Politico.com recently published an article reviewing some of the presidential candidates' "mistakes." My reply to Politico.com:

Wait a minute, Politico.com. You teamed up with who for this article? Politifact, which is tied to the very liberal St. Petersburg Times? Well, that kind of shoots your objectivity and credibility in the foot right there.

But, aside from that, I also noticed that, as relatively short as your article was, McCain was tagged more than Obama, both in terms of the number of times mentioned and in terms of McCain's statements being "pants-on-fire wrong" (such a cute descriptor) but Obama's only being either "not totally true," "untrue," or "false."

Any of us who are even halfway critical thinkers (instead of idol worshipers, like the mainstream media -- and now maybe Politico.com as well) and who have paid the least attention to both Obama's and McCain's campaigns have seen McCain make some missteps and occasionally overreach, sure, but have also seen Obama say some just plain dumb, naive and downright stupid things: 58 states? Seeing ghosts in a crowd? Meet unconditionally with the likes of Ahmadinejad? Admit he was a 20-year member in a church but claiming to be totally unaware that it and its preacher (his own personal mentor and substitute father figure) were blatantly anti-American and racist? Unilaterally bomb in Pakistan whether our nuclear-armed ally agreed or not? I suppose all of these types of things by Obama have just been "mistakes" or examples of his "misspeaking"? I don't think so. And I could go on -- there's quite a list by now, which continues to grow almost daily -- but I think I've made my point.

I could go on with many other examples, but I will stop now and end by saying that what you really have in Obama is a skillful but old-style Chicago politician in a new wrapper, who will do whatever he has to do, say whatever he has to say, to get elected. And that's not just me, that's his (former) mentor of 20 years, the Right Reverend (and Racist) Jeremiah Wright who put it more bluntly: "He's a politician. He will do whatever he has to do."

What you also have with Obama is not only his party's presumpt-ive nominee but also possibly the most presumpt-uous of presidential pretenders, given a virtual pass if not outright support by the liberal mainstream media, with a tissue-thin national resume, a dangerous naivete about international affairs, no understanding of (and not much real appreciation for) our armed forces, and with the audacity of arrogance, the hype of hope, the chant of change, and enough ego to energize all of America (if we could convert that ego into real energy) for the next hundred years. 

Once again the Chicago Tribune's liberal columnist Clarence Page has inspired me, this time with an article poking fun at Senator McCain's "celebrity" ad which pokes fun at Senator Obama's celebrity.

Actually, McCain's "celebrity" ad was "kept alive" and received more play and discussion that it might otherwise have by the carping of liberal media/pundit types condemning it all week as everything from frivolous, to containing phallic symbols (uh, that was a shot of Obama, with the Berlin Victory Column behind him -- you remember, from his "citizen of the world" speech there?), to racially playing on old stereotypes of black men-white women, to ad hominem, to ad nauseum. Partly because of the liberal reaction to condemn the ad, it was therefore all the more effective. It clearly poked fun at Obama's celebrity and raised the real issue of mere celebrity not qualifying one for leadership. It captured a lot of the week's news cycle, which kept Obama from building on his recent whirlwind tour as he had hoped. It put Team Obama on the defensive and Obama off-message.

Obama quickly tried to swat it away by asking if that was the best that Team McCain had and saying that the campaign should be about more than Paris Hilton, that it should be about serious issues, blah, blah. But that didn't work either. Anyone with a dab of common sense knew the ad raised a valid issue -- Obama's lack of experience and any real proven leadership ability -- and did it in a clever and fun way.

And, by the way, it was Obama himself who first introduced Miss Hilton into the mix, when, at the Gridiron Club in December 2004, before he assumed his Senate office (and almost immediately began running for president), he said: "I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse." For some reason this comment was not reported until February 2005 by the Washington Post and Time magazine.

PARTING SHOT: There was a comment poster to Page's article online who identified himself as "gumboboy" and commented that celebrity was being "thrust upon" Obama (yeah, right) and comparing Obama's confidence with that of Ronald Reagan, trying to make the point that Reagan was applauded for his confidence while Obama is derided for his.

