Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech in Denver

Barack Obama has finished his speech and all of the Democrats at Mile High Stadium are now celebrating and an emotional and inspiring arrrangement of music is playing in the background like a score accentuating the climax of a major Hollywood blockbuster.

I’m sure for many, it was a very inspirational speech … full of a lot of ambitious plans and lofty ideals. Personally, I admire ambitious plans and lofty ideals.

Anyone who has followed political campaigns for a few cycles, let alone half a decade, have heard it all before.

Change. Change. Change.

I’ve been listening to that mantra for the past 50 years beginning with the JFK that Obama alluded to. Sometimes it’s worked and sometimes it hasn’t as far as winning a political election.

Barack Obama is simply one more JFK, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He’s also another George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry.

Win or loose, they all have the same message … change, change change. And what do we get? More of the same, same same.

All a person simply needs to do is look at who is in Congress … Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy … the very same people who, after promising the most unified and cooperative Congress in the history of the United States, wound up giving us one of the most divisive, vindictive and unpopular Congresses in the history of the United States … one which Barack Obama was part of … consistently towing the Democratic Party line … more consistently than any other Democrat currently in Congress.

I suppose what struck me the most about Obama’s speech, other than it’s typically inspiring rhetoric, was it’s consistent and absolute hypocrisy.

Accuse McCain of doing nothing about renewable energy for his 30 years in Congress? What about Biden’s 35 years of doing nothing … as well as Ted Kennedy’s, Harry Reid’s, Dick Durbin’s … all of these senior senators that are going to kick him around like a beach ball just as John Kennedy was by the senior Democratic senators did during Kennedy’s administration. And Barack Obama is more “junior” than Kennedy was.

Education, energy, defense,reducing bureacracy, natural disasters, and on and on … ad infinitum. It’s a great shoppng list. Too bad it’s an old one that been presented time and time again by men more capable than Barack Obama.

Obama attacks lobbyists … but simply look a the who’s who list of Democratic rats that cautiously waited to see who was ahead or who it looked like was going to win before jumping on his band wagon … or look at the even more dispicable list of political cronies who either bailed on or betrayed Hillary and Bill Clinton to grab a brass ring on the winning ticket. Those are the real lobbyists who have their own strings of “registered” lobbyists who will perpetuate the system in Washington.

Barack Obama isn’t going to change that. If any of these people actually thought he would, Obama would be a distant memory known as another failed “also ran”.

While Howard Wolfson is now talking about the “meat and potatoes” in Obama’s speech, I’m sitting here wondering … “What meat and potatoes???”

I have sat here and intently listened to a generic, generalization of a laundry list which is, at least, nearly as old as I am.

What’s new????

Where is the change????

“Barack, if you want change, then ask all of those Democratic voters you have gathered there in Denver to vote out all of those old democratic cronies that have been clinging to your coat tails for what seems like eternity. Shake them off and make a real change.

“And get rid of that David Axelrod. It’s hard for people to take your cry of, “Foul.” seriously when the hypocrisy of your doing the same thing … and frequently first … is dirtying the water. That boat just doesn’t float with anyone who has half a brain.”

If you’re under 10 years old, then this is a new and inspiring speech. If you’re older than 10, then you just haven’t been paying attention for the past however many years.

Even the venue is reminescent of events that took place around 70 years ago. And that’s a little creepy.


Hillary’s Speech on Night 2 of the Democratic Convention

I won’t go into the specifics of Hillary Clinton’s speech.

After listening to the speech in full, I imagine that there are more than a few who were present at the convention center that were wishing she were the Democratic candidate rather than Barack Obama.

She has now set the standard for speeches at the convention that Obama will have to go a long way to match, much less surpass.

While generically endorsing Obama, she did little to promote his claim for being the best candidate for the Democratic party. To the contrary, her deliverance of her speech appeared to be a challenge to Obama, “Try to top this!”

Obama Down 2 Percentage Points in Today’s Gallup Poll – 8/26

Today’s Gallup Daily Tracking Poll has placed Barack Obama’s support at 44% and John McCain’s support at 46%.

