"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." (Thomas Jefferson).

Watching and listening to the candidates and audiences of the two Republican Party presidential candidates debates reminded me of some of the earlier Tea Party rallies also shown on television. I remembered signs carried by some Tea Party members or supporters with poster board pictures of President Obama with a Hitler moustache or a caricature of his mouth with that of "The Joker" from Batman films. Several persons attending these same rallies also carried and prominently displayed their rifles or pistols strapped to their bodies.

Then, of course, there were the famous Sarah Palin congressional district maps depicting crosshairs of a rifle's sight in a map of the United States imposed on designated congressional districts of House members opposed by the Tea Party. Subsequently, the nation was traumatized by the attempted assassination of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, along with the killing six and wounding of 12 other persons.

At one of the Republican presidential debates, Governor Rick Perry of Texas was asked to comment on the large number of persons executed in his state. Before the Governor could respond, there was loud applause from a number of people in the live TV audience. On the issue of healthcare, presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul was asked his reaction to a hypothetical case of an uninsured person who seriously was ill, whether or not such person should be provided with some medical attention even if they could not pay for it and had no other insurance. Again, a significant segment of the live audience shouted, in effect, "let him die!"

These incidents are occurring against an economic backdrop of continued high unemployment, housing foreclosures, sharply contrasting opinions about "illegal immigration" and the widening disparity in wealth inequality in the United States. "Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation's income -- an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret. "(Nobel Prize Economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, May 2011 Issue of Vanity Fair)

"The upper 1 percent of Americans is now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent."

1. "While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous -- 12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades -- and more -- has gone to those at the top."(Stiglitz, May 2011 Vanity Fair)
2. The overall poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent -- a statistically significant increase from 14.3 percent in 2009. This represents 46.2 million people living in poverty in 2010. This is the third consecutive statistically significant increase in the poverty rate. Marian Wright Edelman astutely reminded us in an op-ed blog earlier this week that "this is more than the entire combined populations of Iraq and Niger." And, that "a 2010 front page New York Times story reported that one in 50 -- or six million -- people in America had no income and depended on food stamps to stave off the wolves of hunger."
3. There were 16.4 million children living in poverty in 2010, up from 15.5 million in 2009. The child poverty rate was 22.0 percent, which is a statistically significant increase from the 2009 rate of 20.7 percent. For African-American children, the poverty rate is 38.2 percent for 2010
4. One of the most devastating consequences of widespread housing foreclosure has been the lost of the principal asset compromising African-American wealth. This has resulted in an historic disparity between white and African-American household wealth: "The median wealth of white households is 20 times that of black households and 18 times that of Hispanic households," according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly available government data from 2009. "These lopsided wealth ratios are the largest since the government began publishing such data a quarter century ago and roughly twice the size of the ratios that had prevailed between these three groups for the two decades prior to the Great Recession that ended in 2009."

In addition to the events mentioned above. we also witnessed our national observance of the 10th Anniversary of "911," President Obama's speech to a special joint session of Congress on joblessness and the economy, watched the televised presentation of the President's speech to the 66th United Nations General Assembly, the speech of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, in support of Palestine's application to the UN for membership as an independent state, and the speech of Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, in opposition to the application of the PLO.

I never thought I would ever live to see and hear grandchildren of Jews who experienced Hitler's Holocaust, whose US counterparts constituted the bulwark of support for our civil rights movement, described by President Abbas of the Palestine Authority in his speech to the UN about Israel:

"The core issue is the policy of colonial military occupation of the land of the Palestinian people and all of the brutality of aggression and racial discrimination against our people that this policy entails."

