Biden on "Barrack's Plan" to rewrite History

Accusations of plagiarism have followed Joe Biden throughout his life, first in law school then in 1988 his decision to borrow a few lines basically cost him his run at the presidency. Both of these indiscretions can be overlooked by most people as simple cases of 'forgetting' to cite the originator of the quote. But when he starts lifting lines from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I think we need to take a closer look at Good Ol' Joe.

I had planned to have a pop quiz here. Where you the reader would be asked to compare two quotes, one from Joe Biden and one from Ahmadinejad. The two quotes coming from speeches given in the last 24 hours. Joe Biden recited one of the quotes during his speech today on foreign policy in Cincinnati, OH. The other was translated from a speech given by Ahmadinejad yesterday addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations. I had planned to ask you to guess who said what. There would then be a clever moment when it became clear that it didn't matter who said what, as they were saying the same thing. Unfortunately I can't give you an official quote from Joe Biden at this time as the Obama camp has only released excerpts from the speech as a transcript. But I promise I'm working on it.

Today when I was watching Biden deliver his self titled Big Important Foreign Policy Speech, after listening to him lie about his voting record on Iraq and say he didn't support the invasion of Iraq, when according to votesmart.org and of course public records he did in fact vote to invade Iraq in 2002 it was starting to sound like the same old stump speech, but then Old Joe got rolling.

As Joe spun the tale of Barrack Obama's War, how seven years ago Obama voted against the war in Iraq, which is true, however Obama was a state senator at the time, not a US Senator so it didn't mean anything in the grand scheme but it did put Obama on the right side of the anti-war movement. Biden then extoles the virtues of Obama's voting against the surge, but in a strange twist then starts giving Obama credit for the growing success in Iraq. I know it's confusing. I got a bit lost myself. Biden starts referring to "Barrack's Plan", now I know Biden will say absolutely anything that Obama tells him to in order to get in the White House, but "Barrack's Plan"? It's as though he assumes no one will ever fact check him.

According to my calculations under "Barrack's Plan", Saddam Hussein have been in power for the last six years, the people of Iraq would still be living in fear of murder rape and worse from their government and Iraq would still be harboring and offering financial aid to terrorists. That's a bad plan. But that is exactly where we would have been if Obama was making the decisions, if Biden were calling the shots we would have gone in to Iraq in 2002,then we'd pull out a few months later, leaving destruction and chaos in our wake. I don't care who you are neither of these plans end well. Both leave us with enemies not allies in Iraq.

While many don't agree with the 'handling' of Iraq, it's many because they don't understand War. War is not for the weak of heart, it requires commitment, flexibility and resolve. I don't have the time nor the inclination for a history lesson on the challenges of winning a war, but suffice it to say, we've still got troops in the DMZ in South Korea and that war ended over 50 years ago. The people of a Free Iraq are our allies, they are just a young nation rising from the ashes of a cruel dictatorship. A people that were held hostage in their own country for over 30 years under Saddam Hussein. After 30 years of mistreatment by their own government, and a half hearted effort by the United States in 1991, the Iraqis were right to question our presence initially. It is our American soldiers on the ground that are winning the hearts and minds of the Iraq people through their continual presence and support. The Iraqis now believe they can be a democratic nation and they know American will stand by them. This plan sounds like a much better plan!

Back to the quotes, about three quarters of the way through the speech, Joe utters a line that now I wish I had DVR'd. He said something to the affect that In Afghanistan the production of opium has increased since we invaded. He then went on to say that terrorism was spreading in the region.

This is what Ahmadinejad said yesterday:
"In Afghanistan, production of narcotics is multiplied since the presence of NATO forces. Domestic conflicts continue. Terrorism is spreading.."


When the Vice Presidential Nominee for the Democratic party starts sounding eerily familiar to a vicous tyrant who savagely murders women in his own country for the unforgivable crime of being raped, I think its fair to start talking about why I will not vote for that candidate.

For those of you unacquainted with Ahmadinejad, please allow me to introduce you to the man that is belived to be responsible for the 1979 kidnapping of the American hostages in Iran, and has made it known that he believes his rise to power will bring about Armageddon. Just yesterday he began his speech on the floor of the United Nations by pleading with Allah to "hasten the arrival of the Imam-al Mahdi" for those non-muslim scholars this signals the beginning of the Apocolypse, Rapture to the Christians in the group. Sarah Palin gets chastised for praying, but this guy gets quoted by Biden after telling the UN that he is on a mission from God to bring about the end of the world?

This is the guy Barrack Obama through his surrogate Joe Biden has said that he will speak directly to without conditions? I bet he sends Biden first. People have an alarming tendency to go 'missing' while visiting Iran. Especially those that go there to promote freedom and democracy.

