Hillary Clinton is no Sarah Palin; A look at women in this election

We see that the Obama/Biden supporters are coming out swing when they realized what is happening; the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin is grabbing the scorned female voters who feel the Democrats railroaded Hillary Clinton.  As hard as they fight against it, their attacks aren’t going to get them votes in Novermber.  Just when I thought CNN reporter John Roberts’ attack on Palin was low, here comes Fox News Political Commentator Alan Colmes swinging in at an even lower level. Where is this progressive Democratic Party I keep hearing about? All I have seen since McCain’s VP announcement is one pathetic attempt after another to correct their mistake in not nominating Hillary Clinton. Newsflash, attacking a women over “having a vagina” isn’t going to win you votes.

While attacking Governor Palin over her child with Down syndrome has polarized female voters against those taking the shots, many are still split on whether or not this women is Hillary Clinton. While Palin’s reference to Clinton’s 18 million votes was a wake-up call to her supporters, that is the only reference to the New York Senator so far. In response, Democrats are saying that Palin is no Hillary Clinton. Dotted along Palin support threads, Hillary Clinton forums and other places where discussion on the subject are taking place, we have radicals saying everything from “Palin is going to overturn Roe v Wade” to “Palin is a corrupt Republican who is friends with big oil”, all in hopes of dissuading female voters. The truth is this, Palin doesn’t need to be Hillary, in all honesty, Hillary is no Palin.

Before everyone starts calling for my “manhood”, let’s take a step back here and examine the facts. Palin is a mother five, including a child with Down syndrome, while Hillary is a mother one. Palin got to where she was on her own merits, while Clinton’s husband was President before she took office. Palin has made her career out of fighting injustice, even attacking and defeating a fellow Republican, while Hillary refused to stand up to what many believed is bullying by Democratic leaders, and chose to side with a man who attacked her on fraudulent grounds, including calling her a racist. They also don’t match up on the issues either, especially when it comes to Iraq, American energy concerns, and abortion rights, but they are very similar in the fact that they represent what female voters are looking for, a strong woman candidate. Yes, you heard me. Now let’s examine that a little.

Hillary Clinton has made a name for herself by standing beside her husband, a man who cheated on her numerous times, by getting elected in New York against “the old boys”, and by doing the job she was elected to do in a male dominated field. Women like that they can see a candidate who fits their ideals of what a woman in office should look and act like, and she has done a good job of it. People like Geraldine Ferraro, Janet Reno and Nancy Pelosi are more or less foot notes, people who forwarded the cause but faded or will fade in Pelosi’s case, into obscurity, while Hillary has remained and will remain a name remembered alongside the likes of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Nancy Reagan. It isn’t simply that she is a woman, as Democrats like to think, it is that she is strong enough to “play ball” with the “big boys” in Washington. Even though they do agree with Hillary and not Barack on the issues (which Obama’s voting records show), they chose to railroad her and go with a more “popular” choice. I will say this, on her behalf, Hillary had the strength of character to admit defeat and do what’s best for her party, something Barack Obama will not ever have.

That is what a lot of these critics are missing. With many Obama supporters attacking Palin on the grounds that she is a woman, like these attacks about how she should be a mother and not a politician, or Biden’s statement about how Palin isn’t Hillary, it is easy to see this. For a party that is supposed to be progressive, they have sure missed the mark this time around. It is no surprise that women are excited about the pick of Palin over Romney and Pawlenty, especially after that campaign Obama ran against the Clintons. When you have a group of disgruntled women upset over the way you treated their candidate, a women who they idolize, you DON’T do your best to keep her off the ticket. I can’t imagine which they found more offensive, the fact that he picked Biden or the fact that he refused to even think of Hillary as a VP choice. Either way, McCain’s pick of Palin is not only a way to show his “Maverick” streak (seeing that the governor herself is a reformer like him), but to extend an “olive branch” to these voters looking for someone to stand up for what they believe.

