Talking about abortion is my least favorite topic for political discussion.  The subject is so divisive, and opinions are so deeply rooted in each person's belief system, that meaningful debate is practically impossible in the U.S.  While I fully understand that rhetoric will not normally sway another person from their opinion, there still exists some room for discussion.

Enter California Proposition 4, the "Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy," or "Sarah's Law."  If passed, the proposition will change procedures for parental notification when an unemancipated minor seeks an abortion.  As the law stands, minors and adults have the same rights to end their pregnancies.  In addition, doctors would have the burden of both informing the minor's guardian and of waiting 48 hours before admitting an underage patient. 

Still, Prop 4 isn't about endorsing a pro-life or pro-choice agenda.  This proposition speaks to how voters think about how families operate.  Prop 4 tests the boundaries of what voters consider acceptable behavior by female children and their parents.  But do the changes merit a yes vote to appease parents left out of the loop of their daughter's sexual activity? 

The public's interest in validating McCain's choice of running mates in Sarah Palin, by considering her personal choices as a mom, is par for the course politically speaking. 

That said, the working mom debate fueled by Palin's nomination has outlived its usefulness.  The war between working moms and stay-at-home moms (SAHM) can't be won.  In my opinion, the main reason why this nomination has sparked controversy has to do with stereotypes of Republican women, namely that they are the SAHM variety.  The fact that Palin votes like a conservative but works like an empowered liberal seems to be creating cognitive dissonance in Democrats and euphoria in Republicans.

But unless you profess an expertise in child rearing, I say, let us Democrats leave Palin's role as a mom alone.  If she is a bad mom, it's between her and her kids.  Yes, she traveled out of state after amniotic fluid began leaking and her water broke in order to keep all pistons firing on her career.  No, I don't think this conversation would be as forgiving if Ms. Palin were a Democrat.  (That she was endangering the fetus apparently seems to be less of an issue because she's a pro-life candidate).

I still say, no matter what, working moms make sacrifices that may sound outlandish to outsiders and those decisions still mainly affect their relationships and families.

The same goes for her daughter, who will soon become a mom herself.  Many of us may hope that our own underage daughters avoid getting pregnant.  Let's (we Democrats) not confuse our own preferences or be too quick to cast the "hypocrite" stone at the Palin family, or for that matter, even the Republican base. 

Labor Day 2008 has me thinking about other meanings of that word, "labor."  As my first little one is due to arrive later this month, "labor and delivery" come to mind most readily. Even now though, my own preoccupation has not completely replaced the significance of Labor Day: a time to honor the American workforce. 

In this milestone election year, will our elected leaders choose to honor or merely consume American labor?  

Regardless of who gets elected president, the country has laws in place protecting even non-unionized American workers from abusive practices, unlike in so many developing countries and even some bigger ones, like China.  Since when, though, should workers compare themselves to their communist counterparts?  By necessity, a changing economy has altered the way we view the workplace, and thus, career success. 

We used to have a fairly predictable model to being successful.  Get good grades.  Go to college.  Get a job with decent benefits and livable wages. But this formula has steadily broken down over several generations.  Getting a college education no longer functions as the final step before entering the workplace.  Some people, like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, the founders of Apple and Microsoft computers, deconstruct the traditional formula even further by skipping college altogether and creating their own circuitous path (no pun intended) to financial independence. 

Are modern politicians still functioning within the outdated model of building a stronger workforce?

Add to the higher education equation whether open borders for trade, à là NAFTA, have ultimately helped or hurt the U.S. worker.  The arguments are well known, especially during an election year.  By making cheap overseas products available to buy and sell, American workers face buying competitors' goods. The problem is we're shipping goods from countries still struggling with the definitions of basic human rights.  The protections most workers take for granted - a lunch break and "clocking out" after eight hours or so -- are pie-in-the-sky ideals in factories around the globe, including those in China, our primary supplier of goods. 

I'm looking for an elected leader who will balance advancing the American worker with accommodating the American consumer.

Lastly, the immigration debate has divided both Democrats and Republicans alike on the matter of labor.  Democrats who favor unionizing workplaces strongly oppose illegal employment practices.  Republicans who favor tightened border security and freeing precious municipal resources oppose illegal hiring, even if it does help the economy supply cheaper goods and services.  Either way, many American workers question whether the value of his or her labor must be cheapened in order to compete with the market forces of underground trade. 