Joe Biden's speech was to set the tone for Obama's big debate this weekend. Biden was to lay out the vision of deliberate diplomacy while not appearing soft on our enemies all the while downplaying the fact that we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11. Throwing out words like "smart sanctions" in reference to Iran. Does that make the ones we've been using for the last several years stupid? What is utterly mind blowing is that he managed to condemn the decision to invade Iraq, while bragging about Obama's intentions to invade Pakistan if he had "actionable intelligence". What does that mean to Obama? If twelve years and eighteen United Nations resolutions weren't enough diplomacy in Iraq, what is? Don't even get me started on teh intelligence... So let me get this straight it's ok to invade a sovereign allied nation, but not one that has threatened the United States? Interesting plan Obama has there and he's the one trying to "improve" our standing in the world?

Famous for political gaffes and hyperbole, Biden has provided plenty of fodder for the media during his career as well as this campaign. Whether it's insulting immigrants or asking a wheelchair bound man to stand to be recognized, the media just laughs it off cause it's "just Joe being Joe". His running mate may not be as forgiving however, after Biden commented that the democratic ticket didn't support clean coal, a public scolding was immediately issued from Obama.

Biden managed to work in a few personal stories just misleading enough to create the illusion of grandeur. He spoke of how his helicopter was 'forced down' over Afghanistan, which is true, but it was due to a snowstorm not to enemy fire. He also mentioned his recent trip to Tbilisi to visit the Georgian president, what he failed to mention is that he had to fly commercial for the photo op because the department of defense refused to authorize his trip. It almost makes you feel bad for Biden. Both he and Obama feel the need to embellish their roles on the world stage to feel deserved of the post they've been nominated, when all John McCain has to say is 'Look at my record, it's speaks for itself.' Biden's verbosity is infamous, unfortunately for him just saying something doesn't make it true. Even if you're not the first person to say it.

Deconstructing Bias or How To Think For Yourself

It has come to my attention in the last few days that a few of my liberal friends and readers misinterpret the title of this blog. Rest assured that while I offer my opinion which admittedly is with conservative bias (hence the title), I also offer up citations for the reader to follow up on and draw their own conclusions.

It's important to understand, when I started this blog about a year ago, it was because I was inspired by a friend after a discussion about my growing concern for the lack of public interest in what was happening in this country. In choosing a name I considered how most writers present themselves, and decided to take a fresh new approach, I'd tell the truth. Just put it out there, I am a conservative, therefore everything I write will probably reflect that stance. I saw this as an opportunity to be honest, something I wish those in the media would try occassionally.

The "With Bias" title is ironically amusing to me and I'm sorry if you don't get the joke. Allow me to explain. As I have stated previously I have been a republican since I first saw Ronald Reagan, and I've been a news junkie almost as long. In college I spent many an hour watching 24 hour coverage of whatever the news of the day. During the raid on the branch dividian complex, I barely made it to classes flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC. While working at my first real job I took lunch breaks to watch the Clinton deposition hearings. I know I'm kind of a freak, I'm okay with that.

It wasn't until after 9/11 that I started to really notice a difference in the news coverage. I had primarily been a CNN or MSNBC viewer, but during the coverage of 9/11 I began introducing FoxNews into the rotation. I found myself drawn to the coverage on FoxNews, because they seemed to be on our side, and when I say our side I mean the American People, not Republicans. What I realized in watching them report stories side by side, is that they all three would cover the exact same story, but depending on the verbiage, tone or editing of the segment conveyed entirely different messages. When FoxNews presented an issue for discussion, they presented both positions. It was at this time I realized that Republicans have spokespeople too, and apparently a significant number of congressional members as well! (Who knew?) Because when you're watching any of the aforementioned 'news' reports with discussion panels, if they have a conservative voice at all it's either someone who voted republican once by mistake or a complete nut job.

As I became more committed to FoxNews as my television source for news, the outcry from the left and their gunslingers the mainstream media became louder. This was when it started to become more clear to me. The goal was to silence the one channel that dared to offer both sides of the story and allow the viewer to decide what to think about it. Bernard Goldberg blew the lid off the liberal infiltration of the mainstream media with the release of his 2001 book, Bias: A CBS Insider exposes how news media distorts the news. Goldberg was probably seen as traitor to many as he worked for CBS for over 20 years, but he brought light to the dark side of the headline business. One of his more memorable chapters discussed the fluctuating number of stories on the homeless population depending on who was in the White House, not on how many actual homeless people there were.

The concept of Liberal Bias while new to many is all too familiar too those of us on the right. We've watched for years as our candidates and elected officials have been subjected to assaults on their character and intelligence. Don't get me wrong it is always appropriate to ask a public official his or her views on the issues, that is something of which I like to see more. What is not appropriate is framing or editing the questions, segments or articles in a manor that reflect the "journalists" own personal opinions.