All of this was occurring while the nation was also transfixed on the delay and eventual execution of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia. Over 600,000 people signed petitions calling for a stay of execution to review the original evidentiary witnesses' basis for his conviction; questioning whether it constituted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

However, what should be of grave concern to all persons of goodwill is the rising antipathy, sheer meanness, disrespect, anger, hostility not just to President Obama's policies but to him personally, and to the First Lady. There is a palpable atmosphere of anger and bitterness that is regrettably reminiscent of the sharp divisions in the country during the Vietnam War and some periods during the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

Where is all of this hatred and escalating hostility toward President Obama coming from? It seems to be transcending and going beyond traditional policy differences. There are shades of the domestic politics of the Cold War. President Obama is depicted as being "a socialist," "un-American," implying something akin to "disloyalty," describing him as seeking to impose some "ruthless form of governance" upon the American people; requiring those who "really care" about America "to take our country back."

Take our country back FROM WHERE?

Why are the religious leaders of the faith-based community in our country silent at this time? What more has to occur for them to break their silence and exercise needed moral leadership to stop this escalating and virulent hate speech by those opposed to President Obama? Dr. King often said, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

In 2008, America wanted to believe we could be the best that we could be. Presidential candidate Barack Obama, like Martin Luther King, Jr articulated a prophetic hope and optimism about the goodness of our people; ALL people -- irrespective of race, color, or gender.

What has occurred since then to make a substantial part of Congress set aside their constitutional oath and responsibility to govern in the best interest of our country, and, instead commit themselves to defeat and deny Obama's re-election, at all cost?

President Obama is accused of proposing job recovery and deficit reduction programs that are based on "class warfare." Some on the left, part of Obama's most enthusiastic original voter base, feel "betrayed," claiming his major failing was to "bail out Wall Street" on the backs of Main Street, and the poor. Most of the vitriol, however, is not coming from the left.

There are approximately 14 months to the November 2012 presidential election. On the basis of current political discourse in the media and in public forums, political debate and discussion are likely to become more mean and ugly.

People in a position to know, in contact with the White House, have shared with me information that First Lady Michelle Obama has received more threats to her personal safety than all other previous First Ladies combined. This suggests that it is no longer unreasonable or alarmist speculation to express their serious concern about the ultimate personal safety of the President and First Lady.

Current animosity and public expression of meanness toward the President reminds me of a conversation I had with an elderly African-American woman in Oakland, CA in 2008. She explained to me why she was going to vote for Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama in the primary. She said, she really wanted to vote for Barack Obama, but she felt like grandmother towards him; and, as such, she had a moral obligation to protect him. If she voted for him for President, and he got elected, she said "they will do to him what they did to President Kennedy and Dr. King."

I am optimistic, however, that the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson (quoted in the caption for this blog) will ultimately prevail. Are you?

ORLANDO -- Gov. Rick Scott's announcement that Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll was preceded by two surprising opening acts; Sarah Palin and former President George W. Bush.

When Palin first took the stage inside the Orange County Convention Center, there was an audible gasp among the crowd of delegates.

But it was not Sarah Palin. Instead, Patsy Gilbert impersonated the former governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, even launching into a rap.

John Morgan later joined Gilbert on stage as Bush and also launched into song.

This is not the first time impersonators have shown up at Republican events.

At February's CPAC in Washington, D.C., another fake Sarah Palin caused a stir and in June, a Barack Obama impersonator was yanked off the stage at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans after mocking the Republican presidential hopefuls.

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | Just when it appears Sarah Palin would not enter the 2012 GOP presidential race, results from a new national poll gives fresh hopes for a Palin's presidential run. The latest McClatchy-Marist poll puts the former Alaska governor only five points behind President Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

The Atlantic Wire - Bristol Palin should have learned from her mom's experience in 2008 to be careful around TV cameras because your least articulate moments will be captured and rebroadcast forever. But it looks like she did not. Bristol is being filmed for a reality show to air on the BIO Channel, and they followed her to a Los Angeles bar. She let them film her ride a mechanical bull -- maybe to let viewers see her fun, non-teen mom side. No big deal. But she took a false step when she let herself get pulled into a bar fight. When a man told Bristol that Sarah Palin was "a whore," Bristol made an unfortunate choice in selecting her zinger. "Is it because you're a homosexual?" she asked. "Because I can tell you are."