Defying the typical bounce that candidates usually get during their respective conventions, the Obama Political Machine has managed to loose ground in the daily tracking polls since the convention began yesterday.

It must be a source of absolute frustration for people like David Axelrod, Obama’s Campaign manager and chief strategist. Axelrod, who is firmly entrenched in Chicago’s mire of political shenanagins is seeing his reputation as a political kingmaker severely challenged by his inability to sell Barack Obama to the American public.

The Democratic strategy has become more negative and nasty as each milestone which would normally give a political candidate a bounce has been passed with Obama’s favorability remaining stagnant at best or more specifically declining.

Normally, a candidate would get a bounce in his favorability after winning the primary process. At best, Obama’s popularity after clinching the primary battle increased slightly. The lack of a significant bounce at that time might have been due to lingering resentment over a closely contested race between Hillary Clinton and Obama which appears to be a continuing factor. The fact that Hillary Clinton began to sweep primary after primary after revelations about Obama became public rather late in the primary season could not go unnoticed by the American public. Many people might have felt that they had been deceived by the Obama campaign and a liberal or left leaning news media which was apparently either hiding information about Obama or not thoroughly vetting him as a political candidate and presenting the information to the public in an accurate and unbiased manner.

Frequently, a candidate will get a bounce in popularity after naming his vice presidential running mate. Obama’s popularity has actually declined after announcing Joe Biden as his VP running mate in spite of Biden’s general popularity. Obama’s selection of Biden has apparently made Obama’s inexperience and other weaknesses even more obvious.

Many have viewed last night’s array of speakers including Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama as have very little to do with what the convention is all about. Although a tribute to Ted Kennedy in view of his current health problems might be a thoughtful thing to do, it might have been perceived as an excessive reminder that the notion of Obama being a candidate of change could be as much of an illusion as constant comparison between him and John or Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy’s imaginary media created “Camelot”.

Robert Goulet wasn’t really Sir Lancelot and Barack Obama isn’t really John Kennedy. Besides, the entire notion that John Kennedy united the country is as artificial as breast implants. The Kennedy sycophants that have deluged the airways and, more recently, the Internet fail to mention that Kennedy barely won the 1960 election and then possibly only by some adroit manipulation of votes in several Chicago precincts by then Chicago mayor, Richard J. Daley, at the request of Kennedy’s father as was widely rumored at the time.

“Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was the prototypical “machine” politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960.”

David Axelrod
and the Obama Political Machine certainly have a problem. How do they minimalize a person, Hillary Clinton, who won nearly half of the votes cast in the Democratic primaries without completely alienating a large portion of the Democratic constituency? How do they maintain the support and interest of the radical left wing of the Democratic party as Obama has noticeably maneuvered to a more centrist position trying to capture a majority of independent voters? How do they convince the American public that their candidate is a serious contender when he takes days to establish a position on serious issues like the Russian invasion of Georgia or the Jeremiah Wright controversy and can’t give unequivocal answers to questions when posed at a forum like that at Saddleback?

More on Barack Obama and “What’s My Line?”

I did a post on this previously but only those old enough to remember the show would understand the post. Let me explain the show for those either too young to have seen it or those who don’t remember it.

A moderator introduces a mystery guest and explains his occupation or specific talent. For Barack it would be, “I am Senator Barack Obama from Illinois and I am running for president of the United States.

The moderator would tell a little about the mystery contestant and three persons would each claim to be Barack Obama … making the statement above.

A panel of three or four celebrities would ask the three contestants questions then, at the end, try to guess who was the real person … not the two impostors.

In Barack’s game, he would alternately sit in all three chairs.

In chair #1, he would be Barack the liberal who maintained a far left position during the Democratic primary season that was unassailable by Hillary Clinton.

In chair #2, he would be the current Barack Obama, the general primary candidate who is giving John McCain a run for his money as the most centrist candidate in the history of the country.

In chair #3 would be Barack the Unknown, the Barack that no one really knows and is afraid to ask about. Except on this show, the panelists get to ask him questions. His answers will be, “I can’t tell you.”. I won’t tell you.” , “It’s a secret.” or “Wait until after the election is over.”