The next president will have to address complex issues of the global economy and how to reinforce the infrastructure of American labor.  Although statistics conflict as to whether we're in a recession or not, most households now feel the pinch of shrinking profits, reprioritizing budgets, and working longer hours.  Maybe Labor Day 2009 will be greeted with pride instead of complete exhaustion.

Professional pundits and those whose opinions carry weight in nationally respected publications have speculated whether Barack Obama's choice of vice president in Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will connect with voters. Here are a few reasons why I think Obama made a good decision:

1. In choosing Joe Biden, the 2008 Democratic nominee wipes out two previous election cycles' worth of poor choices, i.e., Joe Lieberman, (Lie-berman) emphasis on the "lie" he embodies as a traitor to Democrats and to the values he supposedly brought to Al Gore's campaign; and even John Edwards who, although a strong candidate in and of himself, was not a well-suited intellectual or dispositional match with John Kerry. Senator Biden's temperament matches Obama's as being a well-spoken fighter who's as smart as he is loyal to his Democratic roots.


2. Joe Biden is a better choice for undecided voters than Hillary Clinton.  While pure speculation, maybe independent voters have not staked their claims in Senator Obama fearing the talking points from McCain's camp are true: Obama is too young, inexperienced, untested politically, etc...  Joe Biden deadens those arguments because of his nearly forty year history in the Senate.  Plus, anyone repelled by the Democratic Party because of the Clintons' own history (both before and during this presidential race) won't have to hold their noses at voting both Democratic and casting a ballot for a Clinton.  As for Democrats wishing for an Obama-Clinton ticket, all I can say is, Hillary and Bill Clinton made the divisive bed they're in.  Down goes "Operation Chaos."


3. Joe Biden's working class roots come through when he speaks, despite his coordinating silk ties and high-end business suits.  Although he speaks eloquently, and often for extended periods, he connects with listeners who need to hear something substantial from a politician.  In other words, Biden doesn't wear the "elite" intellectual or "celebrity" mantles that Obama gets saddled with even while Biden's mind sparkles.


4. His uncomplicated, straightforward and clear manner of speaking about foreign policy affairs, especially about the Middle East.  He knows the difference between the Sunni and Shia Iraqi tribes.  He can help you and I understand why it matters.  He is down-to-earth about big issues without dumbing it down, and how many intellectuals can do that?  Further, his son, Joseph Robinette "Beau" Biden III, will be deployed to Iraq on October 3rd.  How many sitting senators have a more active stake in finding resolution to the Iraqi quagmire than a father saying goodbye to his son?One might think a father like McCain would have a similar stake, as his son Jimmy served in Iraq, but apparently he wouldn't mind seeing them stay in the Middle East for another 100 years.  Call me nuts, but Biden's approach to the war makes more sense in every way, including on the level of being a father.

He's the right man for the job.  Like many others this week who have already said as much, Senator Barack Obama has made a wise, politically savvy choice in Joe Biden. 

In polite company, so the saying goes, refrain from speaking about religion and politics.  The two subjects tend to roil deep ideological divides between friends and peers where none were apparent.  In the interest of political conversation, however, perhaps discussing the two topics is a worthier pursuit than silence, especially when contemplating a candidate's character. 

Does the role of religion in a politician's private life transmute into a dangerous public weapon used against his or her opponents? Or does the candidate's religion materialize into a useful tool with which to frame issues of morality, ethics, values, and judgment? 

Alternately, may a modern politician publicly avoid discussing his or her religion without engendering the mistrust of voters? 

Enter Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Orange County, California's dual conversations on CNN last Saturday with both presumptive presidential nominees.

His premise at the outset of the forum is that "faith is a worldview."  I think by "faith" Pastor Warren means "Christian faith" and by "worldview" he may mean something closer to an all encompassing mission.  The self-proclaimed "values-voters" (a moniker I only use as shorthand reference, wishing it were something else) often is a one-issue voter.  Want to guess what that one issue tends to be?  The big issue probably does not need to be spelled out, but it has to do with sexuality, as do so many other socially conservative issues. 

So, does a modern presidential candidate hurt his chances of election by emphasizing a worldview that does not include his or her "faith," and more specifically, his or her Christian faith? 

Can there be an agnostic or atheist, or Jewish, president of the future United States?  Or have voters created the need for this type of forum because Christianity is the perennial elephant in the room, so to speak? 

