It's appalling. In less than 8 hours, every media outlet and Obama supporter trashed Palin for everything ranging including experience, integrity and absolute trash talk. Yet, for over 18 months, these same people have patently ignored Obama's glaring lack experience or legislative accomplishments and his 20+ years of relationships with racists, terrorists and felons. Each of the stones they throw demonstrates a criteria that their candidate has not met.

Let's assume (though it is patently false) that Gov. Palin is not qualified to be Vice President due to lack of experience. Were that the case, would it the same argument be even more true about Sen. Obama? Put more simply: if both candidates are inexperienced, which would have the least potential for causing irreparable harm- A President or Vice President?

Conveniently, this in not the case. Obama speaks endlessly about Change, but in 11 years of legislative experience has yet to accomplish anything other than running for subsequent offices, voting 'present' 130 times and falling infalliby in line with his parties positions. Palin, in comparison, has accomplished more in her time as Governor than Obama has accomplished in his lifetime.

It is clear that Obama cannot hold a candle to Palin's accomplishments, experience or integrity and is emminently more qualified to be President than him. But she is running for Vice President alongside the one politician in Washington who does not only speak about change, but has a 28 year track record of accomplishing it. Comparing Palin to Biden is similarly a joke. After 30 years in the Senate, you would think that he could get more primary votes than Stephen Colbert. Sadly, he could not. Biden, like the inferior man at the top of his ticket, unfailingly votes with his party and has a similar, unfailing record of publicly insulting people based on race, religion, national origin, intelligence and sex. Even at his VP introduction, he introduced his by saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, my wife Jill, who you'll meet soon, is drop dead gorgeous.She also has her doctorate degree, which is a problem."

So, not only does the Democratic ticket denounce women for their intelligence, but it also bans voting for women at it's conventions.

It is truly sad that on the anniversary of Dr. King's illustrious "I Have a Dream" speech, the Democrats nominated candidates in spite of the content of their character, not because of it.

It is even more sad that less than 24 hours later, their campaign's mysogenistic first response to Gov. Palin's selection. Obama later stated that his revised statement is what he really meant and everyone shout disgard the "hair trigger" of his campaign. Odd that it's his campaign's "hair trigger" that needed to be corrected, considering how often he and his surrogates condemn McCain's "hair trigger", which has yet failed to present itself in this campaign. 

But, this lastest inconsistency and after the fact revision is nothing new. Obama has done it with nearly every one of his policies and even in his statements about the Russia/ Georgia conflict. 3 statements and two days later, he comes around to making the same type of comments that McCain initially (and correctly) made and the Obama campaign condemned.

The President does not get multiple tries to get things right when his decisions are of national and global consequence. The President cannot vote 'present' no matter how politically expedient it may be. Thank goodness we have John McCain, who seems to not only get things right the first time, he generally hit things out of the park. His performance at Saddleback was the first significant evidence during the campaign of this glaring disparity between him and Obama. I suppose that the lack of further evidence is due to the debates that Sen. Obama vehemently calls for but has singularly failed to show up to. Sen. McCain had the invitation and chair waiting for months, but Obama was too busy on his marketing junkets to actually address issues. It is the candidate of Change that has insisted on only the standard debate template and conspicously avoids questions about policies, in favor of lofty and undefined rhetoric.

God forbid Gov. Palin should ever be called upon to fulfill the most dreaded responsibility of a Vice President, I for one fell confident that she has a consistent track record or Change that Can Be Documented instead of Change that we're trying to get  you to Believe but have no evidence of and no plan to achieve.

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be to the closest peer to the day to day job of the Vice President- to preside over the Senate. Sarah Palin has lead, from an executive role, the State of Alaska to implementing a comprehensive conservation and energy reform and developed new means to help meet our country's energy needs from the State that has produced the most domestic energy for decades. She has been to ANWAR and been a part of environmentally responsible programs. In contrast, Speaker Pelosi gives speeches about saving the earth while banning voting or debate on energy production and reform. Palin sold her State's executive jet and put the money back into the budget while Pelosi was demanding a larger and less fuel efficient plane so she wouldn't have to stop for fuel while commuting on taxpayer dollars. Palin seeks to drill oil while Speaker Pelosi seeks to "drill your brains".

I hope that all the ignorant have fun with your post partisan smear campaigns. Gov. Palin has work to do.

I think I may be behind the curve, but something just occurred to me.

Recently from the Obama campaign, we've had:

• John McCain is rich and doesn't understand poor people have to face every day
• John McCain is "more of the same" policies that have been controlling things
• Republicans are going to try to scare you because Obama doesn't fit the model:
  
• he "doesn't look like people on dollar bills"
• "...and did I mention he's black?

