I see that today, less than a month after Senator Obama told us he was against tapping the nation’s strategic oil reserves, he is now telling us he’s for tapping the reserves.   A major flip-flop, and one that he is trying to cover by accusing Senator McCain of being unduly influenced by “big oil.”

The problem is, right now, most Americans wouldn’t mind seeing “big oil” doing some more drilling.  Bigger oil, it seems to me, would translate into smaller prices at the pump.  This is basic economics, the law of supply and demand, which Democrats do not seem to understand.

Ironically, Democrats continue to tell anyone who will listen that, when President Bush came into office, gas was just $1.50 per gallon. Fair enough. So why not let oil companies drill for more oil to move gas prices down again? And if oil companies truly are against drilling, why is it necessary to keep a congressional moratorium on drilling in place?

Two questions for which I would love to hear an answer.

Obama has been claiming that the reason he’s not moving in the polls is that people are still getting to know him.  At the same time, he’s falsely claiming that the McCain Campaign is trying to make people afraid of him because he “has a funny name,” and because he “doesn’t look like those other presidents on our currency.”

Of course, if the McCain Campaign really did try to introduce race into this election, the mainstream media would be on it in a heartbeat.   Later Obama had to back off of this backdoor claim of racism, saying that he did not believe McCain was racist, just cynical.

So if Obama wants people to see their differences, why not accept McCain’s town hall debate challenge?  If you’ll remember, President Clinton honed and perfected this style of debate, and there were none better.  The AP reported yesterday that Obama has backed away from his earlier commitment to a series of town hall debates and now wants to do the standard three debates, with one vice presidential debate.

John McCain has embraced this format and will spend hours answering voter’s questions, not shrinking from any of the questions thrown at him.  Obama has been doing larger events, taking fewer questions, and basically has been leaning on his media advantage.

But now that his lead has evaporated in record time, what will he do?  Obviously the McCain Campaign’s efforts to reach voters are showing success.  And Democrats in Washington are beginning to worry as well.  You can feel the undercurrent of worry there.

Members of the media and the media elite loathed the McCain Campaign ad released two days ago. What they’ll think of this latest ad, just released by the McCain Campaign, is not hard to guess. The only question is, how much more will they loathe and condemn this latest ad?

Called “The One,” it highlights many statements from Obama which you might think of as “interesting.” Statements such as, “I have become a symbol of America returning to our best traditions;”whatever that means. It evens features a snippet from Obama’s victory speech, given once he had finally clinched the nomination for his party, where he tells a crowd of screaming supporters that someday they will look back upon this as the day where the “rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal.”

Following the quote comes a snippet from “The Ten Commandments” starring the late Charleton Heston where Moses parts the Red Sea with the statement, “Behold His mighty hand.” As the Red Sea parts, Obama’s home made presidential seal rises from the waves.

I think it’s safe to say that this new ad makes the previous ad look rather tame. I can’t wait to hear what the media-ocracy has to say about this one.

The loving and focused treatment that Senator Obama receives by the mainstream media is positively shameful. The fact that four news anchors accompanied the Senator on his “world tour,” and newsbreaks throughout the day telling Americans about the latest leg of his trip. CNN even interrupted a show to announce that Senator Obama’s plane had landed safely on the first leg of his trip. Personally, I cannot remember ever seeing a candidate get such four-star treatment.

Meanwhile, McCain has been getting minimal notice in the press. What has been clear, however, is that the media is more than willing to tell us when McCain “disagrees” with Obama. So, when McCain talks about his own vision for the country, he gets no attention. When McCain critiques Obama’s words or actions, he gets attention.

Well, it seems the McCain Campaign has figured this out and rolled out an ad two days ago which threw Senator Obama’s rock-star like status and treatment right back into his face. And it did so very effectively, with nothing in the ad being false or deceptive, but rather giving us a visual view of where this candidate is on the issues.

Of course, the media was livid. And in their anger, they moved this ad up to the top of every media hour, right where you can be sure most Americans who are paying attention could see it.

What has happened since the debate began? If you look at the Gallup daily polling numbers, you find that the first major lead Obama has enjoyed so far in the race, which came on the heels of his world tour, has been erased. For the first time, Senators Obama and McCain are tied at 44% each.

Of course, there is still a great deal of time left in the race and this will change again, but it will be interesting to see if this trend produces any change in strategy from the Obama Campaign. In speeches over the past several days, Obama has been accusing McCain of “inciting fear” in voters over the fact that he does not “look like those others presidents on our currency.” Certainly a less-than-subtle referral to Senator Obama’s race. But other than that, it has been business as usual for Senator Obama.

So is Senator McCain the problem here? I would argue that he is not.

Senator McCain is merely responding in the only way to which the media rewards. The media has consistently rewarded McCain for negativity, therefore he is giving them what they want; what they are willing to respond to.