Note to gumboboy: I don't know how old, or mature, you are -- although I have my doubts about someone who calls himself "gumboboy" in the first place -- but I lived through the Reagan years and you should get your talking points straight before saying too much about Reagan. He was confident, sure, but his confidence was about this great country and its people as much as it ever was about himself. That's why he often used his gift for humor in a humble, self-deprecating way. When was the last time you heard or saw Obama act humble or self-deprecating? Or even admit that he's ever been wrong about anything? There's a difference between confident and cocky. Regarding your point that Reagan was a celebrity before becoming president (thereby implying that Obama will make a good president, either despite or because of his celebrity), yes, Reagan was a Hollywood celebrity and "movie star" before becoming president, but he was also, along the way, the highly successful governor of one of the largest and the most populous state in the country. What has Obama actually done that even comes close -- serve in the US Senate for 143 DAYS before running for president? Oh, puh-leeze!

I know it may seem from entries here that I'm obsessed with Obama. Well, I am. But not in a good way. Or least not in the same way, much less to the same degree, as his adoring supporters -- to include the mainstream media. It's probably more accurate to say that I'm not obsessed "with" Obama so much as obsessed "about" him.

After all, he is running for president -- in a time of war -- with little national, much less international, experience. So, I try to see if he at least has real vision, core convictions, real leadership capacity, if his words and ideas make common sense to me and are congruent with his actions. It's an old saying that actions speak louder than words, or, as an ole Southern boy once told me, "If you come across a mean junkyard dog, don't worry about his growlin' or his barkin'. His growl or his bark won't hurt you. Watch what he does." I think that admonition applies well to politicians, too. In fact, perhaps especially well to politicians. 

Sometimes, I get tired of the whole presidential campaign thing. Sometimes, I try to go whole days without even thinking about Obama, but since I watch TV -- O-BAM-A! -- there he is again. And he's usually saying something which sounds good but which lacks something. I don't know, call it substance. So, even now, I find myself continuing to ask: Who is Barack Obama...Really?

Sometimes it's not Obama himself but the fawning, liberal press trying to pump him up that gets my goat. In fact, this particular diatribe was inspired by the Chicago Tribune's liberal Clarence Page in his recent article about Obama's whirlwind tour and especially his Berlin speech, which Mr. Page cleverly entitled: 'Ich Bin Ein'... Big Winner!

Au contraire, Mr. Page, I doubt McCain's kicking himself for goading Obama to visit Iraq for only the second time or Afghanistan for the first time (although Obama chairs a committee supposedly overseeing our involvement there and has yet to call any hearings). After all, the senior and experienced McCain probably recognized that the junior and inexperienced Obama needed to "get out more" and see some of what's really going on in the world, instead of just talking like he already knows all about it. However, McCain prompted Obama to go to Iraq and Afghanistan -- even volunteered to go along with him -- because Obama had not been in a long time to the one and had never been to the other. He did not prompt him to also preen around the Middle East and Europe as if he were already president. That part was all Obama -- all the time. But, yes, I agree Obama's tour was well stage-managed overall to maximize campaign photo ops. And, yes, I agree McCain's campaign during that same timeframe looked a little lame.

HOWEVER, it would have been nice, in addition to a staged hoop shots photo op with the troops, that when Obama first arrived in Afghanistan, if he had also, as alleged by an Air Force captain who was there, not totally ignored the throng of servicemembers who had been waiting near the tarmac to see him for hours prior to his arrival. But, no, I guess no real important enough photo op there, so deplane, bypass the waiting troops, get straight into the armored vehicle and go see the brass in the conference room. How about a quick working of the rope-line, just a quick smile and handshake to thank the troops for their service? Oh, no, not photo worthy enough, too busy a schedule -- or just not genuinely concerned enough to even think of it. Whatever. And the supposed instant-as-whipping-up-some-Kool-Aid confirmation of his "expertise" on what we need to do in Afghanistan after spending less than 24 hours there? Give me a break!

