A Free Ride to the Oval Office

When will the revelations end? With only three weeks until November 4th, the people still lack a knowledge of Barack Obama’s true character. As written before, Obama’s associations reveal his moral character and faulty judgment, something the American people know from previous presidents. Following President Bill Clinton’s marvelous example, Obama, instead of meeting political disgrace from his associations manages to shine brighter in the public eye. At least Clinton admitted his moral shortcomings during his campaign, secretly preparing the nation for the scandal that rocked the White House in 1998. Obama, on the other hand, avoids acknowledging the weakness of his moral judgment, a sign that the broken judgment of his past remains splintered. The damage the Clinton administration inflicted upon the American presidency and moral corruption of his culture allows Senator Obama a free ride to the oval office.

The latest questionable association of Barack Obama emerged this week with the revelation of Micky Mouse registering to vote in Florida. Those responsible, ACORN, hold ties to Senator Obama. The interactions between Obama and Acorn reflect his poor judgment of character again. Obama’s past with ACORN remains shaky but the latest report claims his campaign “amended” an FEC report of their donation to an affiliate of ACORN to reflect that they paid for “‘get-out-the-vote’ projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events” as the original report from the primary period stated. Once again, Obama rectifies his actions after the fact. As with the donations from Rezko, Obama tries to correct his mistakes. The campaign’s defense that they “misrepresented” ACORNS involvement reflects another cover up for Obama’s misguided judgment. Once again, the Media fails to hold Obama accountable for his actions at they relatively ignore the ACORN factor. The question for today asks when did the American people become so complacent with immoral character.

The answer begins sixteen years ago when Bill Clinton won the presidency, changing the moral culture of American. While the public struggled to hold its moral values, a playboy ran for president. The public loved their adulterer turned repentant husband and welcomed the president warmly. Even during the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton managed to portray the victim even though he lied under oath, committing a felony. The rise in his poll numbers reflects the entire moral collapse of the nation, where personal character no longer matters to the American people. Today, the younger generations praise Clinton for being “the Man”. Even though he cheated on his wife and lied to the nation, severing the thin string of trust the American people held for their elected leaders.

The Clinton era ushered in a new response to his immoral character. The same women, who criticized Former Senator Hart, for “a character problem” after cheating on his wife, defended Clinton, altering the moral standard for presidents. The American people embrace this new ignorance of character in the current election as they continuously ignore Obama’s questionable associations. In Bill Clinton, the American people elected an admitted adulterer who continued his cheating ways all the way to the oval office, with the resemblance of immoral character, Barack Obama should not have the opportunity to place this nation in danger because of his ability to trust the wrong people.

Dodge after Dodge, Senator Obama continues to avoid answering for his actions. His people and the press call the questions of his character as negative attacks, even smearing. With public opinion in his favor, Obama follows Clinton’s footsteps once again. The decline of morality in America created the atmosphere that elected Clinton and the complete lack of a moral standard allows Barack Obama to avoid personal accountability for his associations. At least Clinton told the truth; Senator Barack Obama avoids the truth with all cost, a poor characteristic for a man who wants to rule the free world. The president must always be truthful to his people and Barack Obama habitually fails to do so. “Ironically, Clinton as a candidate for president in 1992 said: “The people whose character is really an issue are those who would divert the attention of the people and divide the country”. The perfect play out of the Democrat playbook, Obama used a similar approach when he called out McCain’s attacks on his lackluster record and character, calling them stale tactics. Like Clinton said, Obama continues to divert attention from his questionable character and the media, with the help of Clinton’s legacy provides a free ride to the oval office.

David M. Brown. “Obama to Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending”. Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 22 Aug 08. Accessed: 12 Oct 2008.
David M. Brown. “Obama to Amend Report On $800,000 In Spending”. Pittsburgh Tribune Review. 22 Aug 08. Accessed: 12 Oct 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 168.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 173.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 176.
Lecture. What Makes A Great President. 17 Sep 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 183.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 171.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 181.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 183.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 184.