These media professionals tell you they hate negativity, but, at the same time, they reward it with more attention. So, it is a surprise that we see more from candidates?

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section has an insightful article on stonewalling by Democratic leaders related to the energy debate. Among other things, they note that “for the first time since the 1950s, Members will skip town today for the August recess without either chamber having passed a single appropriations bill. Then again, Democrats appear ready to sacrifice their whole agenda, even spending, rather than allow new domestic energy production.”

Of course, Pelosi and Reid both know that if the issue goes to the floor for a vote they would lose and oil companies would gain access to oil-rich areas in and around the US they’ve been so long seeking. Reid and Pelosi have tried to place blame everywhere but where it belongs, on their leadership. In this case, I guess we would call it their lack of leadership. Pelosi and Reid favor a lawsuit against OPEC, but they refuse to allow American companies to tap our own resources in order to become less dependent on OPEC.

Perhaps the greatest irony coming from the mouths of these so-called Democratic “leaders” is this: Pelosi and Reid insist that oil companies don’t want to drill because they want oil prices to remain high while, at the same time, they refuse to allow oil companies to drill for more oil.

Someone please explain this to me.

Ultimately, we know for sure that we have enough natural resources of our own to completely replace the oil we currently import from the Middle East. I think most people would agree that having the ability to declare our independence from Saudi oil would be a great thing.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don’t seem to agree.

The NY Times is reporting that “President Bush’s top advisers cannot ignore subpoenas issued by Congress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday in a case that involves the firings of several United States attorneys but has much wider constitutional implications for all three branches of government.” Two key points regarding this latest ruling:

1) This is a huge waste of taxpayer money. When President Clinton took office in 1992, he fired upwards of 92 of the 100 US attorneys working for him. These positions are entirely political and they work, as all aides and advisors do, at the privilege of the president. It wasn’t a scandal for President Clinton and it is not for President Bush.

2) This is more political thuggery than anything else. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for aides to defend themselves from constant subpoenas by career politicians. I didn’t like it when it was happening to Clinton Administration officials and I don’t like it now.

Consider the amount of money Congress spends on these investigations. I believe the cost of the Monica Lewinsky investigation was upwards of $10 million. Now multiply that by hundreds and you see how much waste there is in Washington. A waste of time and a waste of your money, and an unnecessary burden on those public servants who earn close to minimum wage in the thankless role of “presidential advisor.”

The McCain campaigned today released a fascinating new campaign ad highlighting Senator Obama’s “rock star” status as well as his stance on critical issues such as drilling and taxes. Last week the Obama Campaign completed it’s whirlwind tour of Europe and the Middle East with a big campaign speech in Berlin, where some reports indicate over 200,000 German citizens showed up to listen to the senator.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the huge media attention he received has yet to translate into any meaningful poll numbers. In most of the battleground states and in general, Obama’s lead is within the margin of error, making the race, in essence, a tie.

Of course, in most recent presidential election cycles when a Democratic candidate was running against a Republican incumbent, the Democratic challenger had large leads in the polls over the summer. This was true of Jimmy Carter when he ran against President Ford, though the race wound up being quite close. It was also true of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry. Normally, those large leads fade and the race evens up when the Fall campaign season begins and people begin paying more attention to the upcoming election.

This statistical dead heat must be troubling at some level to the Obama Campaign, though, according to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, you would never know it from the way Senator Obama has been acting. Mr. Milbank commented today that Senator Obama’s campaign is being run more like a “victory tour” and that “as he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama’s biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris.”

Now the McCain Campaign has taken soundbytes and images from what was supposed to be the decisive moment during the Obama world tour and thrown it right back in Senator Obama’s face. There he is on screen, with 200,000 Germans chanting his name, acting like the president of the world, but what does this mean for average people like you and I?

It’s a pertinent question. I wonder if we can expect an answer from Senator Obama any time soon.

This whole campaign has the look and feel of a huge expectations bubble. Similar to the Dot Com bubble and the Housing Bubble, the expectations hugely outweigh what can actually be delivered by even so skilled a politician as Senator Obama.

We’re told we need to buy into Obama with almost no knowledge of what he’s all about and how he might lead. Senator Obama has been in congress for three years now, and most of that time has been spent campaigning for President. We hear of “hope, audacity, and change.” But hope for what, and what kind of change are we talking about?

Change can be good or it can be bad. Should we just trust that Senator Obama’s version of “change” is going to be all good? Should any politician, Democratic or Republican, be so completely trusted?

The United States of America is the greatest nation on earth.  Not only the greatest nation presently on earth, but the greatest nation ever to appear on earth.

Is that an arrogant statement or a confident one?

I think it’s a confident statement, and hugely necessary.  How can a people be great if they don’t believe in their greatness?  How can a nation be great if it’s citizens don’t believe in it’s greatness?