Don’t try and deny this, as politically incorrect as it sounds, Barack Obama was chosen because he is black. You see it in the way Oprah, Will Smith and even Sherri Shepard talk about him, and as Shepard put it herself, “he looks like me… that is why I am voting for him”. This was identity politics, pure and simple, to grab votes on the thought that people will love the idea of electing a black president. This could be summed up best with Tom Hank’s announcement of his support for Barack Obama. I want a qualified candidate as President, not one who got there because of his skin colour, not because fifty years ago blacks and whites used different toilets (what does that have to do with politics Tom?). If you want to play that game, the suffrage of women goes back even farther and spans the globe. If my time in China taught me one thing is it that the fair and equal treatment of women is far from universal. Does that mean you elect anyone woman to send a message that people of both genders are treated equally in the West? Nope, but it doesn’t hurt to put a woman who is qualified and fits your agenda on the ticket as a nod to that way of thinking. Remember that McCain himself had a list of highly qualified women to choose from, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

That is what many are forgetting, even with these selections he had, which included both men and women, John McCain chose Governor Palin. Why? That is the question Democrats have refused to acknowledge, a question which Republicans are more then happy to answer. She isn’t a typical politician, she marches to her own beat like McCain, has a record of reform and has fought political corruption. What does all this mean? She is a “mover and shaker”, a strong willed woman competing and winning in a “man’s world”. This is summed up perfectly with her membership to a Christian feminist group in Alaska. I am not talking about a “bra burning, man hating” feminist, I am talking about a woman who believes in the advancement of her gender in society. This, in itself, represents exactly what Hillary embodies. It isn’t just women though, Palin also fought for the rights of the average American, just like Hillary. Her attacks on political corruption in the Republican party and “Big Oil” in Alaska not only gives her the image of a reformer, but also one of female empowerment.

Now, knowing that Palin herself has the experience and is a reformer, I could point out that the platform of “change” Obama is pushing is hollow, especially when his running mate is one of the people who supported the “bridge to nowhere” project. I could also mention that Obama has no real list of accomplishments, but I will stay on point here. In a society which applauds women but refuses to let them hold the most senior of positions, Governor Palin is someone women, not just feminists, not just pro-life advocates, can rally around. As I stated previously, Hillary herself was loved because of what she represented, not what she did or didn’t vote for. In that, we have someone who didn’t just get elected senator, we have a woman who has fought from her beginnings in the PTA all the way up to the governorship in Alaska, arguably one of the most “macho” of states in America. Why isn’t CNN, MSNBC or any other news network which claims to be progressive talking about that? I think they are threatened by what Sarah Palin represents. She was a sports caster, she hunts, she ran and won political office, all of which are roles dominated by males. If America truly is “a land ruled by men”, she has not only adapted, but thrived in this environment.

Finally, it could be said that if we remove gender from the equation, Palin doesn’t have the resume of a VP. On the flip side, if we removed his race, Obama definitely doesn’t have the skills or experience to be President. While both seem to be crutch, in today’s politically correct society only one of these two candidates gets a special treatment, and it isn’t the female one. Women have time and time again been subjected to scrutiny that male candidates have never had to deal with. I won’t forget what some were saying about Hillary, which includes “well if she is PMSing, she would bomb a country and we don’t want that” among other overly sexist things. I was actually reading a post of another blogger and was disgusted to see the names he was calling Palin (once again buddy, swearing doesn’t help your case). In my experience, having grown up with strong women, seeing how women are treated in other countries, I find it disgusting to see that while we are able to elect an inexperienced man on the colour of his skin, we aren’t able to elect someone capable of running a country because she happens to be a woman. With that said, by removing her gender, we ignore all that she fought against, all that unfair and sexist treatment her and politicians like her had to force their way through just to get recognized. While I wasn’t a big fan of Hillary, I respected what she represented, and I am happy to see Palin picking up that torch especially after seeing what Democrats did to a fellow female candidate.

I hope in November women from across America stand up and tell Obama and Biden that they do want change, a change from the “old boys’ club” that their ticket really represents. They want to be able to raise a child and run for office, they want to be able to be a wife and mother but have a say in their country’s future, and that they aren’t happy with just being a “First Lady” anymore. So yes Senator Biden, Palin is no Hillary Clinton, she has the nerve to stand up to what you and your party have been doing to women, especially during this election year.