When You Lay Down with Dogs, You Wake Up with Fleas

On the campaign trial Monday, Senator John McCain finally asked the right question, “Who is Barack Obama?” Rebuked as slander and smearing, the McCain campaign obviously hit a nerve; a sore spot the democrats and liberal media try to avoid. Perhaps the best line McCain stomped with, “For authoring two memoirs, Barack Obama’s life is no open book”. This observation reveals the nature of Senator Obama. He revealed to the public the image he wanted the American voter to see thereby avoiding the poor judgment of his associations. While the media gives Senator Obama a free ride, the McCain campaign finally questions his judgment and character. Being the media’s darling does not exclude Barack Obama from accountability for his actions. Now more than ever, American’s must demand for the truth about Senator Obama.

The truth of Senator Obama lies in the company he keeps. First came Jeremiah Wright, then a blurp about Tony Rezko, yesterday Bill Ayers flooded the media once again and today, his name, Raila Odinga. Here, we focus on perhaps Barack Obama’s most frightening association. Who is Raila Odinga? As the opposition candidate from Kenya’s presidential election at the beginning of 2008, the media largely ignores this association, protecting Senator Obama’s image from this terrifying man. Odinga ran against the incumbent President of Kenya in 2007 and thankfully lost. During his campaign, Senator Barack Obama made a state visit in order to help Odinga on the trail. “Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations”. During his campaign, Odinga signed an agreement with the National Muslim Leaders Forum, promising to introduce Islamic law into the Kenyan government. Odinga, known for his friendly relationships with radical Islamic sects, is cause for concern in the US. The man Obama campaigned for during his visit poses a direct threat to the national interests of the United States. For the media to ignore Obama’s association and campaigning with Raila Odinga shows a degree of harmful neglect on the part of the news media.

This relationship, above all the other questionable associations, reflects Obama’s true character best. Obama trusted this man enough to campaign on his behalf in Kenya, as a US Senator. This man, who is corrupt, ruthless and financially tied to terrorists, stood on the same stage as Barack Obama while he sung his praises for the Kenyan Presidency. Senator Obama cannot finagle his way out of answering for his actions here. While he sidestepped Reverend Wright, Denied knowledge of Rezko and Ayers’ terrible actions, Senator Obama cannot dance around Odinga. His relationship with this radical Islamic sympathizer reflects Obama’s poor judgment of character. He continuously made mistakes with whom he associated. These mistakes raise important questions about his judgment. Any person campaigning for a terrorist sympathizer should not run for president, as the nation’s interests are, obviously, not in his priority. In his association with Odinga alone, Senator Obama would make a terrible president, combined with his other relationships, Obama’s trust issues extended beyond the imagination. Senator Obama’s past of questionable associations, reveal a tendency for him to make faulty judgment calls. Senator Obama places trust in individuals who scare the nation with their actions. While the media ignores these relationships, the nation cannot afford to elect a president places that trusts such questionable people.

The relationship of between Obama and Odinga remains relatively unreported in America for one reason; the media and the public fail to hold Obama accountable for his relationships. This failure to hold Obama accountable stems from the greater issue within the US, the decline of a moral standard. As the postmodern era comes of age, the moral standards of the golden era fade leaving the nation in a moral vacuum. This allows the relationships of Barack Obama to slip away when it should highlight the Senator’s poor character judgment. With the moral barometer of the golden age, the friendships of Barack Obama would set off warning bells for all Americans. Today, the morally deprived left who call the questions of Obama’s character “smearing”. The moral decline of American society created the machine that allowed a man of questionable judgment to run for president. Americans cannot afford to trust a man who placed his trust in such morally corrupt men.

Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice, Hall. 2007. 147.
Abeles, Paula. “Obama and Odinga: The True Story”. AfricanPress. http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/senator-barack-obama-in-kenya-obama-and-odinga-the-true-story/. 10 Aug 2008. Accessed: 6 Oct 2008.
Abeles, Paula. “Obama and Odinga: The True Story”. AfricanPress. http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/senator-barack-obama-in-kenya-obama-and-odinga-the-true-story/. 10 Aug 2008. Accessed: 6 Oct 2008.
Lecture: Criteria for Greatness. 17 Sep 2008.
Lecture: High Wire Act. 10 Sep 2008.
Lecture: Criteria for Greatness. 17 Sep 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice, Hall. 2007. 153.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice, Hall. 2007. 133-134.
Dunn, Charles W. Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001.143.
Dunn, Charles W. Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 138.

Finally!

The media has caught on... its amazing it took so long... I had given up.

See "Affairs to Remember"

Affairs To Remember

Through the lens of the media, the nation sees pieces that make up the men running for president. To Senator Obama’s credit, he managed to befriend the media at the beginning of his campaign and the affair continues today. This friendship highlights the questionable morality of such a relationship. As the media praises its darling, their outright opposition to John McCain creates an intense conflict of interest. In their admiration for the young gun, the media fails to investigate the Obama machine, ignoring the questions of who, what, when, where and how. Each day new names appear with Senator Obama’s but the media faintly explains their connections. The media avoids the true relationships of Obama even though these reveal his character.

National coverage unfortunately failed to reach Senator Obama’s shady past in Chicago. Questionable people from Senator Obama’s hometown aided his political career but the media does not report the scandals of his friendly associates. One specific gentleman, whose relationship warrants investigative journalism, donated around 168,000 dollars to Obama’s campaigns. This man, Tony Rezko, now faces indictments on fraud and other questionable actions. He also hosted a fundraiser for the Senator during his campaign for US Senate. Over the course of his presidential campaign, Obama began dumping the money given to him by these supporters. Furthermore, Obama tried to diminish the true expanse of Rezko’s presence in his life. He claimed that Rezko’s contributions tallied no more than 60,000 dollars, a gross understatement. By dumping the donations from Rezko, Obama secretly acknowledges the questionable relationship with Rezko.The media only touched on the subject of the questionable donations he received from these longtime supporters

The problem goes beyond keeping the monies; the question of character lies in his decision to accept the donations in the first place. At one point, six donators from the infamous 2003 fundraiser faced indictments. Since then, Obama donated their 22,000-dollar contributions to charity in response. This changes nothing, he still accepted their checks, and he only purged those donations because of slight media speculation. This action brings into question his personal and professional morality. Obama deflects the nature of this controversy by donating the questionable contributions to charity. By removing the donations, his actions reiterate the presence of guilt by association. These corrupt men donating to this man of change may be common in the Chicago machine but the rest of America expects an honorable President. Accepting donations from these questionable men reflects poorly on Obama’s moral judgment. The media failed to report this story of his questionable trust and unseemly decision-making.

Obama’s morally questionable relationships failed to capture the media. Perhaps his most disheartening friendship involves the ‘former’ terrorist and member of the Weathermen, Bill Ayers. A Chicago Sun-Times writer said the relationship between Obama and Ayers, “never bothered anyone in Chicago”. Chicago’s questionable history of politically corruption and absolute rule of the Daley family created an environment that would welcome questionable alliances. So yes, his relationship to the radical would go unnoticed since the Chicago welcomed the radical without apprehension. While seen as “no big deal, or any deal, to any local political reporters or to the editorial boards of the Sun-Times or Tribune” ; the media and public should question his decision to be friends with a leader of the Weatherman. This man, Bill Ayers promoted violent revolution with their organizations bombing of buildings, namely the Pentagon among others. The Senator's alliance with a terrorist questions his moral judgment but the media choose to ignore his risky relationship.