A strange phenomenon occurs when Republicans talk on mainstream media outlets, they never finish a sentence. Weird I know. This happened most recently John McCain when a half sentence showed up on every news outlet, comedy routine and Obama ad, "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", McCain was quoted as saying, his detractors took this as McCain is out of touch, but ignored the second half of the statement "but these are challenging times". In this political season I'm not surprised that the Obama camp jumped on this chance to gain ground, but the media has no excuse.

According to the Center for Media and Public Affairs the average sound bite in 1968 was 42.3 seconds, now its down to almost 8 seconds. If we're only hearing an average of 8 seconds from a candidate on any given topic, how are we to make a good decision? Not to worry, the media will tell you what to think. You see studies done by the center have also found that more time is dedicated to commenators discussing the candidates rather than giving more time to the candidates themselves. Here's something to think about while you watch this year's election coverage, according to another study done by the Center, during the 2004 Election coverage John Kerry received 60% positive comments or reports, while George W. Bush received over 60% negative coverage across all major networks. Ask yourself when was the last time you heard something positive about McCain on a major network? For a real brain teaser try that one with Sarah Palin.

In this election cycle bias came up first during the primaries but for the first time that I can remember it wasn't a republican getting the 'works'. Hillary Clinton's camp complained of unfair treatment during the debates, and demanded apologies from MSNBC over inflammatory comments made on air by one of their anchors. You can imagine my confusion when they ended up suspending two of their anchors, as I had never heard of such a thing these people had called Bush every name in the book, but his Christian name and nothing. Say something about "pimpin out Chelsea" and pack your bags.

It was also during the primary that SNL took it's famous swipe at CNN for their moderation of the debates between Clinton and Obama. The mock host offering Obama a pillow while grilling Hillary on tough topics. It may have been the first time in my life I felt bad for Hillary Clinton, those who had worshipped her, traded up for a bigger prize putting Obama in the White House. This was also about the time that the 'anchors' at MSNBC started getting 'chills up their legs' and uncontrollable giddiness at the mention of Obama's name. It wasn't until the melt down during the RNC convention that MSNBC was forced to take Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann's anchor title away. Seeing this shift in public tolerance for openly liberal bias, CNN is now making a run to the middle adding new screen icons "No Bias, No Bull" and I've actually heard them use the word liberal without cracking a smile. Ironically it's now CNN accusing SNL of Liberal Bias in their recent skits involving John McCain and Sarah Palin.

While I've focused primarily on television this bias can be found in all forms of media. From the pages of fading newspapers to the world wide web. Talk radio offers the last bastion of hope for conservative thinking people in this country. Many democrats see these dissenters as a threat and are attempting to silence them with a return to the fairness doctrine. A regulation specifically designed to eliminate the competition in the market place of ideas. This is considered fair to the left.

The liberal bias I'm talking about surrounds you everyday, not just in the news but in entertainment as well. The next time you're in line at the grocery store look at the magazines. Look not only at the sheer volume of covers dedicated to Barrack Obama, his family or his wife, but also the glowing headlines that accompany the articles. Compare that to the tabloid coverage of John McCain and Sarah Palin on the same shelves. So while my blog may be "With Bias" I am forthcoming with that information, many of the "news" sources should be so truthful. If they came right out and said "I'm in the tank for Democrats" then continued on with the report, at least you'd know they were being honest.

The "Two-Faces" of Barrack Obama

When Barrack Obama said he was bringing a "new kind of politics" to Washington I don't think this is what most people thought he meant. I thought I'd seen everything this political season. I was wrong. The rhetoric and rancor has ratcheted up after John McCain received his post-convention surge. Each of the candidates have taken swipes at the other. However this week Barrack Obama shocked even me when he launched Spanish language ads on Hispanic television stations, attempting to tie McCain to George W. Bush and of all people Rush Limbaugh. More on this later but this is just the latest in a string of attack ads, the same kind of ads that Barrack pretends to abhor.

What happened to our New kind of Politician? The Man who 'transcended' party lines? Barrack Obama Launched his campaign on January 17, 2007, promising a new tone in his campaign. The junior senator from Illinois broke the official word saying he would bring a "new kind of politics" to Washington. The masses bought into the mantra of "Hope and Change" but never listened to the rest of the message. Which we are finding out, in the Case of Barrack Obama really means, you better Hope you don't bet on my answer, because I could Change my mind at any minute. Because just weeks later in March of 2007, an "unauthorized" ad supporting Obama appeared on Youtube, titled "Hillary 1984" it merges the shocking images from the famous Apple Superbowl Ad with clips of current news shows. Although the Obama camp denied any involvement, they did acknowledge that the Internet would be the new advertising medium of this campaign. So technically if you bet Obama would run a campaign using a "new kind of politics" you get to keep your money...for another 6 months. Because in December 2007, just around Christmas, Obama released it's first attack ad against Hillary Clinton.