Six things wrong with this article

Leave it to the media during this election year to provide slander with no remorse.  I have already discussed my disgust at CNN’s “hit job” yesterday, which was underlined by this desperate attempt by reporter John Roberts to discredit her (attacking her through her child with Down syndrome? do you even have a soul?). I also didn’t appreciate Paul Begala’s melodrama during what was supposed to be a serious look at Governor Palin, but it isn’t shocking to see this coming from the Democrat’s “Yes Man” (I’m “terrified” too Paul, especially seeing that your candidate talks about disarming America, among other things). After all that, it came as no surprise that Politico would also join in to attack the McCain/Palin ticket, but the thing is I expected some honesty from them, or at least get their facts right. So let’s set the record straight here okay? No speculation, just the real story.

1. “McCain is desperate.” Well according to Gallup, before the DNC, McCain was up by two across the country, this coming after a two month slide by Barack down in the polls (someone who has been keeping on top of things would know that, especially after Saddleback). Sure Governor Palin made mention to Clinton’s 18 million supporters (it was Hillary, not Barack with those numbers Begala, super delegates don’t count) as a way to hint to her supporters that they should choose McCain over Obama, but I would argue her record of reform had more to do with her selection then her gender. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was a desperation pick. In all honesty I like Joe, especially when compared to the rest of the Democratic front runners. While he isn’t John McCain, he does have his head straight on the issues. This is a guy who has been to Iraq to visit the troops off the campaign trail, and the way he pounded Barack, Hillary and Edwards at the first Democratic debate over the issues of “redeployment” and the safety of Iraqis after America leaves shows that he is ready to lead in unpopular times. While he has made mistakes recently, and he was caught ripping speeches in the past, he is still the closest thing to a President the Democrats have in my opinion, and that is why Barack picked him. Biden not only tore him apart on experience, but also showed him up to be to the far-left of his own party. With Senator John Edwards now in political ruin after his affair hit the press, Obama was forced to pick Biden since no one would believe in the “unity” of a Obama/Clinton ticket no matter how much CNN and others tried pushing the idea. So let’s stop pretending Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris, the Democrats are desperate and Bill Clinton’s speech last tuesday proves that, especially since no is really believing in this new found unified front (just ask the posters on HillaryClintonForum.net).

2. The second point mirrors the first; McCain’s pick of Palin is a “Hail Mary” pass. As many have pointed out, a pick of Huckabee or Romney would make the new McCain ads about Biden and Clinton thinking Obama is a bad choice, moot. The choice of Pawlenty is a safer choice, but he lacks the “Maverick” streak Palin has, which would go against McCain’s platform of change. With approval rating through the roof in Alaska, and being a social conservative, locking in the hard-right members of the Republican party along with the religious block, this is far from the desperate act VandeHei and Harris are claiming. Matter of fact, her knowledge on energy problems facing America also gives McCain credibility that Obama and Biden don’t have on an issue that many voters are worrying about. Either way you slice it, the more and more you look at this choice, the more and more it seems like the only one for McCain to make.

3. Concerned about his age? Maybe, but after seeing his appearance on SNL, I think he is more comfortable with his age then his critics would admit. Matter of fact, SNL viewers love this guy regardless of his age, ratings don’t lie. Now, am I saying that he isn’t concerned about his age at all? No, but I do think the SNL appearance though shows that he was willing to take the issue on rather than dodge it for 6 months (still waiting on your explanation for Ayers and Rezko Obama). Do I think American voters should care about his age, and in relation, his health? Not really, especially seeing that Ronald Reagan, one of the more celebrated Presidents of our time was just a hair younger than McCain is now when he took office for the first time. Do I think Obama is worried about it? You better believe it, especially since he picked someone who is facing the same challenges as McCain on age.

