For the first part of John McCain’s speech, I must admit I was somewhat bored. By the end however, I was on the edge of my seat as the crowds cheered and John McCain shouted his litany of those things against which we Americans’ will always fight. How inspiring to hear such declarations from an American POW. By the end of his speech, John McCain had the crowd on its feet, much in the way we had anticipated Barack Obama would do in his Greek temple address. This however, is really not a fare comparison for with all of the eloquent words and stunning backdrops and roaring crowds Barack Obama could have conjured, his story could never have compared with that told my John McCain last night. McCain’s speech was soaring, but not so much thanks to crafty speech writing or impressive delivery, rather because the story itself was transcending. 

A friend of ours, who will be voting for Barack Obama, recently commented that while he was appreciative of McCain’s POW service, such service did not necessarily equal qualification for the Presidency. True, but then what is it exactly that makes Barack Obama better? In Rudy Giuliani’s speech the night prior, he brilliantly displayed the two candidates in resume form, stripping their names and party affiliations, referring solely to their experience. The difference was stark. A week ago, we watched the documentary of a man’s rise to stardom from the coast of Hawaii to his education at Harvard to his life in Chicago and eventually in the U.S. Senate. A week later, we listened to a man talk about the time in which his body and spirit were broken in the service of his country. We watched on as he later returned to that same country as a legislator to repair the damaged relationship between the two countries. His story brought tears to the eyes of Veterans throughout the room and left most the rest of us painfully humbled, aware how precious little we personally had sacrificed for that same great cause. Certainly being a POW does not necessarily make one fit for the office President but it does beg the question, what more could such a candidate possibly have done to prove his love of country?

Married to a military man myself, I am daily impressed by the sorts of men and women who serve in our armed forces. We would be fortunate to have one of them serve in our White House.   Their standard of excellence, their demands for maturity and their codes of honor make for some of the most amazing Americans I have ever met. And Barack Obama thinks that John McCain is the one who doesn’t get it?

Not since Brittany Spears’ not so pleasant bald-phase have we seen the media come together in so overt a fashion as has been the case with the Palin smear campaign. It’s too bad too. They were having such a good time playing offensive with their obsessive coverage of Obama and Biden(yawn), that it is now almost painful to watch them struggle In their effort to determine whether to use their precious and limited sound bites to praise and worship Obama or to lambast and liable Palin. How pleasant this election has become.

My husband falls much more to the center of the political spectrum than myself yet as we sat together last night and watched the delivery of two of the best speeches thus far in the 2008 Election, both of us were equally enthusiastic and how refreshing, after the painful and incessant subjection to the DNC’s nuanced references to hope and change. 

We Republicans are a more particular bunch. Most of us read. We do our research so fluffy, transcending speeches just don’t cut it for long. Unfortunately for our conservative leaders, this makes their job considerably more difficult. More interested in the bottom line than pretty words, we demand candid speech and specific examples. After all, we don’t have a lot of free time to sit around and watch our politicians bloviate. There’s work to be done and typically, we are the ones doing most of it.  

It is for precisely these reasons that so many of us were elated after last night’s RNC speech. We got the straight talk we have been waiting for. And from whom did we get it? That’s right, a woman! It’s about time we women got a noble role model in this country. This is not to minimize the efforts of Hillary Clinton. There have indeed been certain aspects of Senator Clinton about which we have been impressed but I personally claim no membership with the “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pant Suits.” 

Who ever said a woman needed to put on pants in order to play with the big boys? Sarah Palin personifies the female in her best form, the female example most of us women have been waiting for.     She carries herself with grace but reminds us that the strength of a mother can be a fearsome thing. She has stood up to some of the toughest of the old guard and she has worn a skirt while doing it. Her hair is long because choosing to play in a predominantly male profession doesn’t mean for one minute, that she’s ashamed to be a woman. She isn’t bitter, she isn’t spiteful and men are not her enemy. Though intensely independent, she is a woman who is proud to stand alongside her husband as their children gather round, proudly acknowledging that her roles as wife and mother are her greatest sources of pride. As we move toward November, I look forward to watching Governor Palin take on her appointment. I imagine he’s petrified after last night’s speech. Should our GOP candidates take this election, how proud we can be to show the world what a true American Woman looks like!

My long-time friend and Obama supporter sent me a message highlighting an argument on behalf of her candidate. I have attached her message along with a link to the article she was referencing. Following, is my response.