Also, on Monday night we heard Michelle Obama talk a lot about:

• Barrack growing up in a single parent home
• How hard hers and his parents had to work to get by

In addition to prior statements from both Michelle and Barrack about

• how hard it was to be accepted
• how smart they are (grades, scholarships, etc.)
  

Also, we have had Barrack talking a lot about talking to enemies and not reducing ourselves to the moral standing of other nations.

Strangely, we heard all of this a few months ago, nearly word for word.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfu2P6cGhWo

I guess that Barrack did make it to some of those sermons after all. If "That is not the Reverend Wright [he] knew...", then why does his campaign sound exactly like Wright's sermon?

As the MSM and the Obama Campaign like to remind us at every opportunity, this Thursday will mark the 45th Anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech. I have always had enormous respect and admiration for Dr. King and his words and efforts. He is, without question, one of the greatest leaders in history, in my opinion, and this speech defines profound turning point in both American and human history.

As a white male, I cannot profess to fully relate to or understand the complexity and depth of change that was so vibrantly ushered in by Dr. King. Still, it is clear to me that our nation and the world is a far better place, thanks to him. In the 45 years that have passed since this historic speech, it seems to me that we have progressed further and faster than King may have immagined possible during his time. I don't suggest that we've acheived the full scope of the dream he spoke about, but to my eyes, the resemblence to the world he only imagined 45 years ago is clear. What once could only exist in a dream has evolved into a tangible possiblity.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." has always been my favorite line from all of King's may speeches. To me, it encapsulates the stunning vision of King's dream; not only within the context of race but beyond it. After all, is not self actualization and the unfiltered acknowledgement of our unique individual value the greatest challenge and the boldest aspiration of all people?  Consider the genius of Stephen Hawkings contained within his crippled form. Look to the messages of the learned, like Socrates, Lincoln, Ghandi, King and countless others; which survive their deaths and remain equallty inspiring and relevant decades, centuries and millenia after. The truth that the frailty of flesh cannot hope to compare the the enormity of human character is distinctly evident.

It saddens me, however, that a message so unequivocally truthful and relevant as this could become twisted and abused. Today, we live in a world where the content of people's character can be shown to have carried people from every race, religion, gender and condition to heights that could not have been imagined even decades ago. But rather than acknowlege progress and be awed by the realization of character and potential, we seem to more often use the former, unenlightened disparity as an excuse.  It is demanded that we judge the content of character through the filter of perceived limtations of the flesh.

We are no longer called upon to encourage greatness or to seek self actualization. In Dallas, the school district now seeks to reduce drop out rates by offering multiple chances to pass tests rather than facilitate personal accoutability for results. Our society seeks to treat personal addiction rather than building the character to reject the temptation to become addicted. Where would Stephen Hawking be if he had simply given in to self pity for his physical condition? Would we have travlled to the moon if we denied the soundness of our scientific progress in the face of the failure a deaths of Apollo 1? Where would our nation be if Dr. King had allowed himself to succumb to self doubt, threats or violence? Today, we have turned away from fostering or expecting greatness to accomdating failure and incompetance on the basis of perceived unfairness or personal limitations. In this, we have moved away from the pusuit of King's Dream and abandoned development of character and moved toward a society of encouraged mediocrity and concessions.

I am disgusted by the media, the Obama campaign and other's less than subtle suggestions that Barrack Obama's candidacy represents the realization of Dr. King's Dream and the symbolic significance of his acceptance speech on Thursday. He has vehemently avoided and condemned all attempts to evaluate his character while attacking the character of the George Bush, his Democratic and Republican opponents, the and Republican Party. Countless media acticles, pundits and supporters demand that Obama be elected on face value, without critical appraisal, based on the undefined ideas of 'Hope' and 'Change'. He and his supporters profess that he should be elected due to judgement which has not been developed through and is not supported by experience. Countless media articles and bloggers state that if he is not elected in an environment where the majority does not approve of the character of an outgoing President, it will ONLY be due to race.

What evidence we have of Obama's character is not good. He has won elections not based on character, qualifications or support; but instead on having opponents removed from the ballot. His judgment and character displayed in his choice of associations is exceedingly questionable if not outright poor. When he is asked to give a position or opinion, his answers are either essays speculating on ideas or otherwise a vote of  'present'. When questions of character or judgement comes up, his defense in not of his character; but instead accusations that others are trying to scare people because he "doesn't look like all those other Presidents on dollar bills" or "he's got a feisty wife" or "he's black".