Scott Conroy, RealClearPolitics
Decision day for Sarah Palin is coming next week. That is, of course, unless it isn't.Asked in July when she would decide whether to run for president, the former Alaska governor told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "August and September. You do have to start laying out a plan if you are to be one to throw your hat in the ring, so that's basically the time frame."During an early August appearance at the Iowa state fair, Palin echoed that language, suggesting again that late-summer was "basically" her deadline to decide."That is still a...

Scott Conroy, RCP
Decision day for Sarah Palin is coming next week. That is, of course, unless it isn't.Asked in July when she would decide whether to run for president, the former Alaska governor told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "August and September. You do have to start laying out a plan if you are to be one to throw your hat in the ring, so that's basically the time frame."During an early August appearance at the Iowa state fair, Palin echoed that language, suggesting again that late-summer was "basically" her deadline to decide."That is still a...

ContributorNetwork - ANALYSIS | Former Massachusetts governor and current Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has made some gains in recent national polling, according to the listing at Real Clear Politics, pulling to within four percentage points of frontrunner Rick Perry in at least a couple surveys, including Rasmussen Reports' latest. In an interview with USA Today, Romney told the national newspaper that his plan going forward was to show the contrasts between himself and Perry, to draw starker lines between himself and the seemingly more conservative Perry and hope it works to persuade Republicans to vote for him in the upcoming caucuses and primaries. He also said he would like to see Sarah Palin enter the Republican race. He says she will make the race "more exciting" and that is most likely true. But is that the only reason Romney wants Palin, who recently alluded to Perry as a crony capitalist, in the hunt for the Republican presidential nomination?

Reuters - A Pennsylvania father and son pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to federal charges they harassed an attorney for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in phone calls authorities say followed their similar badgering of Palin herself.

ContributorNetwork - Sarah Palin is still an unknown quantity when it comes to the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, but regardless of what her ultimate decision will be, the former Alaska governor seems to be doing well in the polls, maintaining a solid double-digit showing. Whether that number reflects her "true believers," as former White House chief of staff Karl Rove might call her supporters, or if it is a base from which she can make gains and be a viable candidate is also an unknown.

Daily Caller - Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is on the verge of making a decision about whether or not to run for president, according to a letter circulated by her political action committee, SarahPAC.

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | According to the Miami Herald, a Marist Poll has some numbers that could prove a game changer for the 2012 elections. The poll finds that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is within five points of President Barack Obama, 45 percent to 49 percent.

The Atlantic Wire - The media meme for Joe McGinniss' book on Sarah Palin was: This is just too mean. For the competing Palin book by Levi Johnston, former finacee of Bristol Palin, the line is: This is just too poorly written. From prudery to snobbery! Come on people, it's not about style, it's about substance -- gossip.

The Atlantic Wire - Sarah Palin is advising Democrats to mount a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, joining Dick Cheney and Ralph Nader as humble outside advisers with only the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart. Just kidding -- Nader wants to stay famous, Cheney wants to control the historical narrative of his controversial tenure as vice-president, and Palin wants people to at least think she's still running for president.

As time ticks away toward the first Republican primary contests, the pressure is building on Sarah Palin to declare her presidential intentions. Staying outside the official pack of hopefuls gives Palin a certain cachet. But it is also frustrating some party activists.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

With time ticking away toward the first Republican primary contests, the pressure is building on Sarah Palin to declare her presidential intentions. Staying outside the official pack of hopefuls gives Palin a certain cachet. But it is also frustrating some party activists.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

ContributorNetwork - The feud between Greta Van Susteren and Tucker Carlson had its first face-to-face confrontation when Carlson appeared on Van Susteren's Fox News show to explain the controversial Daily Caller Mike Tyson article.