4. Which is it VandeHei and Harris, is he concerned or is he not concerned enough? Let’s forget the downright hypocrisy of this argument and face it for what it really is, an attack on McCain through Palin. Now a direct attack on Palin due to her age and thus her inexperience puts a spotlight on Barack Obama himself, as they learned last night when the Republicans responded to these shots, but an attack done this way is far safer. This does however call into question whether or not Palin can handle the top position if something does happen to McCain, something to which Alan Colmes probably regrets asking Mike Huckabee now. As Huckabee stated himself, experience needed for the top position is something Palin would learn in her first month of office as mayor, not to mention her experience heading up the Alaskan National Guard and the position of the Governor of Alaska itself, not something Obama or Biden would even know about (debatable on Biden’s part, but for the sake of argument I will let it go). I think the real question here guys is whether or not Obama really has the experience to be President on day 1, and according to his colleagues and running mate, that answer is no.

5. Worried about the conservative base? I am willing to buy this to a point. While McCain himself has an rocky relationship with the conservative block, his VP short list consisted of choices which would solve this problem. Romney for example was a big hit with the strict religious voters, but he choose someone who is, as Glenn Beck stated, a “realistic social conservative”. “Let call a spade a spade” here, VandeHei and Harris are trying to say that she is a religious fanatic by being against abortion, but how does that explain her desire to reach across the floor and amend the laws concerning gay marriage to allow for same-sex couples to have some rights which married couple do? Once again, do the research or someone might catch you bending or even breaking the truth.

6. To believe this allegation these two are pushing, one has to accept that the rumours about Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman getting the nod as McCain’s running mate were more then speculation. Just because the Democrats are upset with Joe going against the party, doesn’t mean McCain will make him his running mate. If that logic were true, after tuesday night’s speech, Bill Clinton would be a shoe-in for McCain’s VP, hell, he definitely has the experience. Yes, it is true that McCain is a rogue, a politician who plays by different rules, but there are lines he won’t cross. Whether or not VandeHei and Harris are trying to suggest it, one could assume this was also a shot at his age, and in turn, saying his rash decisions are due to senility. Do any of his political decisions lately show this? Matter of fact, he was right on the surge, he was right on standing up to Russia and, before that, was right, along with Bush, about the importance of Georgia being a member of NATO (I don’t even think Obama knows where he stands on that issue, seeing as he gave two contradicting speeches about it). With that said, you can’t have it both ways, he is either a “Maverick” or he is “more of the same”, pick one. If you ask me, this argument rings of desperation.

So there you have it, the straight goods on what is wrong with this article. If we are going to be honest, we have to root out those who would be dishonest. While that does seem like a tall order with the way politics is, it is important in my opinion that voters get the facts and not the fiction. To all those who wish to consider keeping up this approach, do your research or we will make show you to be the partisan hacks you truly are.

UPDATE: Seems they realized the error of their ways.

Disgusting reaction to Palin announcement, among other things…

After Barack Obama’s speech last night, I was pretty disappointed in how the media was portraying “The One”.  CNN’s news team couldn’t stop praising a speech which continued promising change without providing proof.  For the last year Barack Obama has been discussing what he will do if he gets to be President, but refuses to tell us how he will do it.  We have also seen him change his position on various issues, including public financing, gun control (twice) and various foreign policy issues (which is it Barack, is Iran a threat or not?) and I am getting sick and tired of networks like CNN covering it up.  Following in the tradition, what do I see this morning when I turn on the TV to watch their report on McCain’s VP choice?  “The most trusted name In news” doing a “hit job” on Governor Sarah Palin because she just gave birth to a child with Down syndrome.  All I could think of was Senator John Edwards’ attack on Vice President Dick Chaney’s lesbian daughter during the last election and how CNN refused to make mention of it.  I have a message for the folks at that station; Play politics fair or don’t play at all.

I have trouble watching CNN for political news lately, mainly because there is this obvious push “from the powers that be” at the top to support Barack Obama.  We saw how they treated Sentaor Hillary Clinton, we saw how they completely ignored the majority of the Rev Wright story (in my opinion), we saw how they went after anyone who criticized Obama, especially Geraldine Ferraro who commented that “Barack wouldn’t be where he is now if he wasn’t black”, and now that Obama is closing in on the Oval Office, refuses to put out stories that paint him in a bad light.  With the exception of Larry King, I would say that CNN reporters are being bullied into supporting the Democratic ticket.  Even Anderson Cooper, who seems the most balanced on the team, hasn’t been able to voice concerns with comments made by his colleagues.  This isn’t all though…

Where were CNN reporters when Bill Clinton took a shot at Barack Obama on the second day of the convention?  Where were the comments on his second speech and why he didn’t continue to his assault on “The One”?  Why is everyone discussing Democratic unity when the party is obviously divided? Either way you look at it, something is wrong with the way CNN is reporting the news. Back on point, the way their team handled the VP announcement today was nothing short of disgusting.

