O' Say Can WHO See?

Let's begin with the topic of CHANGE.

I noticed a phenomenon during the early portions of the Democratic primary. A young man by the name of Barack Obama introduced himself as an agent of CHANGE. He kept this topic as a recurring thesis in his stump speeches; and he also placed the word on his campaign placards. This one word became the goal, motto, direction, and purpose that he ran on. THEN Hillary Clinton adopted CHANGE and put a "little twist" on it by coupling it with experience. (Which, by the way, begin to signal the disorganization of her campaign.) Then you begin to hear more and more of the Democratic candidates squabble about who could be best to bring about CHANGE. Now, I see the Republicans are doing the SAME THING. Which baffles me, because, once they begin talking about CHANGE, they come close to admitting that what they have done for eight years is so messed up that it needs to be CHANGED. In short, I think it's very important to note that CHANGE has become so attractive that everyone has decided to adopt it. Why?...because this is what the American people have said they want: CHANGE. ...and Barack Obama, in his judgement and experience, knew it from the beginning.

Small note on Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery:

Over the course of the last two days, several Republican speakers mentioned that THEIR party (the Republican Party) ended slavery. This mention, just like their appropriation of CHANGE, is pure pandering. Let me explain something to the voters of America. The constituents of the Republican party that ended slavery are the same demographic of people who constitute the contemporary Democratic party. The "political ancestors" of the people we saw in the ExCel center over the last couple days belonged to the "Dixiecrats," "Yellow Dog" democrats...the members of the Solid South...those who wanted slavery...fought Reconstruction...and I don't think is much of a leap, supported the terrorists activity of the Ku Klux Klan upon other (black) Americans. With FDRoosevelt's Public Works Programs enacted, the demographics of the two major parties started to shift (1933-1945). Which is why a lot of Blacks, some other ethnic groups, and liberals belong to the Democratic party and fiscal and social conservatives are now Republicans. So, for those that didn't know this bit of U.S. History, now you do...don't be fooled by the petty pander. THEIR party was the party of Herbert Hoover...but they didn't mention that last night. Remember the "Hoover Pockets" of the Great Depression? I think it would be a wonderful American fashion statement to bring back now..."Bush pockets."

The Dissenters in the audience:

Not even the chants of "USA" could drown out the dissenters against the War last night. By the way, one dissenter wore a shirt that read VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR. This, I understand, as quite a "trump card." ...and I forget the number right now, but Obama has GROSSLY out-raised McCain among troops in Iraq. So, as much as the RNC attempted to "decorate" war and military service through their video productions, let us not forget, THIS IS AN UNPOPULAR WAR. And the issue of the "surge" is so laughable to me, I won't discuss it. Okay, one sentence (question) on the surge: Are you seriously going to use a "surge" (that's a couple months old) to speak about a 5-6 year poorly managed war?

I think it's important to note that DNC didn't have any vocal dissenters. And was the case, despite the fact that they didn't come off as intimdating, sarcastic, or condescening. And by my count, the Republicans had FOUR vocal dissenters last night...and ONE the night before.

McCain's speech:

"We're all Americans....and that's an association that means more to me, than any other." And the audience roars?!?!! How do you clap so enthusiastically as a result of this "cooperative rhetoric" when you've been so enthusiastic about the "divisive rhetoric" (Palin, Romney, Giuliani)?

There were parts of the speech where McCain was laying blame on his party...but he kinda muddled that...then he said BOTH parties messed things up....but, WE lost their trust. It was so muddled, I don't even know how to talk about. But, I will say, as a "scrutinizer of men," I believe John McCain is a decent guy. I like him better than a lot other people he's surrounding by. ...and I believe there were parts of his speech that were muddled because he has to pander to different elements within his party...and he's trying his best to do that...and "stick to his guns." Yet, in still, I applaud him for seeming courageous enough to tackle the task. In short, I saw this as him attempting to honorable...but he's surrounded by a den of wolves! Tough task.