The Atlantic Wire - If Rupert Murdoch gave Rick Perry any advice for his presidential campaign when the paired dined at a Manhattan steakhouse Monday night, it might have been: Don't work for me. As Politico's Ben Smith notes, none of the top contenders for the 2012 nomination have worked for Fox News. The candidates that have -- Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum -- are struggling in the single digits in the polls, while other Fox contributors who once had presidential ambitions -- Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin -- are sitting on the sidelines. Could a Fox gig be a political career killer?

"Populism" is a word that gets thrown around with abandon by folks masquerading as journalists on television these days. Sarah Palin had the word used to describe her, and later, the entire Tea Party movement was labeled "populist" by the chattering classes. Today, President Obama unveiled a truly populist agenda, by proposing to tax millionaires at the same tax rate that middle-class Americans pay. By doing so, Obama will (hopefully) redefine the term "populism" in the political conversation. Or, to be technical, he will re-redefine the word back to what it originally meant.

Because while Sarah Palin can (barely) make the case that she's a populist (she did take on oil companies as governor), the Tea Party simply cannot make the same argument. Lazy inside-the-Beltway types began using the word "populism" to describe the Tea Party when they really should have said something like "popular movement," or even "grassroots." Washingtonians apparently were ready to slap the "populist" label onto any political action which took place outside the Beltway. The lesson to be learned is: spend five minutes researching a term, if you really don't know what it means. But it's a pretty safe bet this lesson will not, in fact, be learned by the media at large.

It's easy enough to see why the media get confused. Here's a snippet of a speech given at the very first Populist Party convention, in 1892:

We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress... We seek to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of the 'plain people'.

This could easily be cheered at a Tea Party rally today, one might think. But when you examine what the Populists were actually for and against, you can see why this connection simply cannot be made (at least not with a straight face).

A little over a century ago, the Populist movement began. We differentiate between this original Populism and today's populists with proper capitalization. Populists back then ("big-P" Populists, in other words) were indeed a political movement to put power in the hands of the people. But that's where the likeness to today's Tea Partiers ends. Because Populists were not against big government, they were against corrupt government -- quite a large distinction to make. Populists were for direct election of senators, for instance, because of the cronyism in the statehouses at the time. Some Tea Partiers today champion getting rid of the Sixteenth Amendment, for reasons which surpass understanding. Populists were behind giving voters direct power, not only for electing senators but also for recalling politicians and the direct democracy of the ballot initiative. Populists were also for a graduated income tax -- so the wealthy would pay a higher percentage. The Right has for years been arguing for a "flat tax" which would do away with such Populist ideas.

But the main thrust of the Populist movement was economic. Populists were, quite bluntly, against big business, Wall Street, and East Coast banks. They were against monopolies such as the railroads of the era. They favored the federal government getting involved in this fight, and even favored a federal takeover of the rail system and the telegraph system (and they weren't talking about some namby-pamby "bailout," they were talking about straight-up, no-chaser "nationalization" of both). Populists were rabidly anti-big-business, whereas today's Tea Party seems to want to return to an era with no business regulations whatsoever. The Ayn-Randian, free-market-worshipping position of many Tea Partiers is exactly the opposite of Populism, in other words.

One thing the Populists and the Tea Partiers would undoubtedly see eye-to-eye on (to be fair, here) is Ron Paul's insistence on American returning to the gold standard. The Populists were around during the monumental fights over free coinage of silver (and the gold standard) back in the 1890s.

The Populists did have an ugly side, to be historically accurate. They were fiercely anti-immigrant, for example -- for the same reasons bandied about today ("They're taking our jobs!"). And the disgraceful leap from hating "Eastern bankers" to outright anti-Semitism was one which more than a few Populists made, as well. So while Populists did advance the progress of American democracy in many important ways, they were far from flawless when viewed through the lens of today's ethical and moral standards.

