Let’s clear a few things up about the democratic party, and their current presidential candidates, shall we?

Both Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton have clearly stated that, if elected president, they will do whatever they can to remove all U.S. presence in Iraq (ending our involvement in the war on terror). Obama likes to boast about the fact that he has not wavered or “flip flopped” on the Iraq war on terror, while Clinton voted for the war at first and then changed her opinion as others in congress did. However, for the purpose of this discussion, both democratic candidates oppose the war in the same fashion as they both say now that they will surrender and leave the middle east, if elected president.

As a conservative Independent who is indifferent about president Bush, I cannot find a logical reason as to why we as a nation should SURRENDER the war on terror. To me it is like sending Al-Qaeda an invitation to our 233rd birthday party (which will be July 4th, 2008 hah). Thus, both democratic candidates plan to put our country at a great risk. If that is part of the basic democratic platform, I am proud not to be a part of their party! The other thing that I cannot grasp is the ability that the democratic party and their members have to OVERLOOK the issue of American safety. They are in denial about the current success of the war on terror, and have taken a stand (opposite that of most republicans) simply for political gain.

Furthermore, in my extensive observance of campaign events and primary/caucus results, I have concluded that Barack Obama garners a large block of immature voters, despite some of his seemingly mature endorsements (Oprah Winfrey, Ted Kennedy, etc.). One of my main rationales for this theory is Obama’s supporters (at rallies, etc) who foam at the mouth with each of his phony statements. I have yet to hear Barack Obama on a national medium (TV, radio, etc) demonstrate concrete plans for if he were elected president. So far I have heard empty rhetoric, designed to be what the voter wants to hear, with no real solutions, or plans. I think he has what he believes the best interest of the country is at heart (more so than Clinton), and is genuine about that. He might be an eloquent and inspirational speaker, but with his victory/concession speeches, he is starting to sound like a broken record.

Finally, I am severely questioning his “Change” slogan. To me it seems like the only change that would take place, if Barack Obama was elected president, is that instead of a white American male as commander in chief (or lack thereof in the democrats case) we would have a black American male. If that is the only change, it isn’t worth voting for, let alone “Believing in.” Sorry Oprah, you’re looking as empty as Obama himself on this one…

Hilary Clinton is by no means Barack Obama’s inverse in this regard. Clinton has slightly more substance when it comes to policies and plans for her presidency, and does the American people the great service of illustrating and discussing these ideas when given the chance. But don’t get me wrong I hear as much hollow “double-speak” from Clinton as I do any other candidate.