We now have two candidates: John McCain for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats.

Or has it?

Here's a quick discussion of the Democratic battle. Obama has accumulated the majority of delegates, thereby technically clinching the nomination. However, it is well within Hillary's rights and capabilities to challenge the 59 delegates he received from Michigan (4 from her) and still make the case that she is the better candidate to the superdelegates (who can still overturn the decision). But will she? It was hard to read her tonight. It looked like she was waving her accomplishments in Obama's face as a reason to accept her as his running mate, which could happen ("18 million 18 million 18 million!!"). The only snag is Bill, who is not welcome in the Obama camp.

I want to look at all three candidates' speeches tonight. Let's start with McCain.

John McCain is not a good speaker. He is very old, and looks it. He is not charismatic. His awkward smile reveals a mouthful of rotting teeth, while a crackling voice repeats Obama's own slogan with a sarcastic twist. The content was classic McCain. While middle-of-the-road voters will eat it up and think it brilliant, I was not happy listening to much of it. There were several points that made me unhappy:

1. George W. Bush. One of McCain's advisers today started the distancing from George W. Bush today on a talk show pointing out the many instances McCain has differed from Bush. McCain expounded on this tonight. This is an example of McCain only targeting the middle, assuming the right is in the bag. Well I have news for you, Senator: It's not! The right is greatly dissatisfied with the GOP nominee, and will stay home if much of this continues. George W. Bush is very popular among these circles; over 30% of Americans still aprove of him, and this are all the right wingers that McCain thinks he'll win. He will continue to alienate them with comments throwing Bush under the bus. If you want to distinguish yourself from Bush, fine. And he should do so to address this mantra that is the only one Obama is throwing at him for the time being. But he should take the following approach: "I greatly respect George W. Bush, his patriotism, and his indubitable love for this country. But I am not a third term of his administration, and here is why." Stating that he was the only one campaigning for a change in Iraq policy, energy policy, spending, etc., and how he took heat from Republicans is not the way to win adoration of Republicans. He should take the advice of his own speech and look to the future, not the past, on his differences with George W. Bush.
2. I am already sick and tired of hearing this alternative energy business, and I can't stand it. I thought I was listening to a Democrat for a moment. He wants to make alternative energy more viable, pumping more government money into it. He is, however, against an energy bill that gives tax breaks to oil companies for research and development. This R&D is primarily in the area of progressive fuels. Why is McCain voting against a capitalist solution to the energy crisis? And why is there no cry to drill here in the US? There is a vast amount of oil sitting underneath our own borders, both in Alaska and in the continental states, and until we have a viable alternative we should be drilling immediately. This is such a simple solution to the energy crisis. It won't even cost the government any money: just allow the oil companies to drill here and build new refineries. Gas will be down to prices we remember from the good old days in a year's time.
3. This segues into my next point, and that is the populist tone McCain's speech took in many parts. Populism resonates on the surface with middle class voters, but does not appeal to true conservatives and further right-wing voters. Saying he will take on the oil companies and use the government to make life better for the common man is not appealing to me. It isn't the government's job. I want the government to guarantee my right to life, liberty, and property. Anything else is too much intervention. Sure, certain amenities like infrastructure are certain things a country of our wealth can afford, but to control any part of my life or the operation of a private company via government intervention is not okay. Populism belongs in the Democratic Party, along with all the other falsehoods and fake ideas.
4. I was shocked to see "A Leader We Can Believe In" behind McCain. What is that? Why would you mockingly use your opponent's slogan? It looks sloppy, childish, and defensive. Not only was that on the board behind him, but he kept repeating it as he jabbed Obama: "That's not change we can believe in! (snicker snicker)" It is just plain silly. Come up with something on your own, for Christ's sake. How about "Real Progress for a Better Tomorrow"? Anything implying real change and a new future. But not Obama's own retarded gimmick.

So that's McCain's speech. Decent, but full of holes. His raw content on Obama's lack of experience, his extremely one-sided voting record, his desire to be a liberal and increase government control of our lives, and his desire to dangerously withdraw from a stabilizing military situation even at the behest of soldiers on the ground are good and necessary. Hopefully he can develop these themes and more effectively attack Obama in the coming months.

Hillary Clinton's speech was very interesting. Following today's statement that she is "open" to being Obama's running mate, it made sense. It was difficult to read her and to see what she was thinking. There were basically three ways this speech could have gone. Either: a) She would have come out guns blazing, shouting "Denver, Denver, Denver!" and promise to take the fight to the convention and challenge Obama's delegate count; b) She would concede, or at least show some level moderation and state her reluctance to duke it out in the name of party loyalty; or c) None of the above. She chose option c). She specifically said that she will make no decisions tonight. She thanked everyone in her campaign, and pointed out all of her many victories, both from the beginning and recently. The 18 million votes figure popped up numerous times, and rightly so: she does have more votes than Obama does. It definitely looked like her, as I said above, pointing out her accomplishments to force Obama's hand in running with her. There is much animosity on the Clinton side towards Obama, and a Unity ticket may absolve the strife. But who's to say? She will discuss her options with her supporters, officials, and party leaders to determine the best course of action.

Obama's speech was nothing new. It contained a few more jabs at McCain as the general election begins, but the same soaring rhetoric and constant glancing from teleprompter to teleprompter remained the same as always. He said "I am respectful of Senator McCain's accomplishments, even though he is unwilling to recognize mine." May I ask which accomplishments he is referring to? Maybe he means the bill he supported in the Illinois state senate dooming babies that survived abortion via a bad procedure to the garbage can. No, that can't be it. Voting for or against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq? Oh wait, he wasn't in the Senate then. Maybe he meant the numerous bills he has written with members of both parties. But there are no such bills. Decades of military service? Years in a Vietnam prison of torture and death? No. Hmm...Wait! I think I have it! Sticking it to the white man (or, in this case, woman) to be nominated for the presidency!

Obama compared himself to the great presidencies of Roosevelt (I'm assuming Franklin), Truman, and Kennedy. Would Obama have dropped a nuclear weapon on two major Japanese cities? I know the answer is no; he has already stated his determination to remove America's nuclear arsenal and turn our ICBMs off "ready" alert. Would he take a tough stance if Russia plants 50 nuclear warheads just a few miles from our coastline in the socialist stronghold of Cuba? I know the answer is no here, also; he wants to negotiate with Russia regarding our missile nets that are currently protecting Europe from annihilation by Putin and his quest to bring back a new USSR, a safety net opposed by Russia but not by the rest of NATO. Wonder why that is? Would Obama start a war with a country that presented no direct threat on the US, as FDR did with Germany? I know the answer is no yet again; he is against the operation in Iraq and is ready to pull out after five years even as success is becoming visible and after 4000 deaths. Ten times that number were killed in Germany and decades were spent repairing Europe. We're doing this in a mere few years in a job that is just as important, yet no one questions our involvement in WWII. It is despicable and offensive for him to compare himself to these three great presidents. They did all they could to combat socialism and protect America from it; modern Democrats embrace socialism.

So we'll see what happens in November. I believe it is McCain's to lose. And he definitely can: a poor campaign could quickly allow Obama to sneak in. But an effective one involving a touch of conservatism, patriotism, and respect for right-wingers like me will result in a landslide to Obama's disrespect and disgust for normal Americans. The middle is McCain's for the taking (assuming Clinton is out), and coupled with the right he can win. The fun has just begun. I'm just sad that I can't get excited about anyone until 2012. And it may take four years of absolute liberal failure to jolt this generation of voters into action.

Let the race begin!