Enough history, though, let's get back to the announcement President Obama made today. Now, what Obama proposed today is not really anything new, in more than one sense. In the first place, Obama has spoken of taxing the wealthier among us at a slightly higher rate for years now. In the second place, Senator Charles Schumer has been pushing the idea of a "millionaires' tax" for months now. Obama has now embraced the idea fully, though, which is why he's making news. Campaign 2012 has begun, in other words, and Obama has staked out a mighty populist position from which to run.

Again, this should really come as no surprise to anyone, but I'm often astounded at how short the memories are in the Washington punditocracy. The president set this entire scene up last December, with the deal he cut to extend the Bush tax cuts. At the time, more attention was paid to the wailing of Democrats over the two-year extension, but what I found most interesting was the timing of it. Right after the deal was announced (which I was calling "The Deal" at the time), I wrote (emphasis in original):

It has been reported that the White House was the one to insist on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires. I warned them not to do this, personally, because that puts the next giant tax cut fight right in the middle of the 2012 election season.

Obama, to put it in poker terms, has gone "all in" on this being a central fight during his re-election campaign. He didn't need to do so. He could have punted altogether by getting a three-year extension, which would have put the debate comfortably into the next presidential term. He could have forced the debate during the primary season, by getting a one-year extension. Obama did neither. The White House is calculating that this will be a great debate to have in 2012, when (assumably) the economy is doing better and people are feeling more positive about the future of the country. Obama is staking a lot on leading the Democratic side of this debate, right when American voters will be paying close attention.

This, to put it mildly, is a risky strategy.

At the time, I wondered if Democrats would have the president's back. I still wonder this, although there were hopeful signs from Schumer today, who was quoted in the Huffington Post:

This is a game changer in the tax debate. It will make the Republican position almost indefensible. The president has a winning hand, and he is going all in. And I believe Democrats will be behind him. ... Just about every Democrat will be behind him.

We'll see whether this proves to be true or not. Because, like it or not, Democrats are going to be presented with populism as the centerpiece of the 2012 campaign. The idea of taxing millionaires fairly is actually a very popular one (as well as being a truly populist one), as poll after poll shows. However, Democrats have not actually run on "tax the rich" in many a long year, so their populist skills may prove to be a bit rusty.

So far, about the most populist thing the Obama administration has done was to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to elevate Elizabeth Warren to such stature that she can now make a viable run to reclaim Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. Her campaign will likely be a model example of how Democrats can run on a modern populist message.

President Obama knows, of course, that none of his tax ideas are ever going to see the light of day from the Republican House. His jobs plan may not fare much better, although it's at least conceivable that portions of it may be passed. No portion of his ideas on taxing millionaires will be, however. His announcement today -- which even included a veto threat -- was meant to define his upcoming campaign. By doing so, he may reclaim and redefine (or "define back to the original meaning") the term "populism." At its core, Populism was an economic movement. It was pro-tax (graduated income tax, with higher brackets for higher-paid earners), it was pro-regulation (don't let Wall Street get away with murder), and it was anti-monopoly. Today's Tea Partiers would have been horrified by the true Populists, to put it another way. The true Populists probably would have considered President Obama's "Buffett Rule" pretty weak beer, since it only evens the tax rate out between millionaires and average American workers, but they also would have seen it as a big step in the right direction.

Whether Obama's populist campaign works or not, maybe it'll at least stop the media from continuing their lazy habit of calling the Tea Partiers "populist" (which is, historically, quite laughable). That, too, would be a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post

 

Politico - She calls Carlson out for prominently posting the headline, “Mike Tyson: Sarah Palin met the ‘womb shifter’.”

The Atlantic Wire - The New York Times trashed his book on Sarah Palin. Politico noted that it had united Palin with her fiercest antagonists - the dreaded "lamestream media" - in opposition to its prurience and spiteful tone.