Sarah Palin, the governor is Alaska, is now officially John McCain’s running mate. This is a historic moment, this is something female voters are taking pride in, especially at HillaryClintonForum.net, and what does CNN say? The first thing they start discussing is that she isn’t experienced like John McCain or Joe Biden. For some reason, as they put it, this nullifies the fact that Barack Obama has no experience what-so-ever. Newsflash, her being one step away from the Presidency isn’t as bad as him actually being President, considering that they are complaining about experience. Also, with that said, Palin herself has seven years of executive experience compared to Obama’s zero. She was a mayor, he was a city council member, she was a governor, he was a senator, she had a position where she was in charge, a seat of power similar to that of the President, he acts like his senatorial duties get in the way of his run for President (no surprise, ever since he was elected senator, he has been looking for the democratic nomination, except last time he wasn’t experience enough to be on the ticket). Next, they also discuss her lack of foreign policy experience, touting Barack is the winner in this category again because he took at trip to Europe and lived in Indonesia during his childhood. Wrong again, especially when we take into account that Alaska borders to foreign countries, Canada and Russia. Some bloggers have said this is a moot point, but let’s take for example the Alaskan Pipeline Project. As of August 1st, the Alaskan Legislator, under the Alaskan Gasline Inducement Act, has awarded TransCanadian Pipeline a contract to build the Canadian section of the natural gas pipeline to the “Lower 48″, through the Yukon and Alberta. Logically, for this to even take place, there would have to be talks between Governor Palin’s office and at the very least, the offices of the Premiers of both the Yukon and Alberta, if not the Prime Minister of Canada’s office, seeing that this is a joint venture between two countries. On top of that, Governor Palin is one of the Republican’s authorities on energy related issues, due to this experience. Once again, Obama is nothing but talk, especially seeing that he didn’t even know Canada has a Prime Minister and not a President. Add the bonus of her experience with actual energy reform and Obama looks more and more like an empty suit. The slander doesn’t end there though, it gets worse.

Struggling to figure out who Governor Palin even is, let alone find reasons why she is awful in comparison both Obama and Biden, CNN reporters start taking short at her for having a son with Down syndrome. “Well seeing that she just gave birth to a baby with Down syndrome… I don’t see how she could possibly be Vice President”, one said, struggling to tarnish Palin’s reputation. With Obama himself viciously attacking those who are critical of his wife, how can any Democrat have the nerve to go after McCain’s running mate by criticizing her child and the Palin family’s ability to raise said child? Let me ask the parents out there with special needs children, how do you feel watching a woman going through what you are going through be abused in such a way? This tops the Edwards attack on Cheney’s daughter for being a lesbian, and in no way should be a “black mark” on Palin’s record. How can they even argue this will affect how she performs as a Vice President? I saw them “tip-toeing” around the idea that since she is the mother, she must be the sole care giver, ignoring that her husband could take on that role if she and McCain get elected. That “women in the kitchen” mentality was unhanded when they were criticizing Hillary, and just because this women is a Republican, doesn’t make this approach any more valid then it was previously. After all that I nearly lost my temper, but it wasn’t the end of the attacks.