“Laura, in response to your comment about Palin having more experience than Obama, it's not the case. Please see the following article.”  http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president%3F?t=anon

My Response:

Thank you for this article and for your thoughts. This is not the first time I have heard Barack Obama’s name likened to Abraham Lincoln. I am not surprised that another great man’s name has been brought to the forefront of the American Political process in order that his accomplishments, separate of anything Barack Obama has done personally, may be used to justify the Senator’s fitness for the office of President.   Bound however by a deep sense of reverence to Abraham Lincoln, I must comment on the reckless manner in which his life has been used these past several weeks and months.  

Indeed, few of our Founding Fathers, magnificent though they were, could claim to be so impressive a figure as Abraham Lincoln. Senator Barack Obama’s acceptance of this comparison not only raises questions about his understanding of the gravity of Abraham Lincoln’s impact on humanity but it begs the question, is there no limit to Barack Obama’s sense of self-importance? 

First and foremost, the author of the article you sent me reminds us that George W. Bush only served six years as the Governor of Texas before taking office. My response? Be careful, Obama supporters, when using such words as “only.” Do not be deceived into believing that the Obama Campaign is not fully aware how lacking in experience their candidate is. Those skilled in politics, to include Senator Obama, are fully aware that executive experience, by way of gubernatorial leadership, is monumentally more beneficial than legislative service, particularly at the state legislative level. Obama’s camp is attempting to downplay the importance of a governor’s seat, much in the way they are criticizing Governor Palin. They are riding on the assumption that the vast majority of their left-leaning constituencies are too ignorant to know the difference between executive and legislative experience.

The author next reminds the reader that Barack Obama can boast of ten years of experience in public office.   As often as they are able to get away with it the Obama Campaign is going to lump Obama’s State and Federal Senate seats into one category of ten years worth of legislative experience. With regard to this tactic, I must enlighten those new to the political scene. For all intents and purposes, the State Legislature is the minor league. The issues about which they discuss are of paramount importance to be sure, but they are exceedingly different than the subject matter, constituency size and job demands faced by those at the federal level. As much as I respect my state leadership, I myself could be a state leader right now if I chose to run for a seat. So could you. It is important that all Obama supporters understand this fact. For the Obama Campaign to suggest that state legislative experience in any way equips a body for presidential responsibilities is intellectually dishonest. I have worked for members at both levels and I assure you, the difference is colossal.

The author’s next point pertains to Senator Obama’s ability to work across party lines. This, I find one of the most captivating arguments coming from the Obama Camp. In fact, was it not more than two years ago that Democrats were claiming they liked Senator McCain, by virtue of his exceedingly bi-partisan record? It is as though this portion of history has been completely wiped from the slate. Of all the Senators in D.C., few can claim to be as bi-partisan as John McCain. In fact, when it comes to bi-partisan comparisons, Barack Obama cannot even compete, having earned the title as the most leftist voting record in the Senate! I often ask myself in what way a demand for Universal Healthcare is bi-partisan in that not one Republican with whom I communicate, can stomach the notion.

With regard to Obama’s ethics reforms at the federal level, I might be impressed… were we not at war. Given that all of his decisions with regard to the war have been dangerously mis-guided, to include the Surge, I am not tremendously impressed by his successes in ethics reform. Even with events which erupted since the commencement of the campaign season, Senator Obama’s instinctive responses to international problems such as that faced by the Georgians, has been wretchedly imprudent.   I worry that we might find ourselves with a leader who is great at ethics reform on the Hill and entirely ill-equipped to address our most serious issues abroad. What’s more, his running mate has been on the wrong side of foreign policy judgment since the eighties. Indeed, Senator Biden was among the last of our leaders to let go of the dense notion of Detent in our battle against the Soviet Union. 

With regard to Obama’s foreign policy experience, I find it somewhat desperate that Obama supporters are forced to hearken back to Obama’s undergraduate major as an example of his foreign policy experience. This is as ludicrous an argument as my suggesting to the State Department that I serve in a high office by virtue of my undergraduate major in political science.   The author of the article you sent me goes on to reference Obama’s committee assignments in the U.S. Senate as additional qualifying foreign policy experience. If Obama wants to portray himself as the candidate with fresh new ideas, as the Washington, D.C. “outsider,” then he might not want to remind the American People that the greater portion of his foreign policy experience stems from his Senate committee assignments.  