If someone from Germany tells me to my face they are the greatest nation, while I might disagree, I would respect their confidence and conviction.  My reply would be simple.  “How is your nation the greatest?”  It’s not all about words, it’s also about deeds.  Put your money where your mouth is, as we say in America.

These days in the US it seems like we have more naysayers than we do even overseas.  Overseas I am likely to debate someone as to why my nation is the greatest, but in the US I’m more likely to have to  debate over whether or not we are the worst nation ever to exist.

We have a big problem in that there are many many Americans who hate America.  They hate that we are powerful and that we are influential.  They want an America that is “humble” and “knows it’s place.”

I would argue that this is already true.

We are humble, and we do know our place.  We generally temper our strength, while at the same time we know we’re strong.  After 9/11, we didn’t re-institute the draft and go to war with every Muslim nation.  Instead, we went after al Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan and finished the job in Iraq that we should have finished back in 1991.

If you know your history, then you’ll remember that, after WWII, we were the most powerful nation on earth by far.  While most of Europe and Asia lay in ruins, the US was on a roll both economically and militarily.  We controlled the seas with our ships, the air with our planes, and our troops were all over the world.  We had 16 million men under arms by the end of WWII.  And we were the only nation with the atom bomb.

So did the US take the next logical step and take control over the shattered nations of the earth?  No.

Instead, we brought our troops home, helped rebuild Europe and Asia, and  got back to the business of democracy and prosperity.  The word “meek” is defined as “strength under control.”  After WWII, and for ever decade since, we have demonstrated that we are indeed a meek, if misunderstood, nation.

Yet not a perfect one.

If I told you that you use only about 20% of your brain, would you conclude that it’s worthless and want to get rid of it?  If your leg were only about 50% functional, would you cut it off?

So the United States is not perfect.  You could argue that we’re not even close.  I would agree with that argument.

But we are still the greatest.  We have a long way to go, but we’re closer now than we were when 100 years ago.

We’re freer, wealthier, more powerful, and more influential than ever.  Even with an economy that is in somewhat of a downturn, the world still looks to the US for leadership.

Not perfect, but still the greatest nation.

In November of this year we will select a new president to lead this greatest of nations.  While I believe both candidates can lead, I also believe that one of them is more ready to lead.

While I believe that Senator Obama is a great man and a great candidate, I think that Senator McCain is ready for the job.  Senator Obama is hoping to become president on the force of his charisma, Senator McCain hopes to become president on the force of his experience.

Senator Obama wants us to have faith in him, Senator McCain wants us to have confidence in him.  That’s the kicker for me.

My faith is in God only.  My confidence is in McCain.

The audacious Barack Obama has gone on world tour!  Like the rock star that he is, Obama is off to visit world leaders, our troops in Iraq, and to speak with the people of many nations about his desire to become President of The United States.

Never mind the fact that no presidential candidate has ever done such a thing. Certainly, Presidents go on tour, but no presidential candidate has ever attempted to pull off such a feat.

Obviously, his campaign hopes to make Obama look “presidential.” And being the smooth operator that he is, Obama is likely to pull it off.

Another first is the fact that no less than four network anchors are joining Obama on his world tour. The last time four network anchors traveled with a president on his world tour, much less a presidential candidate was… Never!   Not at least in our recollection.

But there is yet another first coming from this presidential candidate, which Andrea Mitchell of NBC News spelled out recently to Chris Matthews on “Hardball.” In a harsh criticism leveled at Obama, she points out that all the lovely footage of Obama meeting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is staged. Not one bit of it comes from normal media sources.

Instead, it’s footage captured by the Obama campaign and/or the military, then released to look like normal media snippets. Ms. Mitchell calls this what it is; “fake interviews.” If you listen, it comes across quite plainly that Ms. Mitchell is frustrated with the way she and other members of the media are being treated.

So how does Chris Matthews respond to the rebuke at the Obama camp? He ignores everything Ms Mitchell tells him and instead asks Ms. Mitchell about all the “happy,” and “excited” faces he sees on the videos. “Are they there because they really love this guy or what,” asks Matthews in so many words.

Ms. Mitchell replies quite honestly that she doesn’t know. You see, she reminds him, reporters weren’t allowed to be there, so she has no idea how the event was set up. Again she criticizes the Obama Campaign for not letting them do their job, and states that she’s never seen any candidate do this before. Though it’s not included in the YouTube segment, Matthews responds to Ms. Mitchell again by ignoring her and asking yet another softball question about the military perhaps “liking Obama too much.”

The question remains, why would Obama invite a legion of reporters to come with him but not give them access to his events in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Perhaps because it looks great in the press to see a host of members of the press all piling onto his campaign plane to go on tour?

Clearly, it  boosts Senator Obama’s prestige to be seen with this media army which follows him.  At the same time, we’re not sure we’ve ever seen members of the mainstream media so blithely used and manipulated.  Yet another first for the Obama campaign.