Finally, CNN’s reporters made mention to a story which might be credible, Palin’s dismissal of a Walt Monegan. After attacking Palin’s child with Down syndrome for five to ten minutes, CNN reporters decided to run with this story. According to Walt Monegan himself, the Governor had him dismissed since he wouldn’t fire State Trooper Mike Wooten, the Palin’s former brother-in-law. Why would Palin want this to begin with? Apparently Wooten has openly stated that “he wants to destroy the Palin family” and “kill every Palin… with a F-ing lead bullet to the head” (more or less). This alone should be enough to remove this man from his post, not to mention harassment complaints by Molly McCann, Palin’s sister and Wooten’s ex-wife, and his misuse of a taser (if I remember correctly, he used it on his own step-son), but Walt Monegan refused to do so and, as he claims, was dismissed. Palin herself says that Monegan wasn’t a “team player” and didn’t fulfill the role he was hired to do, not meeting the goals set forth by her office on various counts, including troop recruitment and combating the illegal sale of alcohol on native reserves. He was offered the position to head up the Alcoholic Beverages Control Board by Palin, but refused it. With her office complying completely with Democratic Senator Hollis French’s investigation into this, I would be surprised if this was what many are claiming, especially with Palin’s record spotless and her approval rating in the 90’s, but we will see, which means CNN of all people should wait for the “dust to settlet” before declaring her corrupt. I guess “innocent till proven guilty” doesn’t apply during an election year.  This in itself doesn’t even compare to what many believe will happen to Obama once Tony Rezko tells the FBI about his dealings with the Illinois Senator, so it doesn’t make sense that the Democratics would want to even raise this issue. Just like experience, highlighting this only hurts the Democrats, except if news agencies like CNN will help keep his transgressions off the table.

After all that, I will say that, as many others are saying, Palin is what Obama claims to be, a politician for change. Palin’s record shows it (challenging corruption withing the Republican Party, ousting the former governor and “cleaning up” his office), Obama simply talks about it, but if you listen to CNN, it is the other way around. When people should be happy that, at least in appearance, the Republicans are on the road to actual change, why isn’t CNN discussing her record of reform? The only mention to it was Glenn Beck’s “two cents” about Governor Palin and why he will now be voting Republican on election day. A quick five minute segment about Glenn’s thoughts and then dismissing it with a laugh doesn’t balance out the broadcasting especially after last night’s “Obama love-fest”. Once again, on a day that even Geraldine Ferraro, the first female VP candidate, is saying is historic, we find that CNN, an organization which claims to be “the most trusted name in news”, is being so underhanded and so partisan, especially the way they went about attacking Palin because her child had Down syndrome, is just awful.

All I can say is that this left a bad taste in my mouth. It was honestly disgusting to see not only that this news network was supporting one candidate, but to attack the other’s Vice Presidential pick they way they did makes me sick. If there is any justice left in America, CNN’s ratings will drop like Obama’s after the DNC “bounce” flops. With the way thing are going now, however, I don’t think it will be long before they start saying that Palin’s “lack of care” for her newborn child is worst then John Edwards cheating on his cancer-stricken wife. The worst part is that people will actually believe it…

Why is Barack Obama losing his “shine”?

Well in the last few weeks we have seen a dramatic drop in the polls for the Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama, but why?  Could it be all these attack ads Republicans have been throwing at him have had an effect?  Could it be the Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain has found his stride?  Could it be missteps “The One” has made lately? What is the truth to this sudden reversal of fortune? Let’s take a look back at some of the more recent events to see why he has begun to slip…

In one word, Saddleback.  It has been no surprise with the political gaffes “The One” has been throwing around for the last little while, that he would be sliding in the polls.  For those who forgot, Obama’s comments on the “typical white person” and his constant claims about not bringing race into this campaign even after giving two separate speeches which implied just that (Part 1 and Part 2) are starting to hurt him, especially since it seems to be the only game he can play lacking experience that his opponent has. Trying to grab new ground and taking a bold new approach, Obama decides to take a shot at McCain by trying to solidify support among Evangelicals, a group “The Maverick” has been trouble with this election. How did he do? Well here and here are links to two stories which came to the same conclusion; Barack Obama fell flat during the Saddleback Presidential Forum with Pastor Rick Warren. You don’t go to someone’s house and insult them by contradicting what they believe and then expect that they will support you in crushing their political goals. While the “above my pay grade” comment was a mistake, discussing how you intend to clamp down on the rights of religious organizations receiving funding from the federal government was just stupid. If only that was the end of this story…