The media continuously fails to hold Obama accountable for his morally questionable friendships. While whispers emerge, the mainstream media refuses to expose the shady reality of Barack Obama. The American media, once a gang of muckrakers, bringing investigatory journalism to new lows, returns to oblivious journalism in their coverage of Barack Obama. Americans cannot ignore Obama’s lack of moral judgment; it shows that he cannot make a good decision without first making all the wrong ones. A great president will make the right choice the first time. Clearly, Obama needs a lesson in decision-making.

Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 117.
Fusco, Chris & Tim Novak. Rezko cash triple what Obama says. Chicago Sun Times. 18 Jun 2007. www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.stng. 28 Sept 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 119.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 103.
Fusco, Chris & Tim Novak. Rezko cash triple what Obama says. Chicago Sun Times. 18 Jun 2007. www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.stng. 28 Sept 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 118.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 103.
Sweet, Lynn. Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone. Chicago Sun Times Blog. 18 Apr 2008. www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/901879,CST-NWS-sweet18.article. 28 Sept 2008.
Sweet, Lynn. Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone. Chicago Sun Times Blog. 18 Apr 2008. www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/901879,CST-NWS-sweet18.article. 28 Sept 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 103.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield. 2001. 113.
Dunn, Charles W. Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 117.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield. 2001. 134.
Lecture. “High Wire Act”. 3 Sep 2008.

Glitz, Glam, and Ancient Columns

Someone once said: “Image is everything”. The current cultural climate forces the presidential candidates to sacrifice their message for the sake of promoting their appearance. Today it does not matter what a candidate says but how he looks saying it. It’s a sad time in this country when the people choose a president based on his look rather then his platform. Has the term “platform” disappeared from the campaign trail all together? Are Americans so impatient, they cannot look beyond the image to see the real man beneath? And as a result, has image become the primary method for candidates to win an election?

Playing to the masses, Senator Obama placed style above substance, in order to garner public support. Known as the charismatic candidate, Senator Obama provides little else to evaluate his candidacy. Instead, Senator Obama made a great effort to illustrate the image of youthfulness throughout his campaign, the showiest example being the infamous fist bump with his wife. This brings to mind the 1992 appearance of then candidate Bill Clinton on MTV and his infamous answer to the ever-so-popular boxers or briefs question. Following in the footsteps of the image president himself, the fist bump showed Obama’s realness, connecting him to the younger generations that have been fist bumping for years. By capitalizing on the familiarity of the congratulatory move, Obama reiterated his image of the young gun roping in youthful undecided voters.

The Obama family fist bump ushers back memories of the Al and Tipper Gore onstage kiss. The passionate kiss gained Al Gore points in the polls after the convention. This kiss, which had nothing to do with the substance of the Gore campaign, boosted his polling numbers, proving his passionate style more important than anything he said. Pulling the old play out of the democratic handbook, Obama pumped out the fist bump to show the sincere relationship he shares with his wife. This bump, however unscripted it appeared, drew the intended response. Declared, “the fist bump heard around the world”, the Obamas reestablished themselves in the image of a real, loving, and supportive family. This bump drew attention but not for what Obama said but for the image portrayed.

Obama’s dependence of image to bolster his campaign seeped into his acceptance speech celebration. The depiction of the Democratic National Convention captivated its viewers with glitz, glam, and ancient columns. The stagecraft was unmatched in years past. The television coverage of the event brought focus to the glamour of the Democratic Party, where the temple like stage received more coverage than the actual speech Obama made. He looked like a Greek god ascending to enlighten America. He looked like a Greek god ascending to enlighten America compared to the coverage of the Republican National Convention; which focused on the protestors rather than the platform or even re-energized delegation of the party(Seven Laws. 81,82). The agenda of the media stunted the efforts for substance in both cases; as for Obama and the DNC, Americans enjoyed a show worthy of an Emmy.

Limited airtime restricts the content that candidates can share with the public. Like every president since the introduction of the television, its Obama’s image that matters not what he says. Obama created himself in the image of the young gun, the Washington outsider. The attempts to discover the nature of Obama’s platform remain relatively elusive. However obscure, Obama’s campaign adds up to one slogan: change. The restraints created by television’s image first agenda assist the Senator by limiting news and ads to superficial statements therefore making his simple declaration of change feel legitimate. The American people see a young, charismatic Senator promising change, although very few can actually answer what change he seeks.