Is it fair to label John McCain's presumptive presidential nomination as tantamount to Bush's third term in the White House?  I thought about this recently after seeing a bumper sticker proclaiming the message.  The McCain camp has also taken notice of this particular line of attack on their candidate's viability.

The matter interests me because if the senator from Illinois hopes to win his bid for the highest elected office, won't his political strategists and advisors need to understand what draws an undecided voter toward Senator McCain as much as away from him? 

The bumper sticker routine, I believe, simply won't work on voters already likely to vote for Senator Obama.  These slogans attempt to discourage the undecided, as well as those leaning toward McCain.  But does this particular insult work in that vein?   

The most obvious premise of the message taps into Bush's increasingly high disapproval ratings.  Since a majority of Americans have repudiated any support Mr. Bush gained before his last term in office, the thinking goes, extending his stay would be political failure.  This idea, however, "preaches to the choir" and probably won't serve to sway voters.

At several recent town hall meetings, as well as the Urban League's Annual Conferences, both presidential nominees addressed relieving taxpayers' financial woes, taking time to highlight their solutions to the high cost of energy and gasoline. Just in time, coincidentally, those same high gas prices have started nudging downward in San Diego as they have been doing incrementally for several weeks. 

So, as battered consumer wallets across the country finally receive respite at the pump (San Diego's highest local average was, according to the Union-Tribune, an unholy $4.63/gallon), which of the two presidential nominees' energy plans are voters more likely to follow -- a candidate whose message embraces funding alternative fuel sources, and expanding nuclear energy and offshore oil drilling to wean the country's dependence on foreign oil, like Senator McCain's plan? Or, will voters respond to a candidate espousing tapping the nation's strategic oil reserves, offshore drilling, wiser consumer use, and imposing "windfall profits taxes" on the big oil producers, as does Senator Obama?

Serving as a backdrop to the ongoing conversation, companies like Exxon Mobile and Shell, last week posted historic, all-time high profit margins. Even for oil companies, this news sent ambivalent waves of pleasure and discord across financial circles, both because of the incongruity of the news in an otherwise weak economy, and because consumer confidence flagged, despite the huge profit margin.

How do you turn a dream job opportunity into a shame-fest of lawless impropriety and highly publicized congressional hearings?  For a clue on living that nightmare, just ask Monica Goodling, the disgraced aide to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' whose political cronyism may lead to having her law license pulled.

Way to go, Monica.  Now your namesake is twice associated with presidential disrepute.

To get a glimpse on this particular road to ruin, first, graduate from a lower-tiered law school known predominantly for its religious affiliations to the televangelist Pat Robertson and its emphasis on educating law students to "change the world for Christ." Next, get hired after only six months of prosecutorial experience to oversee the ongoing hiring of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.  And finally, do a bang-up job of highlighting political affiliation over experience during interviews that would include legally relevant questions like "Have you ever cheated on your wife?"

Amidst televised Congressional hearings into the questionable ouster of nine U.S. Attorneys, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales omitted why he promoted someone to the position of White House liaison, while testifying he had limited knowledge of the practices taking place under his watch.  Goodling resigned last year before testifying under immunity.

Preparing for an appearance on KPBS' "These Days" with Chris McConnell and Chuck Hartley, the topic selection for the program narrowed down to discussing the La Raza conference in San Diego, the gas crisis, and Proposition 2.  Among the producers, the radio program's excellent host Tom Fudge, and the three bloggers, we decided to discuss the Latino vote in general and Proposition 2. 

Although discussing animal cruelty can involve contentious debate, (just check out Chuck's blog and subsequent comments) I started to worry about how the conversation surrounding La Raza would take shape. Would I be asked to defend the organization, which gets a bum rap as being fundamentally divisive? How about my personal reasons for not attending? Would Tom Fudge ask me how a Mexican-American could not attend the conference in good conscience?

The old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," might best apply to decisions yet to be made, instead of expressing woeful regret over what might have been. San Diego still has time to consider whether Bonnie Dumanis should be re-elected as district attorney in 2010.

The following are my reasons for considering otherwise: first, let me qualify any criticism by saying D.A. Dumanis' work ethic is, at the least, impressive. She makes her mark in every position she's worked in, from her first job at the D.A.'s office as a junior clerk typist, to being elected to the office in 2002. 

To her credit, what have been some of her notable accomplishments?