Experience: Obama vs. Palin

Want a good comparison of Barrack Obama and Sarah Palin, go here. Just keep in mind that Obama is running for President, Palin is running for Vice President. There is a huge difference.

We've Heard These Promises Before

As I listened to Barrack Obama's soaring acceptance speech, I kept thinking that, boy, this all sounds familiar. No doubt he delivered it well, but I'm speaking of the content. It sounded all too much like the stuff we've heard from these guys before: disgust with how things are done in Washington . . the opponent has been there too long . . how terrible the economy is . . how poor America is perceived outside the country . . all couched in the context of how the speaker rose out of difficult circumstances, elevating themselves to greatness. By comparison I thought I would look up Bill Clinton's acceptance speech back in 1992. It's striking how similar the two speeches are in terms of content. Even some of the catch phrases are similar: for Clinton it was the repetitious "we can do it" . . for Obama it's "yes we can".

Bill Clinton talks so much now about what needs to happen: health care, global climate change, poverty. He and Al Gore had 8 years to follow through on these issues. In some cases they kind of tried (Hillary Care), but they never provided the kind of dedication and intent needed to really make significant changes. 8 years later they didn't have a whole lot to show for their time in office. Obama is now making the same kind of promises. His biggest problem could be that he has always been a loner. He has lots of followers, but where are the people who have worked with him throughout his life, championing the causes that he has been working on over the years? How is he going to pull together both sides of the aisle when he has not invested the time to get to know these people? Where is his record of accomplishment that proves he can follow up on these promises?

It was a soaring speech, full of Hollywood special effects, a large crowd, and lots of celebrities. But it was just a speech. After Bill Clinton came close to destroying the office of the President through his sexual addictions, the country was ready for someone like George W. Bush . . and President Bush has brought integrity back to the office. But George Bush is not a great speaker. In fact at times he can seem a bit awkward. Along comes Obama and people are seemingly ready for a President that can deliver a good speech. But good speeches are not enough, and they are not indicative of a person's ability to lead. A good speaker is not much more than a good sales person . . they can sell anything. When Bill Clinton mentioned in his speech this year that Obama knocked it out of the park with his selection of Joe Biden as VP, it sounded sincere, and you knew right there that this guy could sell anything. The same goes with Obama. Be sure to look under the hood before you buy.

Democrats Confusing Message

As I listen to some of the featured speakers at the Democratic Convention, it sure seems like they give a very confusing message. On the one hand they speak of their upbringing, the struggles they and their parents faced, the obstacles they had to overcome, and how all of that proves that the American dream is alive and that all things are possible. If this is all you heard from them you would be led to believe that they believe that government played little if any role in their advancement. It was a personal struggle and a personal triumph. So why are they running for office? Well if you listen to their other message you would get the impression that the American dream is only possible if government is involved. They want to be in office so they can impose all kinds of programs and entitlements, because without these things people will not be able to overcome their own struggles. I can understand that not all people have the support system that these speakers apparently had while growing up; and I can understand the desire to provide opportunities for people, but can't these people see the disconnect between their own lives and stories (if their stories are what they say they were) and what it is they want government to do? If their stories are true, they make for good, inspirational stories. And it shows something about their character, which is why they are telling these stories. But what makes them so compelling is that they are stories of personal sacrifice and dedication. Seems to me they would be less of a story if all the credit went to some impersonal government program.

One more Convention note: Did you notice that they were playing "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" when Bill Clinton was introduced at the convention? That was his campaign theme song back in 1992. It made sense back then. Now the words "yesterday's gone" brings new meaning for the Clintons. I thought it was a bit ironic.

The Bush Legacy

I've always been a George W. Bush fan. Sure, there have been some times when I thought he could have been more conservative, but I still see him as a man of great integrity, good humor, and sound mind. Watching President Bush in action reminds me just how creepy and self-absorbed Bill Clinton was (and still is). At any rate, the following is a very nice reminder of what has been going on during the past 8 years while George Bush has been president.

A Brief History of Bush's Time

Michelle Obama's Speech

I thought Michelle Obama did an okay job with her opening night speech at the Democratic Convention. She did a lot toward at least trying to appease her critics by sounding patriotic and moderate. This is contrast to many of her stump speeches during the primaries where she sounded angry and not particularly proud of her country. There were three things that she said in her speech though that made me cock my head and ask "what?". First, she mentioned that her husband wanted "to end the war in Iraq responsibly". Oh yeah? Her husband wanted to pull out all our troops during a time when Iraq was in chaos and we were "losing" the war. It would have been the most irresponsible thing we could have possibly done. Fortunately better judgement was in play and the surge was implemented. The second thing she said, in reference to her trying to give back to this country, was "that is why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service". Sounds like a big sacrifice, doesn't it. What she didn't mention was that her public service job now pays her over $300,000 a year. That's a job change that we can believe in. Finally one of Michelle's biggest crowd pleasing lines was "that is why I love this country". For most people in her position, that line would not have been necessary. Because of her previous quotes however, this became a line that people were hoping to hear her say. The question now is whether that was enough.

Added thought on the convention: Barrack Obama has built his campaign on the concept of change. He has blasted John McCain for being in Washington too long . . it's time to make a change. Of course this doesn't seem to carry over to the old timers in the Democratic party. There on opening night at the convention were Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. Between the two of them they represent about 80 years in Washington. And yet you don't hear Obama saying they have been in Washington too long . . it's time for a change. Instead you hear that they are "of the people", that Joe Biden is a "working class kind of person", born in Scranton, PA. Thirty five years in Washington, most as a U.S. Senator, and he is "working class"? And he hasn't lived in Scranton for probably 50 + years. I've heard of political spin, but boy, are they ever stretching.