By all accounts, Obama's campaign is not the realization of Martin Luther King's Dream; it is a departure from it. The "historic nature" of his campaign (and the defense of his overwhelming and bias media coverage) is solely because of his race not his character There is nothing "historic" about his resume, his experience, his ideas, his speeches or his judgment. The only thing "historic" other than race is how little critical examination has been conducted on a candidate for President.

On this anniversary of a profound and enlightening speech by from a distinguished American of enormous character; it is my sincere hope that we will honor Dr. King's true Dream and judge Barrack Obama not on his race but on his character.

Some years ago, there was a bar I used to go to on occasion that was noted for it's chicken wings and comic decor. Prominently displayed near the bar was a sign with the message, "FREE BEER TOMORROW". The sign, of course, was displayed everyday and tomorrow, regrettably, was always tomorrow. Today, while reading Michael Goodwin's column After Barack Obama hype, a backlash (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/08/19/2008-08-19_after_barack_obama_hype_a_backlash.html), the memory of that infamous sign came immediately to mind. It occurred to me that speculation this week about the Democratic VP pick by the fawning media and the "FREE BEER TOMORROW" sign have a lot in common.

Saturday evening, we all witnessed the reality of this Presidential campaign. All the campaign camp and media spin was stripped away. There were no concerts preceeding the event, no banners banned or signs handed out by staff. No telepromters or prepared speeches. What was left was only the two primary candidates for the office of President sitting down for what resembled a legitimate job interview. The result was that one candidate dominated the interview and shone better than any prior public engagement in his extensive career and the other stammered his way around each question, frantically trying to pad his thin resume and sound intellectual where he was woefully out of his depth. For the first time in this campaign, the discussion was not about job approval ratings soon to be irrelevent Presidents, who's marketing department was most adept and making someone look Presidential, nonsense internet rumors or vague suggestions of Hope or Change. It was about taking an in depth look at two people, one of who will be President. McCain unequivically demostrated that judgement is of immese importance and good judgement only comes from experience. Obama demonstrated that, while he is a talented and intelligent individual, he completely lacks the judgment that he has been waving like a banner for nearly 2 years. It is the President's job to make decisions and deal with the ineviatable consequences, good or bad; not to theorize on opposing ideas and offer no conclusion.

This clear cut distinction was disaterous the the pop culture image that the media and Obama's campaign had spent more than 24 months construction and promoting. The idea of having Hope is inspiring and uplifting; but unless it's backed up with a plan and action it amounts to nothing. Almost everyone on earth can agree that they would like to be in a better position than they are right now, our world has become a place with more questions than answers and that we have all seemed to, at best, tread water rather than swim in the grand scheme of things. The insistence that the grass is certainly greener on the other side of the fence is fundamental to human existance. Change seems the only answer, until you ask the questions: What will Change cost? What will we sacrifice in the name of Change? What is our actual plan of Change?... No one on earth would knowingly throw out a winning lottery ticket, no matter how small the sum; yet few take the time to add up how much they spend on losing tickets or realize how much interest they would have gained on that alternative sum, had they simply put that money into a savings account. "Free Beer Tomorrow" the the promise of Utopia, yet tomorrow lacks a date.

But the idea of "Free Beer" is pervasive; not easily dismissed by cold, rational logic. Once you stop believing in Santa Claus, the world is a far less Hopeful place. The reality that mom and dad stressed and saved the previous year and went into credit card debt for the next to pay for the illusion is not very heartwarming. The people who hung the "Free Beer Tomorrow" signs had an investment to protect and more importantly an image to maitain. So, rather than discuss the distinct realities that we all witnessed, those with the emotional, financial and credibility investments dealt with grief in the same way we all do- they moved on to denial. Grandma can't be dead. I just talked to her yesterday and she looks like she is sleeping in that box with all the flowers around it. I know the sign was up every day for the last month; but it clearly says, "Free Beer Tomorrow". Obama has told us that he will bring Hope, Change and Judgment for months! Surely one hour that proves the opposite is not enough to overturn all that! There is clearly something else to this story. Someone has cheated! It was an unfair set up from the beginning!

Our media friends seem to move through grief more quickly. They moved rapidly from denial to distraction. "Obama's VP to Be Announced Tomorrow". Yes, they have raise that banner each day this week. If people have doubts about the "Free Beer", perhaps we can keep this sharade going with the promise of "Free Chicken Wings Tomorrow" and people will just have to accept that they have to pay for the beer.