As the General Election season began in August, Obama was quick to release his first attack ad against John McCain and has since released several more including one where he attacks McCain for being out of touch because he doesn't use e-mail, it has more or less disappeared from the airwaves since it was pointed out that John McCain can't type efficiently on a keyboard, due to the injuries he suffered while being tortured as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton. As nasty and immature these ads are nothing could have prepared me for Barrack's Next assault.

On September 13th, Barrack Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton stated that McCain was running the "least honorable campaign in history". This is significant because within days a new ad began running sponsored by a 527 that challenged McCain's honor and the word "dishonorable" started showing up in all the talking points. I realize that the Obama campaign has no "official" ties to any 527 group, I didn't see the Obama camp out denouncing it either. You can say a lot of things about John McCain, you might not agree with his positions on the issues, but no one should never question his honor or his patriotism. But Barrack Obama's official spokesman did just that. Is this the new kind of politics, Barrack meant?

Somehow even though it's well documented, Barrack Obama's campaign has not received the scrutiny for some it's claims that I think they deserve. Each week a new staffer starts the weekly narrative with Obama's gonna fight back Now! As if that's why he's lagging in the polls, because of he's been to soft in his attacks. Check out these DrudgeReport headlines, "Obama Ready to Fight"-Sept 6 "Obama plans Sharper Attack" Sept 12 (I think it's worth noting the date on this one, just one day prior to the 'least honorable' comments. "Obama Supporters Ready for a fight"-Sept 14 and most today's gloriously positive headline "Obama tells supports to get in their face". Awesome. So can we now assume he's not the candidate that just 'transcends' anymore?

Just when I thought Barrack Obama had gone too far, he went further. Today is was widely revealed that Obama approved false and misleading Spanish speaking ads attacking John McCain. The basis of this ad is that Obama is trying to convince Spanish speaking voters that John McCain is anti-immigrant, never mentioning of course, that McCain received around 70% of the Hispanic vote in Arizona in his last election. The ad also superimposes pictures of McCain and Bush together saying they'll lie to get your vote, I'm paraphrasing but barely. I just don't understand how this narrative's supposed to work. I understand that both men are Republicans but that's where the similarities end. Each have gone their own path in politics and have many times had very public disagreements. In fact it could be said that one of the reasons that many conservatives were slow with initial support for McCain is because he didn't back President Bush up enough on the floor of Congress. Attempting to paint them as the same man is like saying that Barrack Obama is Jimmy Carter, oh wait he is. I guess it's more like saying a cat is a dog.

The most striking thing about the ad is that is attacks a private citizen, Rush Limbaugh. The ad takes not just quotes of Limbaugh's out of context, it takes them out of a comedy skit. As for Rush and McCain being 'cronies', as a Rush listener this is absurd to me. Rush has repeatedly criticized McCain specifically, as being too soft on Immigration, as well as many other issues. It may as a surprise to many, but Limbaugh also hasn't endorsed John McCain either. This commercial is vacant of truth and is intentionally misleading. You know that the Obama ad has crossed some kind of Karmic line, when ABC News comes to the defense of Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.

I find it the height of irony that Rush Limbaugh has often commented that the liberal democratic play book called for the "Politics of Personal Destruction" versus having a debate of ideas with an opponent and now he's been thrown into the mix by Barrack Obama the "new kind of politician". These ads don't attack John McCain on his proposed policies or his past voting record, they are character based assaults that are a combination of misrepresentations and flat out lies. This new ad is appropriately called "Two Faces" although the intent was mislead Spanish speaking voters about John McCain, it should reveal to all voters the two faces of Barrack Obama.

WallStreet Mess: What it tell us about McCain and Obama

Both Candidates have a history with Fannie and Freddie, so I decided to find out what exactly that history entails. In researching the recent 'crisis' on wall street, I expected to be bored to tears. What I have found has turned out to be much more compelling than I could have ever imagined. I was even motivated to do some math for the cause! I'm not going to bore you with the reasons that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed or more importantly why they knew they could. The simple answers are they Failed because they applied bad business practice (works every time) and they knew they could because they had a sweet heart deal set up in the 1990's to protect themselves with government insurance. Thank you, Bill Clinton.

Since this crisis will not be resolved before the end of the year, the next president will take on the baggage of Fannie and Freddie and Lehman Brothers and the others that will be lining up if this continues. so once again we are looking at John McCain and Barrack Obama. Since I believe any good politician can say anything to get elected I prefer to use that basic psychological premise, of the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So what did I find out?

John McCain along with a handful of other republican senators supported legislation called the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. Go ahead and Google it I'll wait. This legislation was specifically designed to require oversight for Fannie and Freddie and predicted without immediate action that both would fail. The senate democrats blocked this bill from being passed. So John McCain believed strongly enough 3 years ago that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble to support legislation and speak out on behalf of government oversight something that we conservatives take very seriously. That leads me to the conclusion McCain recognized the problem, attempted to prevent the current crisis and was shot down again trying to protect Americans, this time by congress.