Of course, when someone insults, embarrasses, or criticizes Senator Obama, his campaign tends to respond negatively. Ryan Lizza from the “New Yorker,” who penned the article which accompanied the satirical New Yorker cover, discovered this after she was denied access to the “Obama World Tour.” The cover was meant to mock conservative stereotypes, but it wound up making conservatives laugh and the Obama campaign livid.

Now that Ms. Mitchell has said something negative, will she be the next one denied access? “I’m sorry Ms. Mitchell, but your seat on the plane is being taken out for maintenance, you’ll have to go home. And don’t let the hatch hit you on your bottom as you exit the plane.”

The pertinent question is this; are you “in the tank” or “under the bus” when it comes to Senator Obama?  Chris Matthews?  Clearly in the tank for Obama. Andrea Mitchell?  Perhaps no longer so enthusiastic.  In which case, she’ll soon be under the bus with Pastor Wright, Obama’s grandmother, and several former aides.

With Senator Obama, there seems to be very little gray when it comes to these kinds of things. Either get in the tank or he’ll throw you under the bus. What his grandmother ever did to deserve the “under the bus” treatment is a mystery, but we’re sure there was good reason.

Senator Barack Obama, the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee, is perhaps one of the most gift speakers to come along in many years. I used to say that he’s as talented as President Clinton in that regard, but in some ways he’s even better. And in some ways, he’s worse.

With 20 speech writers assisting him, Senator Obama has delivered one excellent speech after another during the 2008 campaign. You would never know he’s reading a speech because he sounds so comfortable and natural.

But take him away from his prepared text and he’s really no better than any other politician. So, while I would rate Obama as superior in skills to many of the gifted speakers of modern times when it comes to giving a prepared speech, I would rate many, including John McCain, as better when it comes to speaking “off-the-cuff” to reporters and voters.

Nothing underscores this problem more than the fact that Obama’s advisers are now trying to structure his public appearances to a much greater degree. The New York Times reports that such efforts have led to further embarrassments. At a recent rally, two women wearing Muslim hijabs were not allowed to sit near the Senator for fear they would be photographed with him.

So, while Obama was quick to criticize Senator McCain for a private, no-press-allowed, fund raiser about a month ago, he has since held several private appearances of his own where the media was barred from the event. Even the foreign press, which lavishes a great deal of loving attention on Senator Obama, are taking notice. UK-based Times Online today posted their Top five Obama gaffes. And this article exposes just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problematic statements made by Obama over the past several months.

This underscores a sizable weakness for Senator Obama, his difficulties with an open format where it is difficult to structure an answer for every question. When it comes to ad-libbing, Senator Obama struggles while Senator McCain shines.

Part of the problem stems from the fact that Senator Obama is both young and inexperienced. He’s a freshman Senator who has spent most of his first term running for President.

The decision to immediately run for the highest office is, I believe, the one that will be debated most in the future should he fail in his presidential bid. Why did Senator Obama feel the need to run for President so quickly after being elected to Congress? Even the admittedly-ambitious Senator Clinton waited until her second term before running.

This has already been a fascinating race. No doubt there is more to come.

Dan Senor, a Republican strategist, mentioned today on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice might actually be seeking to become McCain’s running mate for the upcoming election in the role of VP. Would this be a winning ticket for Republicans?

Personally, I would love to see a McCain/Rice ticket. It makes sense to me on multiple levels.

First, while Senator McCain is one of the most honorable men in Washington, DC, Secretary Rice is certainly one of the smartest. Secretary Rice has served in two different administrations, she speaks several languages, she was the Provost of Stanford University for several years, and in her youth she became a proficient pianist.

Secretary Rice served in the administration of George HW Bush from 1989 to 1991, and became first a Director, then a Senior Director of Soviet Affairs. Her knowledge of the Soviet Union was so highly regarded that President Bush once introduced her to Mikhail Gorbachev as “the one who tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union.” Secretary Rice then served as Stanford Provost from 1993 to 1999. During her time at Stanford, Secretary Rice was able to turn a $20 million dollar deficit carried by the school into a $14.5 million surplus in just two years, something which no one had originally believed could be accomplished.

Without going in to every detail of her life, I do think it becomes obvious in a short span of time that Secretary Rice is one of the most impressive people of this generation. Secretary Rice is a scholar, a musician, a statesman, and a leader. She has excelled in nearly everything she has tried, and knows first-hand exactly how horrible racism can be.

Secretary Rice is easily more impressive than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. And she is a person who, in Washington, is both highly regarded and highly respected. Even those who don’t like her respect her, albeit grudgingly.

She would be a phenomenal choice for Vice President, a good balance in every way for Senator McCain. Secretary Rice is young, brilliant, as energetic as the Senator, and has an impressive reputation both nationally and internationally. And if something were ever to happen to Senator McCain — God forbid — Americans would know that McCain picked a woman who is easily capable of being president, while, at the same time, Republicans could be confident in her conservative values.