Barack Obama claims he has a wealth of foreign policy experience. As compared with whom? John McCain? John McCain who spent 26 years in Congress but 27 in his military career? John McCain who served overseas and spent and a grueling five years as prisoner of war in the Hanoi Hilton? This is the short list of John McCain’s overseas experience. If I were Barack Obama, I would be careful when delving into this arena. 

To the matter of Barack Obama’s past, I have grown tired of the stories detailing the accomplishments of the Senator’s parents and grandparents. Inasmuch as I am proud of my mother for her life’s hard work, I am no more responsible for her successes than those reading this article. I imagine that in a job interview, my potential employer would care precious little about the strengths of my family members when determining my fitness for the job opening. 

Then there is the matter of his experience as a Community Organizer to which I must ask, “WHAT IS A COMMUNITY ORGANIZER?” I have never met a professional community organizer so I delved more deeply into this portion of Barack Obama’s past. Must one acquire some special certificate? Must one be knowledgeable in a certain area of study? Certainly the man who is running as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States has something impressive to share with regard to this phase of his career. What did I find after my digging? Nothing interesting. In fact, Barack Obama’s work as a Community Organizer resembled… well, the sorts of jobs that most of us liberal arts majors (I should know) acquired after our graduation from college. Not only was the task breakdown during Obama’s Community Organizer years, uninteresting, they did not even seem to require an especially exceptional person to retain them. In fact, Obama’s self-titled Community Organizer career seems to have been nothing more than a shined up version of an ambiguous phase of his professional transition for which his resume required a better title.

To the last statement in the article, suggesting that Obama’s decision to stay out of Iraq was wise, I suppose history will be the judge of that. As commander in chief, should he become such, Senator Obama must remember that history always judges more harshly, the man who did nothing in the face of danger, than the man who did something.

Anyone who has studied the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln would be hard pressed to compare him with any leader, let alone a left-leaning Senator who had for twenty years condoned his pastor’s anti-american hate-mongering.    Abraham Lincoln was much more than a great leader, a great orator or a great president. He was a great human being, profoundly attuned to his moral compass in a way most of us will never appreciate. For those who have likened the well-spoken senator to some our greatest American leaders, let me say, a short-term Senator from Illinois does not make you a Lincoln anymore than the color of your skin makes you a Reverend King. 

Once upon a time, Baby-boomer Liberals who thrived on blaming the West for all the evils of the world were left discouraged when at last, the iron fist of Communism proved a piteous opponent against the land of the free and the home of the brave. Undeterred by the vast array of problematic facts, the Baby-boomer liberals remained committed to their cause against the American ideals of old. Upon accepting that their allegations of American Imperialism were no longer all the rage in the public square, learning that some of the truly misguided had actually begun referring to her as the ‘shinning city upon a hill,’ they marched on in the pursuit of the next generation were they were certain to find fresh and impressionable minds. 

They found those minds on the university campuses. Eventually, though sadly not in all cases, they exchanged their hippy ponytails and their Birkenstock sandals for more seasoned and professional attire. With a façade of intellectual honesty and age now on their side, they fiercely exploited the gift which had been entrusted them by millions of unsuspecting parents. First they filled their syllabi with all things un-American and then they shamed the students who dared question the legitimacy of their liberal message. And when the students raised their hands to argue the excellence of Ronald Reagan, the Baby-boomer Liberals smiled and warned such argument might garner an “F,” if found in a term paper. 

And so the years passed and the students grew in their appreciation of the benefits of Socialism. They applauded the efforts of those who selflessly sacrificed a work day or two for the sake of a good war protest. The Baby-boomer Liberal educators had learned a thing or two from the Vietnam Era, and were vigilant about reminding their students that one could support the soldier without supporting his cause. And so the lessons continued and over time the students grew in their disdain for the spread of Democracy and advanced in their understanding and appreciation for the world’s hatred for the United States. As time passed, the young students transformed into young graduates, moving from the college campuses and into the work place, where they proudly hung their college diplomas upon their office walls.

In the work place however, life had become considerably more complicated for the young graduates and those who had not stayed behind in pursuit of their post-graduate degrees wished that they had. Here in the work force, opinions were varied and some individuals began arguing Socialism as a negative, even un-American pursuit. Some went so far as to propose that Socialism had never even been achieved, claiming that Communism, its vehicle, had never been triumphant enough to evolve into the socialist ideal. These radicals in the work place boldly and even proudly referred to themselves as ‘Conservatives.’ This proud proclamation surprised the students as they had always been made to believe that Conservatism was nothing more than a demonstration of ignorance and inferior education. These people appeared intelligent though there must have been something arigh as on occasion, some of them even went so far as to speak highly of President Bush.