Senator Obama took a different approach back in 2005 on the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac situation when the legislation was brought to vote, he just didn't vote. Fair enough, he doesn't want to do his job as senator, that's on the Tax payers of Illinois not me, and I'd like to keep it that way. Because fast forward now to May of 2008. Senator Obama the forward thinking, above the politics as usual, selects Jim Johnson to head his committee to find a vice president. Now who is Jim Johnson you might ask.

Jim Johnson is one of originators of the Fannie Mae Foundation, and served on the board from 1991-2001. He is the chairman of the Kennedy Center for the performing arts. He also served on the board of another name that may be familiar to you Lehman Brothers. Yes, that Lehman Brothers. Johnson also served on the committee for the VP search for Walter Mondale in 1984 and John F. Kerry in 2004. In June, Jim Johnson "resigned" from the Obama camp not because of growing concern over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but because his name came in another lending scandal involving Countrywide mortgage. So just for the recap, Obama the candidate of change, selects Washington money man to head a VP search knowing the man was unsuccessful in two prior attempts. To quote Obama " You can't make this stuff up", check out Johnson's bio-page at www.Perseullc.com/bio . But wait there's more and it involves math!

According to OpenSecrets.org a recent study of senators who received donations from Fannie and Freddy from 1989 until 2008. Senator Barrack H. Obama is the the #2 recipient of money($126,349). #1 is Christopher Dodd (D) (165,400)and #3 is John F. Kerry (D)(111,000). Now here's the part that required math. Both Dodd and Kerry have actually been in the senate since 1989. Barrack took office in January of 2005. So in three years, Sen Obama has managed to take in more dollars from Fannie and Freddy than all of the blood suckers in congress could do in 19 years, with the except of Chris Dodd of course. But just to get the feel for it I divided it down by average amount per year, (Just for fun!) John Kerry averages out to just a measly 5842 per year, while Dodd comes in at 8705.26 per year, these guys are underachievers and at this rate Obama will pass them both by the end of 2008. He rakes in around $42, 116.93 or roughly the amount you have to earn for Obama to feel the need to increase your taxes.

Being a free market girl this mortgage situation has me a little conflicted on any resolution involving regulations, but I can also see how things can get out of control. But I think this crisis allows us to look a little closer at the choices. Which is the better choice to lead our country in economically challenging times? John McCain, a man who spoke out that without oversight these programs were doomed back in 2005. Or Barrack Obama, a man who didn't vote for Change when he had the chance, but instead choose to put the guy who started this whole mess in charge of picking his VP candidate, the first and most important decision of his campaign?( I'm assuming they're close and for what those companies paid him, they should be.) That was a trick question. There is only one choice. John McCain. But it does explain Joe Biden.

Sarah Palin wins in a Knock Out over Charlie Gibson

I was eagerly anticipating this series of interviews. Not as the left asserts because the McCain camp has avoided allowing full access to the press, but because I am genuinely interested in what Sarah Palin has to say. She is one of very few candidates in my lifetime that inspire me, so yes I was thrilled to learn she had agreed to sit down for a two day interview with anyone even Charlie Gibson. What I found most fascinating was the lead up to The Interview as ABC News called it. The talking heads were all a flutter about how the McCain camp was hiding Sarah Palin from the media. Look I know we live in a world of a twenty four hour news cycle, but there are still only 24 hours in day and more to the point Seven days in a week. I bring this up because Sarah Palin gave her historic speech at the convention on Wednesday, September 3rd. Yep you heard it hear first! Sarah Palin gives first major network interview one week after the convention ended. One whole week! The media's been whining that she isn't giving interviews, well I could be wrong but I've seen her give multiple speeches a day to crowds as large at 25,000. She doesn't appear to be hiding. Unlike Joe Biden.

The night before she was to send her son to Iraq for deployment as his governor, she came home to say good bye to him as his mother. The next day before and after the deployment ceremony she agreed to sit down with Charlie Gibson. I think they should be grateful she could squeeze him in, but they're not. Before it was announced that she would sit down with Gibson the media had started the cry Why won't she talk to us? She's not allowed to talk to us? The inference being of course that she would screw up on camera and then the Liberals could go back to comfort zone of feeling superior to you know, regular Americans. Once the Gibson interview was announced the comments changed but the tone remained the same, Sure she'll sit down with Gibson, he'll take it easy on her, why isn't she going on a real interview show? So now she agrees to interviews but the Libs take the position that it's just a puff piece so it won't really prove anything. I for one think it proves something. The elite liberal media continue to underestimate Sarah Palin and in doing so show how much they underestimate the American People.