Let’s hope Senator McCain sees it the same way.

NOTE: I highly recommend that readers take the time to read more about Secretary Rice. You can find a great deal of information about her at Wikipedia.org. The more you learn about Secretary Rice, the more you will be impressed.

Randi Rhodes, the foul-mouthed, mean-spirited talk show host on the liberal Air America network was suspended Thursday for calling Senator Clinton a “whore,” using the F word as part of her description. You can see her performance on YouTube here.

So why is this such a scandal? After all, it was part of a comedy routine and Ms. Rhodes has been given a great deal of leniency when in comedic mode. For example, there was that comment a couple years back, when, during her radio show, Randi was comparing the Bush family to the Corleones from “The Godfather.”

Randi told the caller that, “the Fredo of the family is the president of the United States, so why doesn’t his father or his brother … take him out for a little fishing, and let him say some Hail Marys – he loves God so much. … You know, Hail Mary, full of grace, God is with thee – pow [gunshot sound] – works for me.”

Ms. Rhodes got into a bit of trouble for that statement when the secret service looked into the threat. Randi’s response was to apologize. She told listeners, “I feel bad that anybody would feel threatened by comedy. That’s one thing, but I also feel bad that it wasn’t funny.” Of course, a lot of liberal “comedy” is unfunny, so no big surprise there.

But what do you think is worse, threatening the President of the United States or calling someone a “f@!?ing Whore”? I would think wishing harm on the President as being far worse, yet Rhodes was not even suspended for that remark.

I guess it’s okay to wish death on someone as long as they are Republican, but dare to call a Democrat an inappropriate name and you are toast! An unfortunate but unsurprising double-standard.

I have to apologize and give credit where it’s due in regards to my last post. An article posted to Weeklystandard.com entitled Plagiarism went up late last week and while I had already been thinking along the same lines, the article really inspired me to blog more on this topic. So, if you want to read a very well-written article discussing “style vs. substance” differences in this upcoming presidential campaign, you’ll find it here.

While most people think that Senator Obama will be the Democratic presidential nominee this year, Republicans already have their nominee, Senator John McCain. The fact is, I couldn’t be more delighted with McCain as our nominee. I began gravitating towards Senator McCain about six months ago, and I think this cycle Republicans made a wise choice.

Democrats have a big problem. Actually, they have several big problems, including the fact that they are tearing themselves apart in a long, drawn-out primary battle between Senators Obama and Clinton.

But their biggest problem is that, whoever becomes the Democratic nominee must face one of the most substantive opponents they’ve faced since Ronald Reagan ran in 1980. In some ways, McCain is even more substantive as a candidate.

Senator Clinton, of course, has her imagined experience while a First Lady plus seven years in Congress. And I take nothing away from Senator Clinton’s years in Congress; she’s shown herself to be both effective and influential in the Senate.

Senator Obama of course has three years in the Senate and about 8 years as an Illinois state senator. Again, not bad. Certainly, Senator Obama has been a rising star in the Democratic Party since he first began running for office a few years back. Senator Obama is nothing less than impressive for his political skills.

But there is a gap for both Democratic senators. I guess you could sum it up by asking, “where’s the beef?”

It is, as I have said, style vs. substance. So, how will the eventual Democratic candidate deal with such as substantive presidential rival? By attacking his substance of course.

And we’ve already seen some initial salvo’s with Clinton and Obama supporters promising an ominous and serious look at McCain’s “record.” Which means they are going to dig in and find whatever they can to smear him with.

The whole trumped-up charge of plagiarism against McCain by liberal website ThinkProgress.org is the perfect example of how Democrats are hoping to smear him, yet, if this kind of thing is the best they can do, they are in serious trouble come November. Of course, ThinkProgress.org was forced to apologize for their mistake, but even if they had not, why would it have been, as some liberals put it, “devastating” to McCain’s campaign that he echoed a fellow warrior in declaring his hatred for war?

All I can say is, there’s a truck coming down the road, it’s called the “McCain Campaign,” and, come November, I don’t think Democrats are going to know what hit them.

But that’s just my opinion.

I’m going to blog more on this later.  This is a key factor in the upcoming general campaign between Senator McCain and whomever Democrats decide will take him on this year.  As I watch Senator Obama in particular as he carefully dances around the issues, trying to be all things to all people, and compare that to Senator McCain’s style of “straight talk,” I feel increasingly confident that McCain will win in November.

More to come!

Politico.com is reporting that Democrats plan to hammer Senator McCain for his “100 years” comment. He said this during a Town Hall Q&A session when a participant asked the Senator about a recent statement made by President Bush regarding the fact that we might be in Iraq for the next 50 years. McCain was fairly straightforward as usual. He replied, “Make it 100.”