When confronted on the various issues they had discussed in their classrooms, the young graduates were confused by the version of history their counterparts were relating. The Conservatives declared that the words, ‘separation of church and state,’ were not in the constitution at all. They absurdly insisted that ‘3/5^th of all other persons,’ was not a depiction of our founding father’s racism. Rather, they claimed, it was a victory of the anti-slavery north who refused to give the southern-slave owners two votes by way of their slaves, thereby expanding the power of the pro-slavery South. These Conservatives were confused. Their version of history was like nothing that had been taught in the Universities.

Now faced with a conflict like that which has arisen in Georgia, these lunatic conservatives were demanding support of the Georgians and their struggle for independence, rather than maintaining neutrality so as not to alienate the Russians. These conservatives seemed to lack any understanding for the sensitive nature of foreign policy. Some of them did not even seem to care whether various other countries liked the United States at all. These fools had seemed to bypass their education altogether, operating on the assumption that freedom was to the benefit of every nation and every people. 

The graduates were dumbfounded, searching desperately for the source of this marked disconnect. After all, these Conservatives were college graduates as well. They had read all of the same literature. They had listened to all of the same professors. Yet, when they spoke, they made reference to people and to documents which had not been detailed in the classrooms. They harkened upon Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon. They spoke of the writings of John Adams and Milton Friedman. They sited quotes from Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. They claimed that Albert Einstein was a Christian and they read books written by authors such as Natan Sharansky and Dinesh D’Souza. They sited information they had gathered from Sean Hannity and the National Review. These people were not referring to their university studies for guidance. Not at all. They had been reading since their college days and the literature they had gathered was very much the opposite the lessons learned at the University. They were even listening to radicals on the radio and over the internet. They were reading so much they even began to accuse our nation’s courts of rewriting history. 

What was to be done? These Conservatives implored the young graduates to read as much as they could possibly manage but the graduates argued they hadn’t the time. They insisted they were gathering the information necessary for a thoughtful vote in November by way of CNN and Oprah Winfrey. But the conservatives insisted they were unprepared. When the Democratic Candidate arrived, the graduates knew they had found their leader. He was a powerful speaker, a handsome representative and his campaign overflowed with messages of hope and change. But with the arrival of this candidate, the Conservatives in the work place had become more vocal than ever. They claimed this leader was no leader at all. They argued that his message was devoid of specifics and that his resume was lacking in experience. The graduates scoffed at the conservative complaints and referred instead to the Daily Show were the comedians had clearly made their presidential selection. If they turned television louder, perhaps they would not be able to hear the conservative pleas at all.

And so it went the Baby-boomer Liberals on the University Campuses and their peers in the newsrooms had convinced the next generation that America had been to blame all along. They had created a population of graduates who were ready and eager to vote for any candidate Green Day, Pink and Oliver Stone endorsed. And while the young graduates and those who had taken advantage of their ignorance marched on toward the November election, the Conservatives remained focused on the task at hand. With love of country as their backbone and with the same driving force that had guided the founders, the Conservatives continued to read. They continued to challenge the platitudes of the Democratic Candidate and they continued to champion the ideals of old. Yes, these Conservatives had once been educated by the Baby-boomer Liberals, but upon additional reading, throughout college and beyond, they had done the unthinkable, they had acquired the greatest tool, the weapon which frightened the Democrats most, they had become truly educated.

Knowing that they could not compete with the Conservatives on points of fact, the Baby-boomer Liberals and their faithful began to curtail the conservative message by way of cable news. They would cease discussion on all issues that pleased the Conservatives most. The Baby-boomer Liberals and their faithful would stop airing positive breakthroughs in the war in Iraq. They would stop offering the Republican presidential candidate equal airtime to his counterpart. They would host Global Warming symposiums in high schools and refuse air time to scientists who questioned the science. They would stop speaking about the Conservative’s ideas altogether. They would silence their platforms and destroy their family’s reputations when they refused to accept defeat. This would certainly do the trick. Enough control and the Conservatives would no longer have a voice. Until the Conservatives ceased trying to convince the young graduates that the Baby-boomer Liberals were nothing more than Socialists in sheep’s clothing, their voices would be silenced… 

If only the young graduates would begin to read.