It was obvious from the first released segment that Charlie Gibson thought this was his opportunity to show his intellectual superiority to Sarah Palin. I believe you would have to be pretty naive to believe that it was coincidence that ABC lead with the segment on the "Bush Doctrine". They have two purposes in this; One to tie the McCain/Palin ticket to what they see as a failed Bush Administration and Two to try and make Sarah Palin look uniformed on National Issues. But after watching the exchange, where Gibson asks Palin her take on the Bush Doctrine, I thought she handled it beautifully, she asked for clarification and when she got it she answered the question. I just don't think Charlie liked her answer.

Watching the feeding frenzy Friday morning about her "confusion" over the Bush Doctrine well confused me. There is no legal document or declaration called The Bush Doctrine, it is a media generated term. Therefore it was wise for Sarah to get clarification about Gibson's interpretation of the so-called Bush Doctrine before answering. This is another Media Driven story, the question should have been "Do you believe in Preemptive Strikes to protect our National Interests?" if that was what Gibson wanted to know. And in fact after Palin requested clarification that's basically what Gibson said. Then Palin answered in no uncertain terms that it was the Duty of the President to protect American Citizens and that no options should ever be taken off the table completely when it comes to National Security. See how easy that was? So much was made of Palin's request for clarification that her actual response to the question got lost you could say in "a blizzard of words".

While her skeptics will continue to insinuate that Palin's response was an admission of ignorance or evasiveness, allow me to advance my theory: Sarah Palin is a shrewd politician and knows when she's being lured into a trap in enemy territory so she choose to force Gibson to rephrase the question, so as to eliminate any "confusion" the media may have about her position on preemptive strikes and the use military force in general.

As the 20/20 introduction began I knew I was in for a treat! ABC News opened the "biographical" section on Palin by saying her life story was half fact half Fable. Half Fable? Interesting choice of words, followed by a video montage, suitable for any tabloid in a super market. The narrative was easy to understand; Sarah Palin's Got Scandals! (oh no!) Sarah Palin's Got Family Problems! (insert shocked expression here) And leave it ABC News to find four women in the state of Alaska, where Palin holds an 80% approval rating, who would go on camera and say they would make up their minds after the debates! What? Yeah they never really explained who these women, "some of Sarah Palin's best friends" were. This morning I looked for additional footage that I may have missed in the multitude of edited versions that ABC released to find out who they were and what they thought of her after watching the interview and of course how they know Sarah Palin, but I was unable to locate that bit of information. If anyone has this I would greatly appreciate the link.

As for the The Interview segment of the special, Gibson could barely contain his condescension even when doing the "casual" interview on the Dock. As Gibson stood chest out, head lowered he asked " Little Frightened?" In that you can tell me kind of voice, when Palin rebuffed that assertion with a positive response, Gibson offered "Overwhelmed?" and again Palin rebuffed the premise. Let me ask you a question Charlie Gibson: What happened to excited? Honored? Surprised? The negative inference with your "questions" is a little frightening and overwhelming, considering you are supposed to be finding out about the REAL Sarah Palin, not the one you want her to be.


When they cut back to the sit down interview segment, Gibson seemed all too eager to try and 'explain' issues to Gov. Palin oft times interrupting her asserting his vast knowledge of the political buzzwords. Gibson's showed disrespect of her current post as Governor of Alaska, dismissing her experience dealing with foreign trade commission as "something all Governors do." The more Gibson attacked the stronger Palin looked in her answers. She is a foil against the Charlie Gibson's of the world, answering questions in a straight forward manor that don't require three rounds of smug follow up questions "clarifying" her answers. But that didn't stop him from asking, and asking and asking....Notably the one time Gibson/ABC didn't deem it necessary to follow up was when Palin challenged Obama's stance on Taxes after Gibson accused the McCain/Palin campaign of misrepresenting Obama's position. Palin didn't mince words but instead stated Obama's had 94 chances to vote in favor of lower taxes and didn't. It almost appeared as though she was cut off mid-sentence in editing, then back to Gibson for a different line of questioning. I guess no follow up was needed there.....

Palin looked the Media in they eye and She didn't Blink. She stood strong on her beliefs and did exceptional in the "social issues" section of The Interview taking the opportunity to explain the difference between personal opinion and public policy. She stood firm that she is pro life but respects those with opposing positions. She not only supports the 2nd amendment, she is a lifelong hunter and card carrying member of the NRA. She understands that criminals don't care about "new gun" laws just like the don't care about other existing laws, hence the name criminal. When pressed about whether Homosexuality was genetic or learned behavior, she said I am not the one to judge. The highlight of the two day interrogation was when Charlie inquired about Palin's reaction to the "sexism" claims being made about her campaign, She called the question Irrelevant. She would not be baited into victim status, but instead choose to remind Charlie and the American people that gender has never been an issue for her.... just for her detractors.


