — posts about hand-crafted pro-Obama or anti-Bush items usually get at least polite responses, even if they’re along the lines of “Love the idea. But he’s not who I’m voting for.” But when someone posts a hand-crafted McCain/Palin shirt, the responses were certainly “in their face,” enough that a moderator had to jump in several times and remove abrasive comments.

Is this proof that Obama fans are meaner than McCain fans? No. These are merely three samples, and the plural of anecdote is not data. What we have here are polite responses from people who disagree politically on the one hand, and on the other hand enough seething rage to require moderator intervention. It’s not proof, just a few points of data. One of the points of data is a political candidate asking for his supporters to “get in their face.” But I’m sure this rage is merely a coincidence.

Coincidence or not, enough people have spotted this rage on the part of leftists that it has a name, “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” and its recent viral twin, “Palin Derangement Syndrome.” It’s odd that I don’t see this seething anger on the conservative side. Even during the worst of President Clinton’s scandals, I didn’t hear many conservatives boiling over in rage. It’s true that many conservatives disapproved of his behavior or the policies he proposed, but those dislikes didn’t, for the most part, translate into a personal hatred of Bill Clinton the man. But I have observed a visceral hatred of conservatives in general and President Bush in specific from numerous people on the left.

Not everyone sees it that way. Paul Krugman says he is frightened by the specter of rage on the right: “Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage. It’s not just a mob phenomenon — it’s visible in the right-wing media, and to some extent in the speeches of McCain and Palin.” Really? What rage is that? Can you show me pictures or video to demonstrate this rage? At most there are people shouting out words like “traitor” and “terrorist” at Senator Obama at rallies for the McCain/Palin ticket. But where is the rage?

If you want to see graphic examples of rage, Michelle Malkin has compiled some on her site. (Warning: some are profanity-rich and graphic.) Malkin also nails this idea of rage from the right in a recent syndicated editorial:

Are a few activists on the Right getting out of hand? Probably. Between massive ACORN voter fraud, Bill Ayers’ and Jeremiah Wright’s unrepentant hatred of America, and John McCain’s inability to nail Barack Obama on his longtime alliances with all of the above, conservatives have plenty to shout about these days.

But a couple of random catcallers do not a “mob” make. And there’s an overflowing abundance of electoral rage on the Left that won’t make it onto your newspaper’s front page.

She then goes on to list some of the rage from the left — not that you’re likely to hear about it in the nightly news or read it in newspaper because it’s not news. After all, the news media knows that leftist rage is justified because many of them share that rage. Besides, if they don’t report it, it’s not news, right?

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face,” said Senator Obama. The order has been heard and is being obeyed. So which group is filled with rage? My guess is that they’ll be getting in your face very soon.

It’s hard to pick up a newspaper or look over a news website today without seeing at least one, if not many, articles about Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin since Sen. McCain selected her to be his vice presidential running mate. The Sunday edition of our newspaper source of coupons is yet another example of the current liberal media hype. “Inside Palin’s turbulent first year as mayor,” it announced in large bold type. Turning to page A18 to continue the article, I discovered that the story filled the entire page. A sub-heading stated, “She demanded loyalty from department heads.” Boy, I hope so. It would be really stupid to surround yourself with employees who don’t like you or follow your policies.

I really don’t have a horse in this race. There isn’t a hope in hell that I would vote for Sen. Obama and his love affair with Marxism, but Sen. McCain doesn’t thrill me, either. I was surprised at Gov. Palin’s selection because I hadn’t heard much about her before the announcement. And unless you are a political news junkie and/or live in Alaska, it’s probable that you hadn’t heard her name more than five times before either.

I find it interesting that for the small amount of Palin news coverage in the lower 48 states, it didn’t take long for the liberal left to develop a seething hatred for her. You’d think that the self-proclaimed champions of women would applaud a successful woman like Palin, but she isn’t a liberal woman, so she doesn’t count. And so it’s full speed ahead with the politics of destruction. I had to laugh when someone at work told me that she couldn’t support Palin since she didn’t write her own acceptance speech. “She’s just parroting the talking points from the right!” she explained to me. Never mind that my co-worker was just parroting the talking points from the left.