There has been a lot of talk recently about judgment, or more specifically, judgment vs. experience. It has been a campaign slogan, the topic of countless debates and even CNN’s Jack Cafferty recently asked the question, “Which is more important; judgment or experience?” It seems like I am the only person who feels like kicking in my computer monitor or television when this argument is made.

My issue with this comparison is that it is unanswerable as the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In my life, I make judgments on a lot of things; what tie looks best with a suit, should I take the back roads or the interstate to my destination, does my girlfriend’s rear end look big in those jeans… No matter what judgment I am called on to make, my answer is entirely dependent on prior experience coupled with knowledge of the topic. For example, my choice of tie will depend entirely on my knowledge of fashion trends and my prior experiences in wearing the same (or similar) tie with that suit. My choice for the best route to take would depend entirely on my prior experience with traffic during similar times of the day and other considerations. My judgment on the appearance of my girlfriend’s rear end would no doubt be influenced by my prior experiences of being hit with a frying pan no matter what answer I give.

A good friend once said what I consider to be the most profound statement in life: “At any point in time, we are the product of all our experiences; both good and bad”. Putting the judgment vs. experience argument into this context shows it to be even more absurd. Consider a toddler trying to decide whether or not to touch the tempting and attractive glowing coil of an electric stove. Suggesting that the child could use good judgment in absence of the experience of being burned or the logic of choosing not to be burned is ridiculous. Thus, we all go through life making choices that we judge in retrospect to be either good or bad and use this experience for future reference. Certainly the toddler that has burned himself on a hot stove can utilize good personal judgment in resisting its seductive and warming glow in the future; whereas the toddler who is warned away by protective parents may remain susceptible to it beckoning in a less supervised atmosphere.

Let’s apply these principles to our current Presidential debate. Senator Obama claims the mantle of superior judgment on the basis of his opposition to the Iraq War. Now, consider the facts. At the time of his referenced opposition speech, Senator Obama was an Illinois State Senator. At the time, he had no experience with foreign policy, national legislation, military matters or any other matter that was relevant to the topic. So where did the knowledge for this supposed judgment come from? Does 5 years as a “community organizer” in Chicago convey understanding of the complexity of international governmental affairs or 5 years as a State Legislator (through 2002)?  Prior to that, Mr. Obama can only at best reference the same challenges faced by all recent college graduates, “Yup, you’re smart and you’ve got good grades, kid. You’ve even got a nice sheepskin from a good school. But for this role, we need someone with experience. Come back in see me in 5 years or so when you’ve cut your teeth some”. While Obama’s resume does illustrate an person of assumingly high intelligence with an exceptionally ambitious track record, I completely fail to see anything that could be referenced as the foundation of good judgment on matters of foreign relations.

This argument will no doubt be at odd with those who protest, “experience or not, he was right”. So in fairness, let’s explore that side of things. First, by virtue of that argument, we agree that he does not have experience in these matters. So, at best, we cannot factually claim good judgment but could potentially say that he made a good guess. I don’t say this in an attempt to be belittling, since a good guess is better than a bad one and if someone guesses right, it can still be regarded as an accomplishment. My point is that we cannot, in fact, state that someone has demonstrated good judgment on a matter that he has no verifiable knowledge of or experience with.

This leaves the second half of the argument of “… he was right”.  That, I must insist, is a matter of opinion. Before debating this, I must concede one point. In retrospect and taken as a whole to date, it is my opinion that the Iraq War has been in large part, a bungled mess. That is a long discussion and a different topic however. It is also not particularly relevant here, since something being handled poorly or even the result of an action has nothing to do with whether the decision to take action is correct or not. To put my argument into perspective, consider this example. You are in a desert and haven’t had anything to drink in two and a half days. You stumble on a bottle of water. After gulping down the water; your dehydrated body goes into shock, your stomach becomes an instant pit of pain and you vomit all of what you drank onto your shoes. This does not make the decision to drink the water a bad one. The implementation of this decision, however, was extremely poor and netted a terrible experience and bad result.