CBS News / New York Times
9/10-15/11; 1452 adults, 3% margin of error
747 likely Republican primary voters
1356 registered voters
Mode: Live telephone interviews
CBS Obama story, Republican primary story, State of the Country story, Congress story, results; New York Times story, results

National

Obama Job Approval
43% Approve, 50% Disapprove (chart)
Economy: 34 / 57 (chart)

State of the Country
23% Right Direction, 72% Wrong Track (chart)

Congressional Job Approval
12% Approve, 80% Disapprove (chart)

Obama Favorable Rating
39% Favorable, 42% Unfavorable (chart)

2012 President: Republican Primary
23% Perry
16% Romney
7% Bachmann
5% Cain
5% Paul
3% Palin (vol)
2% Huckabee (vol)
1% Huntsman
1% Santorum
1% Christie (vol)
1% McCain (vol)
(chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable (among RVs)
Michele Bachmann: 19 / 36
Herman Cain: 14 / 14
Newt Gingrich: 19 / 46
Jon Hunstman: 9 / 18
Sarah Palin: 20 / 62 (chart)
Ron Paul: 17 / 31
Rick Perry: 21 / 29
Mitt Romney: 25 / 29 (chart)
Rick Santorum: 7 / 19

Favorable / Unfavorable (among Republican primary voters)
Michele Bachmann: 35 / 21
Herman Cain: 30 / 10
Newt Gingrich: 39 / 33
Jon Hunstman: 10 / 21
Sarah Palin: 36 / 39
Ron Paul: 21 / 34
Rick Perry: 44 / 9
Mitt Romney: 45 / 17
Rick Santorum: 15 / 13

Toby Harnden, Daily Telegraph
Sunday 18 September 2011 | Blog Feed | All feedsSign in or registerBy Toby Harnden US politics Last updated: September 17th, 2011Comment on this Comment on this article There is one sentence that sums up the despicable nature of the latest book to cash in on the phenomenon of Sarah Palin "“ a woman who no longer holds any public office and is a possible, though for now unlikely, future presidential candidate.It is an anonymous quotation from "a friend" of Palin's, who says: "Sarah and her sisters had a fetish for...

ContributorNetwork - COMMENTARY | As a former political consultant, I find unauthorized tell-all biographies like Joe McGinniss' "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin" as a waste of time due to the fact they never accomplish what they set out to do. When the book comes out later this week, it will not have the obviously intended impact. If anything, it will have the opposite impact.

Joe McGinniss's new book, The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin touts itself as "a startling and penetrating examination of the illusion and reality of Palin," but the book's claims about Palin's supposed fling with college basketball star Glen Rice, and her alleged cocaine use (reportedly snorted from the top of an empty oil drum) -- suggest a decidedly low-brow approach.

Team Palin has pushed back against McGinniss's account, characterizing it as the product of an obsessive personal vendetta. (Watch McGinniss and Todd Palin discuss the book in the video below.)

"This is a man who has been relentlessly stalking my family to the point of moving in right next door to us to harass us and spy on us to satisfy his creepy obsession with my wife," Todd Palin wrote of McGinniss. "His book is full of disgusting lies, innuendo and smears. Even The New York Times called this book 'dated, petty,' and that it 'chases caustic, unsubstantiated gossip.'"

The New York Times indeed was unkind to The Rogue. In her review, Janet Maslin wonders if McGinniss isn't simply basking in the limelight:

So much for the soft sell. Soon Mr. McGinniss is settling in to enjoy the fuss his mere presence has created. “Normally, for a news story to continue beyond the first 24-hour news cycle, something newsworthy must occur,” he writes loftily, but “The Rogue” is filled with proof to the contrary. What was his hate mail like? He quotes it. What did Glenn Beck call him? That’s here too. Who took umbrage at this venom and chose to help him? One man offered him a hideout, despite Mr. McGinniss’s slight skepticism about his motives. “But you don’t know me,” Mr. McGinnis protested.

McGinniss's book doesn't have an index, but we've gone through and picked out some of his juciest claims. Take a look at the slideshow below and vote for your favorite.