Trying to regroup, Barack Obama then decides to make a political assessment of the Russia/Georgia conflict. With John McCain discussing how the international community should pressure Russia into pulling out, and President George W. Bush making a firm stand against what people are calling “Soviet era tactics”, Obama had to make a statement to hold on to whatever credibility he had on foreign issues, especially after that disaster of a campaign trip (former President John F Kennedy did the same thing, but stepped off the plane admitting he was wrong and changed his ways, not telling everyone he was “right” to begin with). In continuing with his streak of misstatements lately, he announced that America should work with Russia, instead of working against it or taking any aggressive action. This approach didn’t work for former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he confronted Adolf Hitler with his “white piece of paper”. Matter of fact, according to various historians, this was one of the reasons the former German Chancellor kept up his plans for “Anschluss”, knowing that the only powers who could stand against him wouldn’t. This is a complete reversal on his original statement calling for a UN Security Council resolution against Russia, ignoring the fact that the country itself is a Security Council member with veto power. Even with this, he could have salvaged something and at least slowed down his fall, but we saw something else entirely…

During what is probably the most significant event so far during the Presidential campaign, when supporters are looking for leadership from Barack Obama, when people are looking to see how he would handle a foreign crisis, where is he? This reminds me of that “3 AM” ad that both Hillary and Obama were running during the Democratic Nominee race only a few months ago; “It is 3 AM and there is a phone ringing at the White House, something is happening in the world. Where is the President to answer this call? Well he is in Hawaii on vacation!” It gets even better as it seems he wasn’t only there to take a break from campaigning, but according to Democratic consultants, he was also learning how to cut back his dependence on teleprompters. It is one thing if he needs a rest after all those “inspiring” speeches, it is quite another if he wants to learn how to actually give a good speech instead of faking it like Ashley Simpson. During this time, McCain campaign picked up points by asserting his dominance in foreign policy over his opponent and showing voters that he is ready for the responsibility of President. We could be seeing Barack Obama’s “Waterloo” in the coming weeks…

Surely though this can’t be it can it? Surely the attack ads the McCain campaign and its supporters are releasing are the real culprits right? While pointing out his obvious mistake in raising taxes during an economic slowdown, when many Americans can’t afford it (basic macroeconomic theory points towards tax cuts as the way to go here), is having an affect, I would argue that the real reason we are seeing this shift is because voters are finally getting a better picture of who Barack Obama really is. We saw this at the end of the Democratic Nomination Race, and now it appears to be happening again.  The more we know about him, the less we like him.

You can ignore his connections to Rev Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn (not all together, but each one individually), but you can’t ignore the mistakes he has already made so far during his Presidential run.  For example, his discussions about the state of the economy and the supply on oil are irresponsible, especially since it has a dire effect on the issues themselves.  Simply put, a “self-fulfilling prophecy” of sorts, if you say things are one way and you are perceived to have credibility on the issue, they will be that way.  Perception is important especially to the average American, and he isn’t helping, but making things worse with a “doom and gloom” assessment of every issues.  They take what you say seriously Mr. Obama, and you should be far more careful with your choice of words, something someone with experience would know.  I would also say that past mistakes, like his book, Dreams From My Father, are coming back to haunt him. It is disturbing to read what he wrote in it and see the same tactics he discussed to win over certain ethnic groups, like latinos and whites, being demonstrated.  Voters want honesty, they don’t want to be “handled” in a different way because of the colour of their skin.

When you add up all we know about him, what we have learned since Hillary Clinton’s campaign first introduced us to the many “skeletons in his closet”, he just doesn’t stand up to the image he is trying to portray. He isn’t Martin Luther King, he isn’t John F. Kennedy, and he definitely isn’t the “second coming”, he  is just another politician. With the announcement of Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, a man who’s Presidential campaign was in sharp contrast to his own, especially on Iraq, I don’t know how “The One” can maintain any credibility on the issues he claims to support. While John McCain isn’t perfect, and by no means the Republican’s first choice for President, he is definitely not the “empty suit” Barack Obama is slowly becoming.

UPDATE: Why does Joe Biden need to remind Americans that Obama is black? First off, he is a mix, and second, race isn’t what is important here. America needs a President, not an “affirmative action” candidate who lacks both the moral compass and experience to lead. Sorry Joe, they aren’t going to fawn over the “race card” anymore.