McCain went on to clarify by reminding people “we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.”

So Democrats are going to “hammer” McCain with this? I hope they’re not paying these so-called Democratic “strategists” for this kind of stuff. Really, the foolishness of this line of attack is summed up in three points.

First, this line of attack will only underscore Democrats’ weakness when it comes to foreign policy. Senator McCain was right on the need for a troop surge in Iraq, so why remind voters of that fact?

If you want to know how little foreign policy experience DNC candidates have, just take a look at the CBS video of Senator Clinton, where, during a recent press conference, the Senator discusses a 1996 trip to Bosnia. Senator Clinton remembers the trip as being rather dangerous, with sniper fire and soldiers telling her to duck and run to the vehicle. How exciting!

Well, CBS went back and found the video footage of that trip, showing then-First Lady Clinton walking calmly with daughter Chelsea, accompanied by American troops and attending a reception ceremony with Bosnian children bearing gifts for the First Lady. That is foreign policy experience? In her wildest imaginings, sure!

Secondly, Democrats seem to assume that Americans obsess over the Iraq War as they do. Not true. Americans have concerns, but as conditions have steadily improved in Iraq, the war has become a weaker issue overall, which is why the mainstream media gives so little coverage these days. But just as the bad news of Iraq becomes the good news of Iraq, Democrats want to try and use it against Senator McCain? This makes no sense.

Finally, attacking Senator McCain on the war, where he can turn right around and remind everyone that he criticized the administration for its handling of the war, distracts from other issues where they might have some hope of winning support. The economy, for instance, is an area where Democrats tend to poll better anyway, so why not go there?

This whole “100 years” strategy is going to wind up blowing up in Democrats’ faces. But if Dems want to go after McCain in a way that undermines their chances of winning in November, I guess I shouldn’t complain.

Have at it!

Listening to Obama’s speech on race in this country a few days back again reinforced to me the fact that Obama is a highly skilled politician. First, because the guy can deliver a speech so brilliantly. And this one was truly brilliant.

At the same time, it left no doubt in my mind that this guy is just another politician, not the savior he’s being billed as by his loyal supporters. And I’m surprised that no one has yet called out the fact that Obama was telling us things that his grandmother once said, likely thinking that it would never go past their intimate family circle.

Instead, Senator Obama aired his family’s dirty laundry out for the nation to see and history to record. The fact that his grandmother once said that she was afraid to walk past black men on the street — Jesse Jackson once said the same thing, btw — and that his grandmother has in the past uttered “racial epithets” that made him cringe. I’m assuming his grandmother must be dead and his mother still alive since he didn’t air her dirty laundry in the speech.

The fact is, once Pastor Wright’s statements emerged in public, Senator Obama tossed him aside.  When we began to hear Pastor Wright’s sermons saying that God should “damn” America and that HIV was manufactured by the government to kill Blacks, Senator Obama quickly move Pastor Wright off of his advisory council.

Then, when people began to seriously ask Senator Obama why he stayed in that church for 20 years, he tried to justify it by pulling his own grandmother into the fray and using her as a negative example.  “Well,” says the Senator in so many words, “my white grandmother said racist thing too!”  Of course, what he forgets to mention — but that which we all know anyway — is that you can pick your pastors and your church, but you cannot pick your family members.

You can, however, publicly humiliate them by pointing out their racist views to the entire country I guess.

If that’s not a skilled and typical politician for you, then I don’t know what is.

One has to wonder what is going through the minds of Democrats across the country right now. If we were one of them, we’d probably be sitting right now, head-in-hand, wondering how things could have become such a mess.

Two big states — Michigan and Florida — have been disenfranchised in these Democratic primaries and some campaign donors are threatening to pull support if those votes are not restored, the superdelegate system has become almost a ground war of losses and gains between the Clinton and Obama Campaigns, and the daily attacks between the Obama and Clinton campaigns has undermined their credibility on a range of issues.

For Obama in particular, the candidate who has based his entire campaign on the theme of “rising above” typical Washington politics, the reality-check that many supporters are getting while watching him give as good as he gets from the Clinton Campaign has to make them wonder if he’s not really just another politician. While most seem to think that Obama’s drop in poll numbers has more to do with the recent controversy over statements by his Pastor, it may also be that Senator Obama has been forced out of the “visionary new leader” template he had fashioned for himself and more into the “politics-as-usual” mode that comes from being under increasing attack by the Clinton Campaign on the left and Republicans on the right.

That said, one can see exactly how skilled Senator Obama truly is for one so new to national politics. The Senator built a campaign which rocked the vaunted Clinton political machine back on its heels, and has given him a clear — but not decisive — edge in the Democratic primaries.