The introduction of television into politics created presidential candidates who focus on being the primped and groomed ideal nominee. Unlike the presidents before, the candidates face a media pressuring them to forgo their multifaceted and complex stances in order to gain voter popularity. Senator Obama remains unscathed by the restraints of the modern campaign, his image based tactics flourish under the thirty-second spotlight given by news media. He sounds and looks so good; heck he’d make a good president right?

Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 75.
Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 75.
Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 75.
Lecture. Who Will Win the White House. 27 Aug 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 81.
Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 81-82.
Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 89.
Lecture. Presidential Greatness. 10 Sep 2008.
Dunn, Charles W. The Seven Laws of Presidential Leadership. New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall. 2007. 91.
Dunn, Charles W. The Scarlet Thread of Scandal. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. 2001. 110.

Sneak Peek

The theories of presidential leadership provide a sneak peek of Senator McCain’s presidential potential. Though extensive, we can narrow the characteristics of a great president and elaborate on the strengths that John McCain possesses. While not the most charismatic choice, McCain proves himself with commendable experience from serving his country over the past forty-eight years.

To better understand Senator McCain’s potential we must first look to his past. As the son and grandson of Navy officers, McCain followed in their steps. He always believed in a sense of service and duty. During his time with the Navy, McCain’s judgment never faltered. Furthermore, as Senator, McCain fought for issues regardless of his party line. He effortlessly transitioned from a rebel youth to a maverick Senator proving the old theory of; “you’ve-got-it-if-you-were-born-with-it”. John McCain undoubtedly comes from good stock and this strengthens his presidential appeal.

The presidency has become an all-powerful position and now requires an exceptional human being; more specifically the president must possess the hero quality. He must do what he believes is right. In Senator McCain we find a hero we can look up to. McCain says that he only served along side heroes during the Vietnam War; but his actions prove otherwise, notably his decision to stay in the Hanoi Hilton so others could be freed first. Furthermore, as a Senator he voted by conviction and was often criticized for standing up to his party, earning the name Maverick. On his campaign trail he proved himself again by saying he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. McCain proves through his decision-making that he would make a great president because the population can find “doing the right thing” admirable.

Dissecting Senator McCain’s actions regarding public policy enlightens us to the potential leadership style of his presidency. McCain chooses his style through the decisions he makes. His vote for the troop surge in Iraq proved his competency to be Commander and Chief. He made the right decision at the right time compared to his opponent who voted against the surge that proved successful. Furthermore, McCain’s response to the conflict in Georgia received a great response when compared to his opponent’s unintelligible and washy statements. Through McCain’s decision-making we can assess his presidential potential; with strong and successful policy making; McCain proves he can get the job done.

All of Senator McCain’s experiences provide him with the ability to convey emotional intelligence. His decision-making can make the public feel that “this is the way it is supposed to be done”. McCain’s ability to do “what is right at the right time” enhances the potential of his emotional intelligence and therefore the possibility of becoming a great president.

A great president requires emotional intelligence and John McCain as mentioned above, shows promise in conveying such. Already in his campaign, McCain utilizes intelligence to improve his image with average Americans. While he can boast an Annapolis education, he has a street intelligence that allows him to effectively connect with the public. As his plane rightly says, “John McCain: straight talk express”. This ability to convey a street-wise intelligence lends itself to greater voter appeal than its scholarly counterpart. Part of McCain’s street feeling intelligence centers on his ability to reiterate his superior courage without appearing pompous. He emphasizes the record of his courage; from his military service to a strong independent voting record. McCain earns voter appreciation for telling it like it is and for doing what he knows is right.