Democrats and Conservation

Democrats are always talking about the merits of conservation. Usually it is within the context of the environment, but there is also the context of living within our means and by living simply (so others may simply live). If this was all the Democrats meant, and if they really meant it, I would have more respect for them. But Democrats are all too quick to show us that what they really want is for everyone else to conserve, but not necessarily themselves. The Democratic Convention is a case in point.

All was well with the convention as originally planned for the Pepsi Center. But then Barrack Obama and His handlers came up with the great idea of moving His acceptance speech to the larger Invesco Field. What is the cost of such a move? I'm sure it has been calculated somewhere, but the financial toll on Denver, the networks and cable news companies, the Secret Service, the Democratic Party, and numerous others will be much, much higher than if the convention stayed put at the Pepsi Center. Plus there is the environmental impact of traffic and lighting. Obama wants His big splash, His big impact coming out of the convention. Fine. But so does the person wanting to drive a Hummer, or the person living in a 10,000 square foot house, or the person who flies in their own private jet. And for that matter, so does the 'average" person wanting to enjoy their motor boat, or their air conditioned house. All of these people are told, for the good of the earth and the nation, that they need to conserve and cut back. Make sacrifices. We're told that we cannot continue to spend recklessly, especially when you consider how many people that money could have fed, or how many teachers could have been hired. Wouldn't you expect the same kind of sacrifice from our leaders, especially the ones that come up with this stuff? Is there no end to their ego?

Perfect

Obama's Record

Barrack Obama is relatively young for a presidential candidate, which means there should be plenty of records and people around who could speak of his greatness and all of his accomplishments. There was his time as president of the Harvard Law Review, his years as a community organizer, his stint as an Illinois state legislator, his brief time as a U.S. Senator. Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't hear the testimonials pouring in. These past jobs are included in his resume, but there is never a mention of any accomplishment while in any of those positions. It's not like he is widely known for transforming poverty or education in Chicago. In fact he is not even known for changing anything while in Chicago. If that was the case, don't you think you would hear something along the line of "where he was widely credited for . ."? As president of the HLR, Obama apparently never wrote an article or opinion. My understanding is that, along with being able to add this position to your resume, writing for the Review is a big reason for seeking this position. Obama apparently was satisfied with just obtaining the position. All of this to me just goes to how little we really know about this guy. All we know is what he and his campaign tells us, which is a lot of fluff and little substance. This is the kind of stuff that is typically attributed to someone who can talk a good game, but cannot deliver when it matters. We all know Obama can deliver a nice speech. What no one knows is whether he can deliver when it matters. He's never done it before.

Obama & Abortion

It was an easy question, one that he has probably been asked numerous times before. Rick Warren phrased it a bit differently: when does a baby begin to have human rights? Others might ask it this way: when does life begin? There is a certain point when you can say "only God knows for sure", but this side of heaven God has given us the ability to reason and judge for ourselves the answer to that question (there's also that nagging verse in Psalm 139 where God says he knows us in our mother's womb). It's called conviction . . a personal belief based on reason, observation, our understanding of God, and what we deem to be right. And the man who wants to be president acts as though he hasn't really thought this crucial issue through before. He has no conviction on this issue, apparently. Or does he?

Obama has a problem when it comes to abortion. He clearly does not believe that life begins at conception. If he did his answer would not have be so convoluted ("beyond my pay grade"). For Obama, life begins at some point after conception. In fact it apparently begins at some point after birth. It recently became known that while in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted against a resolution that would have protected born babies from purposely being killed after their birth, even though this resolution contained language that protected Roe v. Wade (Obama has lied about this vote). His position was more extreme than even the most liberal members of Congress are willing to go. So a baby is born alive, but because the mother had wanted an abortion, the baby is put to death. Again, a baby is born alive, outside the womb, independent from the mother, but for Obama it is apparently okay to put that baby to death because that was the will of the mother.

If someone does not have the personal conviction that this is wrong, then they should not be president. It's that simple.

So Where Did This Ice Come From?

The picture to the left is the usual kind of image that Global Warming alarmists use to make their claims of the affect of warming on the arctic. Two satellite images of the same area, taken one year apart, with one image showing less ice than the other. If you look at the dates however, you will notice that the larger amount of ice is for the most recent photo. In other words, one year later there is more ice in the arctic than there was the previous year. How can that be? For Global Warming to not only be real but also be a crisis, shouldn't it be the reverse? Will Al Gore use this image in his slide show? Of course not. It seems to me that the debate is not over, and that we should be skeptical about any and all efforts to change our society and our economy by implementing "green" measures that costs billions and ultimately may not do one bit of good. Of course I would half expect Al to take this image and say that there is more ice because of the great strides we have taken to save our planet.

Investing In Great Equipment

I've always believed that mediocre photo equipment in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is better than great equipment in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. Having said that, I would much rather have great equipment. I just recently made an investment in Nikon's latest full frame digital camera, the D700, and wow, what a great camera. That coupled with some of the best glass around has me excited about hopefully capturing some stellar images. I'll post some soon.

Obama's Racial Accusations

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, 'he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name,' you know, 'he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

With these words, Barrack Obama gets to make an accusation about something that has yet to happen (and very well may not happen) without having to prove anything. "They're going to try" means they have not done it yet, but watch out because they will. Obama's inference here is about race, even though he and his spokespeople deny that. Bottom line, Obama is calling McCain and conservatives racist, and he doesn't have to prove anything because even he admits that it hasn't happened yet. I find it ironic that Obama here is using a very common scare tactic, trying to raise fear in his listeners to beware and avoid those nasty, intolerant, racist McCain followers. In other words, he is already doing the very thing that he is accusing his adversaries will do.