I don’t know why #3 is being so evasive because it perfectly all right for the impostors to lie. I think even the real person could lie. Barack should feel completely comfortable with this.

Anyway, that’s the game set up. Barack plays musical chairs catering to differing interests but universally his own and continues to hide the true nature of himself. Or does he?

Tyson Slocum says “$0.05 a gallon decrease in gasoline better than $0.18”

Tyson Slocum is the director of the Energy Program division of the blog site, Public Citizen. He appeared earlier today on a segment of Fox News.

Public Citizen | Energy Program | Energy Program – Who We Are

When asked earlier today whether congress voting to stop putting crude oil into the strategic reserve which would add about 70,000 gallons of gasoline to the approximately 22,000,000 gallons that the United States uses daily … which would have the effect of decreasing a gallon of gasoline by $0.05 a gallon, he said he thought this was a good idea … every little bit helps.”

That is what he actually said, “Every little bit helps.”

But when asked about the gas tax rebate which would have the effect of decreasing the price of gasoline by $0.18 a gallon, he reiterated that the rebate was a bad idea.

Now …

I know it’s been a long time since I took any math courses, especially comparing numbers like 5 and 18. It had to be somewhere back in elementary school … first or second grade. But, unless things have changed dramatically, 5 is still less than 18. Even when my classmates and I were introduced to new or Modern Math in the seventh grade, 5 was still less than 18.

So …

Why is Barack Obama’s five cents better than Hillary Clinton’s and John McCain’s 18 cents?

I know it has to do with the transportation infrastructure fund and stopping adding crude oil to the strategic reserve, but … still … when is a lesser little bit better than a greater little bit. And as far as comparing the infrastructure fund with the strategic oil reserve, what is the defineable distinction? what is the difference between taking money out of your left pocket or your right pocket?

And since when did any Democrat or Republican have any respect for the integrity of any specified fund? They’ve all been raiding the Social Security Fund since its inception. Just throw in a few I.O.U.s. What another I.O.U.?

What’s the point in protecting the highway fund when very few will be able to use the highways in the future?

And, if you listen to what the politicians and environmentalists are saying, that’s exactly the purpose of doing nothing substantial? If gasoline prices keep getting higher, people will be forced to drive less.

The only problem is that people are driving less and gasoline prices are getting higher. At what point will the Democrats decide that the prices are high enough to do something more immediate like setting aside a few of their sacred cows … when working people can’t afford to drive to work … when people have to choose between food and clothing versus fuel to get to work to earn the money to get food and clothing or housing?

With the price of diesel fuel essentially doubling in the past six months, how long will it be before the price of all goods dependent on the trucking industry for distribution to increase proportionally?

A final word … my inflated 2 cents worth …

Topping of this country’s strategic oil reserve makes a lot more sense than protecting the highway fund. What’s the point in protecting the highway fund if you can’t protect the country? But then, what’s the point in filling the strategic oil reserve when you have to buy the oil from your present and future enemies and your ability to run your military more than three months is dependent on their good will since your own elected leaders won’t let you “drill, drill, drill” in your own back yard?

Some bright inventor needs to figure out how to operate an Abrams tank or a B1 bomber on solar panels and wind turbines.

Another Take on Hillary’s “Hard Working White Americans”

Well, guess what hit the fan today?

Hillary Clinton quoted a AP article regarding ” hard working white Americans” being turned off by the Obama campaign.

Now, black Americans are all indignant, feeling insulted, thinking that the implication of the comment was that there are no “hard working” black Americans. Speaking of paranoia, black Americans should really get over it and actually take time to think about what was said. They need to just get over thinking everything about white Americans has some ulterior implication about them.

With Black Americans who are voting in the Democratice primaries leaning heavily toward Barack Obama in the range of 80% or 90% or greater, it’s fairly obvious that Black Americans, whether hardworking or lazy … or in between … are voting for Barack Obama. Does anyone have a argument with that?