I probably learned as much about ABC as I did about Sarah Palin in this interview, but that wasn't Gov Palin's fault. She performed beautifully under intense scrutiny. She knew whatever she said in this first crucial national interview would be replayed in soundbites for the remainder of the campaign. With this knowledge she took the questions head on, showing amazing restraint and grace under pressure. Much was has been made about Obama's post college career as a community organizers, but maybe Sarah Palin should have reminded Charlie, that she too had a post college first job as a reporter. Then she moved on to better things....

The Interview was a perfect opportunity for Americans as well as the pseudo intellectuals and elitist liberals to really learn something from Sarah Palin, respect the rights of those that disagree with you, and try not to prejudge. Gibson and his cronies on the left will continue to look for moments when they can feel superior to the "Hockey Mom" from Alaska, but as we're all finding out together, although the elitists may look down on her, Americans have found someone to look up to, Sarah Palin.

The Introduction of Obama Youth- 9/11 Service Forum

On this day of remembrance the candidates took a a break from campaigning and pledged a "truce", then proceeded to participate in a "9/11 Service Forum" held at Columbia University and hosted by Judy Woodruff and Richard Stengle, the later being the editor for Time magazine while the former is a Sr. Correspondent for Newshour. I watched only for the anticipation of being able to comment on Sen Obama's answers for a blog I'd previously planned to right today,which will now get shelved until later this week that I will be dedicating to my liberal friends and associates. But after watching the entire exchange I've decided to shift my focus for this day to the Forum itself as it became clear to me throughout the evening that Liberals don't know what the word volunteer means.

First and foremost this "forum" was supposed to highlight the need for greater community service, not to be confused with community organization, which I'll get to in a moment. It was a forum so I imagined it would be similar to one held at Saddleback which I found to be honestly persuasive and a fair comparison of the two candidates, answer the same questions without knowing what the other candidate's response. I've blogged previously about my change in heart watching Saddleback, so I was encouraged.

As John McCain began answering questions it didn't take long to figure out that the hosts were playing for the other team. Each question revolved around why McCain would not support Government funding programs, while he defended the strength of the American people and that increasing government control was not the answer to every social issue. He spoke of a government that encouraged volunteerism but would not force it on a free nation. He spoke of the strength of grass roots organizations and faith based groups and their success in the aftermath of every major tragedy around the world.

McCain's trust and understanding of the American people was only highlighted by his response to one of the many leading questions asked by Judy Woodruff. When she asserted that most volunteers and members of service organizations were wealthy thus making it easier to volunteer their time, then posed what would McCain do to make it possible for others to participate? McCain rejected the premise of her question and clearly stated that he believed that most of the volunteers and service members were not wealthy but just average citizens who cared enough to step up and help out. I am telling you this was a foreign concept to the "hosts". For what seemed like days they kept coming back to government funded programs specifically those that would pay citizens to well be better citizens.

It wasn't until McCain was asked what he could or would do to improve recruitment and retention numbers for the Military that things got a little more interesting. He blasted Columbia university policy that bans R.O.T.C. from campus and has since 1968. He suggested that Columbia and other Ivy League schools should encourage their brilliant students to research a career in the Military especially the opportunities as an officer. This was a brilliant answer and I'm not alone in thinking that, but again more on that later. McCain then went on to defend The United States All Volunteer Military. As the host asked questions about how the poor kids had to join the military while the rich kids had other options, I kid you not the woman asked McCain, whose two sons are currently serving this question/comment. I think even he was a bit surprised by the lunacy of her premise. It's a volunteer military, no one makes them sign up. She then hinted at the 'fairness' of a draft. McCain quickly retorted that those who want to serve sign up to serve, and during a draft those who can afford to avoid the draft. The idea that men and women would sign up to serve their country as part of the Military voluntarily was obviously something she'd never considered.

Then out of nowhere Judy Woodruff who had introduced the program as one of focus on service, blurts out something about Sarah Palin calling Obama a community organizer. After a gracious answer by Sen McCain where he extols the importance of community activity and that Govern Palin's remarks were in response to the Obama campaign's comments on her experience as Mayor of a small town, but that in no way diminished the role of community organizers. Woodruff couldn't contain herself, as he finished she followed up with a barely audible remark about small town mayors. The loose tie for the purpose of this question to the theme of the 'forum' was that all service no matter how small was important...I think.

Honestly I can't even remember the answer to one of my favorite questions and I use that term loosely, but it came near the end of McCain's segment. Richard Stengle , editor of Time magazine said " Our esteem in the world , of course has suffered since 9/11..." Well of course. I can think of at least 55 million free Iraqi's and Afghan's that would disagree with you. I'm not saying I'm just saying, the day I worry about what the "world" thinks America should do I will never come. The "World" is usually wrong. The "world" looks to us for leadership but then hates it when we take the lead and get the job done. This ultimately ends up with the "world" having American-Envy. Which leads me directly to the next fascinating exchange.