Yes, the left is all abuzz with hatred and rumors about Palin. (If you are having a hard time keeping up with them, I suggest visiting Charlie Martin’s numbered list of rumors, followed by the truth.) As my wife pointed out, “It’s as though all the freight train of hatred and derogation earmarked for Bush has leaped the track and headed for Palin instead.” And I agree. Lefties who have been fully afflicted with “Bush Derangement Syndrome” are now testing positive for “Palin Derangement Syndrome.” Michelle Malkin has been doing a good job of reporting examples of PDS on her site. While you are there, I strongly suggest that you read her excellent article about the four stages of conservative female abuse.

My wife has suggested that Republicans should always be in control of the country, for the simple reason that they encourage journalists to do their jobs–the liberal-dominated media will carefully scrutinize everything conservatives do, whereas they tend to give liberals a pass on all but the most heinous activities. This explains why it took so very long for the media to investigate Sen. Edward’s admitted infidelity. Regardless of my opinion of the left-leaning full-page article in today’s fish-wrapper, the 96 column-inches of story prove that the media can do investigative journalism. But it seems to happen only when they are politically motivated to do so.

The political buzz is not about Senator Obama’s nomination by the Democrat party last night. Instead it is about Senator McCain announcing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his Vice President candidate today. I don’t know what the polls will say, but I’ll bet that there won’t be much of a bounce for Obama as there will be for McCain.

Gov. Palin is younger than Obama, and has served less time as governor of Alaska than Obama has served as Senator, but there is a difference: Palin has seven years of executive experience as mayor and governor, while Obama has none.

Yes, liberals will bring up her inexperience, but that is a two-edged sword that can cut Obama deeper than it will cut Palin. If she is asked about her inexperience in a debate or news conference, she could respond in this way: “While it’s true that I am younger than Senator Obama, I bring seven years of executive experience to the position as compared to Senator Obama’s none. I would say I am better prepared for an executive position than he is.”

While I was completely wrong in my guess 20 months ago about who the Democrat and Republican candidates would be, I still stand by this paragraph:

Since the office of President is an executive position, it makes sense that people elect proven executives to that office. This could explain why so many state governors have been elected President (G. W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, F.D.R., Coolidge, Wilson, T. Roosevelt, McKinley). That makes nine the last time I counted them — nearly 50% of our Presidents since 1900. And whether the state is large or small, the office of Governor is an executive position. With all else being equal, I would prefer a candidate with proven executive experience over a legislator any day (but when do we ever have two candidates that are close to equal in belief and position?).

Of the Democrat and Republican candidates, only the Republican ticket brings executive experience to the job.

Any way I try to see it, there will be a bunch of angry and disappointed Democrats in the near future. On the one hand, there is Senator Clinton, and on the other hand there is Senator Obama. And since liberals view everything through the prism of group identity instead of individuals, that means the fight for the Democrat presidential nomination is between someone who is a woman, and someone who is black.

Of course there is far more to these candidates than their sex and race, but to liberals who have made sex and race identity so important, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have become visible embodiments of sex and race. And this can be a problem for liberals when group identities collide. Are liberals meant to vote for Clinton because she could be the first woman President, even though she is white; or should they vote for Obama to become the first black President, even though he is male?

You can see this conflict in the way liberal groups are handling the sex/race conflict of Clinton and Obama. When Oprah Winfrey announced that she was supporting Obama, she was labeled a traitor for choosing race over sex. But that’s assuming Obama’s race was more important to Oprah than Clinton’s sex. Could she have chosen to support him for other reasons? That’s not an option if you view everything through the lens of race or sex. Fortunately, not everyone will “vote their race” or “vote their gender,” as some CNN readers have stated.

I’ll say it again — if you vote for Obama primarily because he is black, you are racist. If you vote for Clinton primarily because she is a woman, you are sexist. And if you vote for McCain because he’s a white male, you’re… unusual. (Conservatives tend to focus on issues over identity politics, so I don’t see this as being as much of a concern for conservatives as it is for liberals, but let’s cover all the bases for the sake of equity.)

The race between Clinton and Obama is close, but as I write this, Obama has slightly more delegates than Clinton and appears to have the momentum. But since Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island all have primaries today, the race isn’t over for the two contenders.