The real twist on the AP article which Hillary quoted is that the white Americans who are being turned off by the Obama campaign and not voting for him are the “hard working” white Americans … in increasing numbers as they learn more about Obama.

The implication of this article and comment isn’t an insult, if it’s to be taken that way, to black Americans, but to those white Americans who are voting for Obama … the lazy shiftless ones.

That’s right. This isn’t about black America. It’s about all those “intellectual” whites in the Democratic party who don’t break a sweat in their daily endeavors, at least not in the workplace, who are voting for Obama.

Now, should all whites who have voted for Obama be offended?

Probably not all … at least those who voted for him before they knew anything about him shouldn’t be offended by this most recent comment. Their’s is a different problem.

The really interesting thing is that, while writing this, I have been half way listening to the news and a man by the name of John Kass is on. John Kass was born in Chicago in the 1950’s and is an award winning columnist who has been working on the Chicago Tribune since 1983. The statement by him that caught my attention was, “I have no idea what Barack Obama’s ideology is.”

This is from a man who has lived in Chicago all his life and has been involved in Chicago news all of his adult life.

Maybe the intellectuals will finally start acting intellectual and become “inquiring minds” and the “hardworking” Americans, both black and white, will get over feeling duped and will have a second chance to correct their previous mistake … once a little more is actually known about Obama.

Taking a Look at The Colombian Free Trade Agreement

Politics is in the air and as usual it stinks.

Nancy Pelosi has probably effectively canned the Colombian Free Trade Agreement catering to the Democratic talking points, one of which is that free trade agreements are bad for American workers.

Ironically, in a very twisted way, this puts her in direct alignment with leftists in Columbia as well as Central and South America who are opposed to the free trade agreement but for different reasons.

This is where it gets really weird.

The Democrats would argue that workers in Columbia don’t have the same rights and benefits that American workers have therefore they are able to be paid less causing an unlevel playing field. Also, the democrats would use the free trade agreement to manipulate social change in Colombia such as protection for union workers, control of the drug traffic and protection of  of endangered species.

Here’s the irony. The leftists in South America see all of these things … these assurances that the Democrats want, the better pay and benefits for Colombian workers … as the United States forcing it’s “imperialistic” ways on South and Central American countries.

Colombia-US free trade treaty – far more than trade

Now, if you can get through Toni Solo’s Marxist gibberish, you can see he’s opposed to the trade agreement for all of the assurances that would have to be in it for the Democrats to approve it.

Since Colombia is already sending its goods to the United States tariff free, the trade agreement would remove the current high tariffs on American goods exported to Colombia. This would help large manufacturers such as Caterpiller and help to create much needed jobs in the industrial sector, something both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama repeatedly say they are in favor of.

Susan Schwab on the Colombian Trade Deal – US News and World Report

From the above article:

If the agreement levels the playing field between the two nations, why is there so much criticism of it?
Good question. Certainly not because of the substance. It was probably best expressed by [House Ways and Means Committee] Chairman [Charles] Rangel, who said, “It’s not the substance on the ground—it’s the politics in the air.”

At the recent conference in New Orleans on NAFTA, even New Orleans mayor came out in favor of the trade agreements which are beneficial if not crucial for New Orleans recovery from Katrina:

Next-Door Neighbors Back Bush on Trade – New York Times

It has also divided Democrats. While Mr. Bush reveled in the expected support of American business executives who gathered in New Orleans under the auspices of the United States Chamber of Commerce, he also found an ally in this city’s Democratic mayor, C. Ray Nagin, who on Monday evening said trade benefited the city, still reeling under the ravages of Hurricane Katrina.

Frankly, I’m not in blanket agreement with the free trade agreements and even share some of the concerns of the leftists in Latin America for the same reasons they oppose it, that these agreements give foreign powers too much influence over our sovereignty.

Frankly, I don’t think we have any more business telling other countries how to run their affairs than they have telling us how to run ours.

The bottom line on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is that it removes tariffs on U.S. goods being exported into Colombia, levels the playing field in that respect making it both good for American businesses and American workers.

If I can make that distinction,then why can’t Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

When is doing something good for Americans bad for a political party?