The hosts took turns grilling John McCain on whether or not America was better than other countries, because he called America Exceptional. He then proceeded to give them a history lesson and explained in small words they could understand how many times Americans have proved how Exceptional we are. How we were the first democracy of our kind and how we've used our strength to help those not strong enough to fight on their own. Yet they continued to press him on whether or not that made America better than other countries and in not as many words, he told them the cold hard truth: America is Exceptional. America is an exceptional country filled with exceptional people. This just seemed to confuse them further.

After a few wrap up questions it was time for the main event I know this because the hosts danced around on stage as though they needed a potty break when Sen Obama took the stage. They started out with similar questions to those they'd asked Sen McCain. In true Obama fashion he meandered through some staple answers about service at his Alma mater, his basic response to the questions about government programs (funding) for service organizations seemed to be more in line with what the hosts were looking for in terms of answers, mostly revolving around and reusing the line "Mutual responsibility". He implied that he would support more government programs (funded by the tax payer, that would be you.) not limited to just inspiring those to follow him, although that would be his admitted first option, but seemed to lead to the path of paid volunteers. So are they really volunteers anymore? Or are they just like the people who work at the DMV, Government Employees? Woodruff, "well that sounds all well and good but..." Stop. That sounds all well and good? Really? Well it doesn't sound like a good idea to me. It's just one more step towards socialism.

His idea of energy policy somehow made it into the "forum on service" I'm still trying to find the direct connection between the two. (and by all means e-mail or post your suggestions) However the topic came up he explained citizens will (be forced to) make a "commitment" to using less energy in our homes, citizens will commit to driving fuel efficient cars. Citizens will have to commit to something greater than ourselves. Again that sounds so familiar...why is that? Oh yes, when the government tells citizens how warm they can keep their homes or what kind of car they can drive not only does that take away citizens rights it demolishes the free market. Hmmm....ten points if you can see where I'm going with this one....If you guess socialism you are correct.

I did learn something from Sen Obama tonight, apparently it's difficult to find low paying jobs after you've graduated from Columbia. Who knew? According to Obama Wall Street will call you and you can go to Law School but it's hard to find minimum wage gigs. Good To know. I picked up this little tidbit while he expounded on his virtues as 23 year old who choose to work as a community organizer rather than do the other two. At least for three years, then he of course went to Harvard Law. So much for the joys of helping your fellow man....back to the old capitalist grind I guess.

While on the topic of education, Sen Obama took this opportunity to put forth this lovely thought, "We need to get to them earlier", he followed up with comments about developing a civic program as part of the standard ciriculum. This got me thinking, didn't someone else try to take control of the nation's youth through government sponsored "youth programs" a few years back? Oh yes now I remember that little organization called "Hitler's Youth".

About three quarters of the way through the Obama fan club meeting, the Sen has a moment of honesty and comment on something McCain said earlier. It was then and only then that I realized the candidates had not been sequestered as they had during Saddleback, so Obama was able to listen to all of McCain's answers and respond accordingly. He then launched into some talk about supporting our troops and our military including the line " When you serve our Country I will stand by You." Oh Really? Your voting record would seem to disagree. Did you not vote against funding for our troops serving overseas, instead choosing to use them as a political pawn in your campaign.

The remainder of his discussion on the military involved subtle suggestions of a draft, while never actually saying he would institute a draft he did seem to have the same confusion as the host about the term volunteer. Obama identifying with those that did not sign up for the military, suggested that some wealthy civilians would wonder "Why them and not me?" when watching the casualties of war. I have an answer to that question: Because you didn't sign up. Assume the following to be true: If more wealthy people signed up for the Military there would be more wealthy people in the Military.

Telling moment of the night however came when an earlier comment from John McCain was rephrased in the form of a question for Barrack H. Obama. Should Columbia University reverse the ban on R.O.T.C. on campus? Obama was then able to condemn this policy, I believe his exact words were "We made a mistake on that", even though the school held that policy while he was a student and has for many years been an esteemed alumni , Are we to believe this was his first opportunity to speak out on the matter? As I stated previously McCain gave a brilliant answer and the left leaning hosts wanted to make sure Barrack was able to try and take some of the credit.

An in a classic Barrack Obama moment after saying in no uncertain terms that his goal is to create new government programs and to increase government spending on existing programs for the sole purpose of increasing the level of "Service" in this country, he then closed by saying that "Real Change happens from the bottom up", the complete opposite of what he had just spent the last 30 minutes preaching.
Slow moving at times this Liberal grandstanding event still had some quality moments and was worth watching. I enjoy watching the candidates speak freely on how they would really approach the issues, not that any of that really happened tonight, but once again I feel that the more Obama speaks the more he shows who he really is and Thankfully for us, So does John McCain.