Since there can only be one winner in this race (and no, I don’t believe that either candidate would deign to become the other’s VP), half of the Democrat voters in the primaries will be pissed off at the result. Those who view sex as being the most important will be disappointed and angry if yet another man is nominated. Those who view race as being the most important will be disappointed and angry if yet another white is nominated.

Regardless of who gets the nomination, I see a time of anger and resentment for Democrats when the primaries are over. I just don’t see their anger preventing them from finally rallying behind the Democrat nominee when it comes to the national vote in November. On the other hand, I see many conservatives who are still angry about Senator McCain becoming the Republican nominee, and I don’t believe they will rally in numbers to vote for the party’s choice this year. And that means we will likely have a Democrat President come 2009.

This November will be the sixth time I have voted for President. And while I have followed the primaries and final elections with different degrees of interest over the years, am I wrong in thinking that this is working up to be the most contested election on both Republican and Democrat sides? Or it could be that I remember the present more than the past? If that’s the case, I’ll soon be looking for my teeth and shaking my cane at the damn kids on my lawn.

The Republican race has narrowed to Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney. Of the two, I prefer Romney. Not that either one makes me all that excited. I would have liked to hear more from Sen. Thompson, but I didn’t think he had the executive experience to be a good President. Besides, with his dropping out of the race, I can’t vote for him this November.

I’m hoping Romney will get enough delegates to get the Republican nod, but I won’t do what Ann Coulter has threatened to do if McCain wins. Coulter claims she will campaign for Sen. Clinton if McCain gets the Republican nomination. Huh? How is that smart? When it comes down to the election in November, I will vote for the Republican, even if it is McCain. (I won’t. I don’t believe McCain has the temperament to be President; he scares the crap out of me. Come back, Fred! –TPK) While I disagree with much of what he has done, I disagree less with McCain than I do with Senators Clinton and Obama.

I want a President that I can agree with 100%, but I know that I won’t get that. So when it comes down to actually electing a President, I would rather vote for someone who is “good enough” than register a “protest vote” for someone else. Besides, it is the primaries where we get to vote for the candidate who best fits our principles. Then when the actual Presidential election comes around, we vote for the party that best fits our principles. Sound strange? But consider this — if you don’t vote because you are annoyed at who ended up being on the ticket, you can’t really complain. And if you voted for the Democrat candidate as a protest vote, you will either succeed in putting a Socialist in office at worst, or lose your voice with a victorious Republican President at best.

But when the dust settles after the voting in November, we will have elected a new President who will be sworn in this time next year, despite what some nay-sayers believe. Many millions of dollars will have been spent on both sides, acres of print will be published, and probably half the nation upset that their candidate wasn’t elected. But that is the nature of selecting a President of the United States.

Unbeknownst to many people in the U.S., there was another kind of new president announced this week. With the death of President Gordon B. Hinckley on Sunday, the 27th of January, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was left temporarily without a leader. But yesterday his successor was announced. In a press conference in Salt Lake City today, President Thomas S. Monson was announced as the 16th president and prophet of the Church. Unlike the presidential campaigning going on now across the U.S., there is no campaigning to determine who will be the Church president. At the death of the president of the Church, the longest-serving apostle is selected as the next president. And unlike the office of President of the United States, there is no question of Pres. Monson’s qualifications or capability to lead, since he has proven himself many times over in over four decades of service as an apostle.

But that’s the difference between the President of the Church and the President of the nation.

So Sen. McCain won all 57 delegates from Florida by finishing with 100,000 more votes than Gov. Romney. Michelle Malkin points out an interesting aspect of the Florida vote, but I’m going to go with an honest win for McCain since I’m no Al Gore.

Since McCain’s victory, I’ve read and heard many reports gushing about how McCain is a juggernaut and can’t be stopped. But here’s something to consider about the recent Republican primary in Florida: people in the media are claiming that McCain is the obvious and proper Republican candidate now that he has 28 more delegate votes than his closest competition, Romney. But no one was anointing Romney as the obvious Republican candidate last week, when he was 29 points over his closest competition, McCain.

Why? Well, knowing the bias of the mainstream media, it’s no wonder that they like the more liberal McCain over Romney. And I, for one, don’t take my political cues from the leftist media.