Experience, courage and intelligence, are only a few ways that help the Americans decide who will make a great President. Thankfully, McCain left himself clean of scandal and moral struggles unlike many former presidents. This ability to remain politically clean helps the Senator reach out to the people as a voice and beacon of reform. McCain has been non-partisan and bucked his own party when necessary, proving to the people that he can be trusted to pursue good for all people.

Through this assessment of Senator McCain we find a man of courage, experience and strength; but these are merely a few pieces to the complicated puzzle that make up the American Presidency. We cannot know the type of president John McCain would become, but from his past we discover a sneak peek to his promising future.

"Just a Gov"

The Republican vice presidential candidate has been on the political stage for just over a week now. Since her introduction on August 29, Governor Sarah Palin united and re-energized the conservative base that McCain had trouble reaching. By doing so, she revealed the true nature of politics; namely the rhetorical addiction of the Liberal Left. From their presidential nominee to bloggers, the attacks on Gov. Palin are pitiable. Their biggest assault claims that she is “just a Governor”.

To combat the use of disrespectful rhetoric from the liberal left, Governor Palin has embraced her small town roots and state experience to prove that being just a governor is no small thing. She took the response from the Obama camp and gave them some of their own medicine. Instead of letting their rhetoric discourage her, she brought her experience as Mayor to the main stage on the night of her acceptance speech at the RNC. She compared her time as a mayor to the time Obama spent as a community organizer, citing the greatest difference being responsibilities. These responsibilities trained her to handle her position as Governor; which is no small task. Senator Obama may have political clout but as a senator with merely 144 days on the job and no legislation to his name; where is the experience that qualifies him for president? Funny, that it is his campaign that says Gov. Palin, a proven reform politician, does not have the experience to be vice president. As Hillary Clinton said; "There is one job we can't afford: on-the-job training for our next president." Unlike the presidential candidate, Governor Palin has executive experience and does not require training when it comes to decision-making; at least she knows “present” is not the answer to a yes or no question.

It has to be asked, is this rhetoric of “just a Governor” the best attack the democrats and liberal left have? We can look at history and see that some of the greatest presidents were governors. Ronald Reagan was just the governor of California, but he made tremendous leaps and bounds in uniting conflicting interests, a testament to the advantage his executive experience provided. Furthermore, Franklin D. Roosevelt was just the governor New York and he is arguably one of our greatest presidents. And we cannot forget that the Democrat’s darling, Bill Clinton, was just a mere governor before running for office. If being governor was good enough for the presidential nominee then; why is Governor Palin criticized when she is only running for vice president?

Furthermore, the liberal left is scared of what Palin will do for the GOP. She took Obama’s rhetoric of change and transformed the image of the Republican ticket. In their anger, the left is attempting to discredit the newest political star by depicting Gov. Palin as ‘just a governor” when she should be at home with her kids. Because many are sympathetic to the family story of the Palins; that angry left is painting Gov. Palin as a woman of backward priorities. This is a good ol’ trick right of the Democratic playbook that is quite reminiscent of the Clinton era rhetoric about family values. The critics say that while she may preach family values, she is choosing to run for VP instead of focusing on her baby with Down syndrome and her pregnant teenage daughter. Howard Gutman, an Obama fundraiser, said on the Laura Ingraham radio show, “This wasn’t a working mother issue, this was a parent issue,” he said. His statement makes Governor. Palin’s balance of priorities appear questionable, a sneaky method of creating doubt around a candidate’s decision-making abilities. Governor Palin is a mom with her own family, just like millions of Americans. We should admire her strength and ability to manage a family and a political career not criticize her for it. The left says she is a poor parent because of her decision to run for office, citing it as one more example of her inadequacy to hold the position of vice president. She is just a Governor after all and now a bad parent! Oh No!

This political rhetoric of “Just a Gov” will not work for Obama’s camp. Governor Palin has a greater record of experience as a governor than Obama has from being a senator. They are using this rhetoric out of fear, saying she is “just a Gov ”, because they know a vice presidential candidate with more experience than the presidential candidate will cause serious problems for their campaign in the coming months.