It’s hard not to admire such skill, and Republicans rightly fear him as the candidate who would be toughest to beat come November. Some might counter these assertions by saying that, rather than the dawning disaster Republicans see for Democrats in 2008, they have instead an embarrassment of riches.

Three months ago, we would have grudgingly agreed. But that was then, and this is now.

Rather than an embarrassment of riches, we see a stale-mated, deadlocked Democratic Party. And we see two apt politicians who have crafted formidable campaigns and spent the past two years laboring to become their party’s presidential nominee. Both campaigns believe that whoever does win the nomination will likely go on to win the election in a cake-walk, and neither wants to simply walk away after working so hard and coming so close to victory.

Meanwhile, Republicans have selected for themselves an excellent candidate — Senator McCain — who has in reality the experience that both Senators Clinton and Obama are trying hard to manufacture out of thin air. And while Senators Obama and Clinton expend millions of dollars to hurl mud at one another, Senator McCain is visiting world leaders, talking to the troops in Iraq, and preparing to give a major foreign policy speech in just a couple of weeks.

While Senator Obama attemps to justify his pastor’s declarations that, rather than blessing America, God should damn America, Senator McCain will soon be explaining why our troops in Iraq are on the verge of a major victory in the war on terror. While both Senators Obama and Clinton rail against NAFTA, blaming it for the loss of jobs in this country, Senator McCain will be proposing a major cut in the corporate tax rate, something that will virtually guarantee the return of many of those lost jobs, as well as the creation of many new ones.

This is why Republicans in general are beginning to emerge from their previous attitude of gloom even while Democrats take their place. Republicans have a conservative-to-moderate presidential candidate who is eager for the coming campaign, while Democrats have two of the most liberal candidates in Washington slugging it out with no clear path to victory.

Perhaps Senators Clinton and Obama should heed the advice of liberal anti-war activists and simply run away. Let that insurgent known as John McCain declare victory and run his campaign unopposed.

What do you think? Sounds like the right strategy to us.

First the amazing.

Tonight I’m watching American Idol and here in Season 7 there is a pretty talented group of singers. One of the most interesting is Amanda Overmyer, who I realized tonight is a fascinating mix of Elvis, Janis Joplin, and Joan Jett. Both last week and this week she did a great job with her songs. But the breakout winner this week was from one of those who I thought of as one of the weaker performers, Chikezie. He did a version of “She’s a Woman” that was completely brilliant. As for Kristy Lee Cook, I think it’s her time to go home. Not impressive.

Simon Cowell was booed for his harsh critique, but he was right on the money.

Now for the stupid.

Geraldine Ferarro, the 1984 Vice Presidential running mate for Walter Mondale said today, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Now, if you remember, back in 1984, the Mondale/Ferarro ticket turned in a less than stellar performance. Reagan won in a landslide.

I guess the country was NOT caught up in that concept.

Eight years ago, as the 2000 presidential primaries were heating up and Bush was battling it out with McCain, we were wholeheartedly in the Bush camp and adamantly opposed to McCain. We didn’t like the way he attacked some conservative Christians and we didn’t trust a Washington insider to bring reform to Washington.

While we still support President Bush — and believe that history will look kindly on his efforts against terror and in dealing with the nation’s greatest crisis — we now wholeheartedly support John McCain for President. Why the shift?

Let us count the reasons:

1. In September of 2001, the United States was attacked, with the loss of 3000 lives in the blink of an eye. We are still at war and the enemy — radical jihadists — are just as determined as ever to make 9/11 look like a minor incident. We must continue, even strengthen, the current administrations policies against terror. We know that, if elected, McCain will likely close the Guantanamo detention facility for good and will insure that interrogation techniques for prisoners are closely managed and monitored, yet we also know that he will make life for terrorists even worse than under our current president. As George H.W. Bush (41) was the final nail in the coffin for the Soviet Union, so will John McCain be the final nail in the coffin for global terror.
2. When President Bush pushed through his tax cuts in his first term, John McCain was heavily critiqued for being one of the few Republicans to vote against the tax cuts. His vote was symbolic as he admitted at the time, but his point was that his party was pushing through tax cuts but was not demonstrating enough fiscal discipline to then cut spending. McCain argued vehemently that to do one and not the other was a mistake. We remember being highly annoyed with that “troublemaker” at the time. That said, we believe now that, had the GOP shown enough discipline to follow, McCain’s lead, they may not have lost both the House and the Senate to Democrats in 2006. McCain was right, and the rest of us were wrong.
3. When President Bush made the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam in 2003, his strategy, as proposed and backed by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was to go to war “with the army we have.” McCain was an early critic of the strategy, and a vocal critic of the way the war was run. Many conservatives argue that he sounded like a Democrat, but McCain wanted more troops in Iraq, not less. He visited Iraq more than nearly any other member of Congress, and he wanted a surge, not a retreat. So, when President Bush made the very risky decision to implement a troop surge, McCain backed him all the way, despite the fact that the failure of the surge would effectively end his presidential ambitions. Again, McCain was right, and all of his critics were wrong, as the evidence clearly shows. The surge has been more successful than anyone could have imagined, partly because it was accompanied by a change in strategy under General Petraeus.
4. In 1967, on his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam, McCain’s plane was shot down and he was taken prisoner. Overall, McCain endured five and a half years of imprisonment, with periods of torture during that time. It was made worse for McCain because he refused to cooperate in any way with the North Vietnamese. What many do not now is that, as the son of an admiral, he was offered release after two years, but refused to go without his fellow American servicemen. He stayed with them until they were all released in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords. Now he has one son at the Naval Academy and another son serving even now in Iraq. They are following both long-standing family tradition and in the footsteps of someone who is truly an American hero.
5. In 2005, McCain was accused of working against Republican interests when he worked across the aisle to create a voting block of Republican and Democratic senators to end the judicial filibustering of President Bush’s federal and supreme court nominees. We remember again that we were highly annoyed with the senator because we saw his actions as a move to preserve a filibustering process that was standing in the way of the President getting his nominees an up or down vote on the Senate floor. But McCain understood that, should the balance of power ever change, Republicans would need that filibuster power to remain relevant in the legislative process. His agreement with the other Republican and Democratic senators allowed the President to successfully appoint strict constitutionalist judges such as Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, and others. In 2007, when the balance of power shifted to Democrats, McCain’s efforts at preserving the filibuster process in the senate proved to be invaluable and, dare we say, almost prophetic. Again, McCain was right, and those of us who criticized him were wrong.
6. On the issue of immigration reform, McCain, along with many Republicans and President Bush himself, backed a compromise plan with Democrats that would have finished the closing of our southern border, toughened restrictions on the employment of illegals here in the US, and provided a path to citizenship for those illegals who were already here in the US and were showing themselves to be productive members of our society. We do not support amnesty, however, conservatives who labeled the bill an “amnesty bill” were wrong. The question we must ask ourselves is, do we really want to see the same situation that we saw with Elian Gonzales — federal officers storming a home with automatic weapons and grabbing a terrified child to deport him — times 12 million? We do not, and we think that most Americans agree with us. This is a nation of immigrants and, while there are many here today who are here illegally, we believe the better solution is a path to naturalization which includes adopting English, paying a fine, and paying taxes. Senator McCain is exactly right to have supported Immigration reform and we believe that, had it passed, it would have been the “Welfare Reform” of this decade, in that such reform is long overdue and sorely needed.

For these reasons and others, John McCain has our wholehearted support in 2008. We believe he is the best candidate for the job, especially over a liberal Hillary Clinton and an inexperienced Barack Obama, both of whom want to increase government spending and weaken the country’s stance on terror. Obviously, there are many in the GOP who are attacking him, calling him a RINO — Republican in name-only — and a person who is too friendly with Democrats. But right wing in this country has sounded an increasingly partisan tone with which I find myself in disagreement. Attacks on McCain are based on bumper-sticker slogans and personal insults. This is neither helpful nor appropriate for a man like Senator McCain, who has been serving his country nearly his entire life.

Ironically, it shows you exactly why the senator is the right person for the job. The fact that he can attract both independent voters and even Democrats shows you why the DNC is concerned about this guy. They know that, of all the candidates out there now on the GOP side, McCain will be the most difficult to beat.

At the same time, Republican loyalists like myself can be certain that, while not a perfect candidate, McCain will continue the war on terror, continue to support the control of government spending, will continue to oppose the influence of special interests in Washington, will continue to appoint strict constitutionalist judges, will continue to support a culture of life, and so many other things that are the core principles of our party, and with which most Americans can agree.

If Romney emerges triumphant and becomes the GOP nominee, then we will enthusiastically support him, but we believe with no doubt whatsoever that McCain is the best candidate. We feel that McCain has lived his philosophy of straight talk, even when it meant a loss of popularity. Americans like that about McCain, and we believe they’ll look for that and for the ability to get things done in Washington in our next President.

Critics have used such titles as “John McPain,” and other even less flattering names. We hope in 2009 to call him “Mr. President.”

It amazes me that so many make so much of so little.  Can you say “obsess”?  Nice try!

I think the Time’s appropriately named Swampland blog taps into the intense obsession rather well.   Imagine worrying over whether or not the slats of a bookshelf behind a 30-second TV ad were meant to represent a secret “floating cross”.  Or wondering if flashing the 1.5 second title of “Christian leader” is a backhanded swipe at another candidate.

When did political ads become a form of Rorschach Test?  Perhaps it’s been that way for a long time, but, really, it’s getting rather silly.

In politics, people think that everything that is said has a hidden purpose.  As Freud once remarked to a student who had asked him if the cigars he always had in his mouth were phallic symbols, “son, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”