So, now we are talking only about the decision. Like any decision, it was made based on a haphazard mix of facts, speculation, questions, projections and prior experience. Facts- Saddam Hussein had refused to comply with post Gulf War several resolutions and conditions for withdrawal for 10 years. Speculation- there was evidence that he may possess weapons of mass destruction and the means to develop and deploy additional weapons (based on evidence from US and numerous international sources). Questions- Does he have these weapons? What is his intent if he does possess them? How does all of this factor into the reality of the terror threat we face? Projections- Saddam’s consistent and continued lack of cooperation and compliance strongly suggests a significant threat to the national security of the US, a threat to a volatile region and potential grave implications to the overall terrorist threat. Prior Experience- Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, had engaged in hostile action against a sovereign nation, made clear threats to the US and its interests and committed acts of genocide.  The US, UN and other nations and entities had made sanctions, engaged in diplomacy and exhausted every alternative means to address these issues over a ten year period and again, prior to even suggesting a military action. After the consistent failure of alternatives, Saddam was presented with the option of cooperating or facing the military action and still refused to comply or negotiate. Barring anything that happened or was learned subsequent to the war, that was the only information we had. A choice was made. Like in our example with the water, we could have chosen not to drink the water and considered the possibility that help may arise in the future or circumstances would change. Once action is taken, it is impossible to discern the consequences of inaction. My opinion is that the right decision was made, even though the implementation and results were poor. Anyone is welcome to a different opinion, but that that is all it is. An opinion based on speculation of a hypothetical alternative is nothing more than an opinion, not demonstration of good judgment.

Let’s put this into further context. A State Senator from Illinois with no prior experience or knowledge of similar matters made a speech in opposition of an action that was supporting by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the US Congress, the President of the United States and several independent nations. All of these entities, other than the Illinois State Senator had access to confidential and public intelligence information on the matter and most had years, if not decades of experience in dealing with similar matters. The only support that this State Senator had for his opinion was an absence of complete and factual information and minority opinions. To state that a person with zero experience, minimal information, no expert resources and against majority opinion had demonstrated good judgment would require that that person be omnipotent. Despite rumors to the contrary, I think that we can all agree that while Barrack Obama is many things, omnipotent is not one of them.

I think we can conclude, without question, that Obama has at best made a good guess (only if you agree with his conclusions in spite of significant evidence and majority and international opinion to the contrary; relevant to the time of the decision). Alternatively, we can conclude that a State Senator made a speech that was designed with the sole purpose of garnering public support for a Federal Senate campaign. In consideration of this question, I offer the following observations and experiences. Over the past 2 years, Senator Obama has come out on both sides of every issue presented during this campaign. No, I am not calling him a flip-flopper and even if I were, I do not consider that to be a negative thing. If someone can demonstrate factual information or experience that causes them to revise their judgment on an issue, I fully support them. Obama does not do this. He consistently represents both sides. His voting record demonstrates more of the same. He routinely elects to vote present when he does vote and has been complete absent from a significantly more votes. When he has spoken against of half of what he has voted for with a complex series of explanations and visa versa for what he has voted against. For a specific example, he recently altered his firm stance in opposition to offshore drill to say, that he would support it only in the interests of furthering a different solution. Is that judgment or politics? Most recently, in regard to the situation in Georgia, he came out with a vanilla statement that was conspicuously absent of stance or position of any kind so as to get something to the media without significant delay. One hour later, he became slightly more condemning of Russia while maintaining a vanilla position. Immediately following, his staff condemns McCain’s statement only to have Obama come out with something strikingly similar to McCain a day or so later. Previously, he has to give two press conferences within hours of each other to “clarify” his statements on withdrawal from Iraq, both of which directly contradict “what I have [he has] always said…”

Based on all the information and facts available from the past 2 years of Obama campaign, his voting record, his speeches, his consistent and admittedly poor judgment in his chosen personal relationships, mentors and supporters and my overall experience in regard to him; I have to conclude that not Barrack Obama has consistently failed by any measure to demonstrate good or even reliable judgment of any kind. I can excuse some of this due to his overwhelming lack of experience in related matters, but I would have expected better judgment in personal relationships from someone who has spent 5 years as a community organizer and 7 as state politician and less than 2 as US Senator before announcing his intent to run for President. Even if he understands nothing else, his experience should have given him better judgment of people, even if he never heard what any of them said and was ignorant to their prior felonies, terrorist acts or shady business deals. If find it very difficult to trust someone’s judgment on issues related to 3,537,441 square miles of the United States when he has demonstrated such utter ignorance and poor judgment in purchasing his own property. Setting aside any nefarious allegations, who in the world would by the majority of a property that blocks access to an adjoining lot that was sold to another person? Did he intent to allow neighbors and strangers unlimited access to his yard for as long as he chose to live there? I certainly wouldn’t care for my home to be the entrance to someone else’s property, especially if I paid $1.65 million for it.  Do you really want this guy signing off of federal land issues?

In Mr. Obama’s defense, I do respect that it would have been difficult and far less appealing to print, “I made one arguably good guess in my short political career” on bumper stickers and campaign signs. I would certainly recommend his for a marketing job, since there he seems to have significantly better judgment.