FURTHERMORE, his speech in Berlin? A big winner? I think not so much. First, it was advertised to the Germans, literally and at least in part, as a free rock concert, to ensure a good crowd. Then, after the bands played and got the crowd worked up, Obama gave another of his soaring-but-no-substance speeches, except to apologize on foreign soil for America's shortcomings, before an estimated 100,000-200,000 Germans (estimates vary, but some liberal TV folks now just "round it off" to a quarter-million, I guess because "it just sounds better"). Many in that audience were smiling and looking more adoring at the beginning of his speech than at the end, many had waited for hours to see him (oh, and the rock bands), but they all dissipated amazingly quickly thereafter (in disappointment?).

Oh, and he was on a stage with no US flag anywhere in sight. By the way, there's nothing in the US flag guidelines which prevented having the US flag displayed on the stage with him in Berlin, just as nothing prevented it when he subsequently appeared with Sarkozy in Paris. I guess having the US flag displayed during his overseas appearances just didn't fit with his "citizen of the world" theme. Or maybe he really does have issues with the US flag, wearing or not wearing a flag pin, rendering the civilian salute during the playing of the National Anthem, etc. We already know he's redesigned the Presidential Seal, albeit only once so far and briefly -- after being ridiculed for it. But, oh, wait, was he wearing his flag lapel pin that day? I watched the speech, but I forgot to notice. If he was, then that probably made up for not having the flag displayed anywhere else. Oh, and Team Obama gave out little US flags for the Germans to wave around, too, so I guess that covered everything about the flag nicely.

Add to that, after being refused the amazingly presumptuous request to speak at the Brandenburg Gate (uh, where only a few who were already US presidents got to speak, Barack), the absolute irony of Team Obama having to "settle for" the speech being delivered at the Tiergarten's Victory Column, which not only faces toward Paris (where Obama was going on the next leg of his trip) but which also was erected in the 1800s to celebrate Prussian (German) victories over, among others, the French! Truly delicious irony, but, of course, either a fact unnoticed and/or underreported back here in the States. (Hmmm, I can only hope that, after dealing with the presumptuousness of the Brandenburg Gate request, it was those crafty Germans who suggested that alternative location, with perhaps just that irony for a presumptuous pretender in mind. Those Europeans always seem to know more about history and deal with things in more subtle, multi-layered ways than we do anyway.)

However, most tracking polls show Obama has not gotten as much of a bounce or "bump" as Team Obama hoped for from his whirlwind "citizen of the world" tour (just as he got no real bump from clinching the Democratic nomination -- can we say, "Appears to have trouble closing the deal?")

Commonsense Americans, of whatever other ilk or ideology, can usually, sooner or later, spot a phony. So, maybe no "bumps" for Obama yet because many Americans are still wondering who he is, really, and what, if anything substantive, does he really have to offer? Or, instead of baker, banker or Indian chief, is he the slick snake oil salesman, the backlot used car dealer, the shady shyster, the presumptive but, without question, also the most presumptuous of presidential pretenders? To many Americans, the audacity of arrogance doesn't sell as well back home as it might abroad, nor does the effeteness of elitism. And while we don't deny that someone might be more entitled than another for one reason or another, we don't like someone who acts entitled, instead of paying his dues and earning his stripes.

UNRELATED -- RUMOR HAS IT (Tongue-in-cheek):
It's apparent that Team Obama doesn't like the recent McCain ad comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears -- the obvious subtext of which was not only humorous but also made the point that it takes much more than mere celebrity to know what you're doing and to lead. One reason is probably that it was just cleverly controversial enough to capture a good part of the news cycle and put Team Obama on the defensive and therefore "off message," especially in a week when he was trying to capitalize on his whirlwind tour and see if he could pump up some more of a bump for himself. But (and don't say you heard it here), rumor has it that the real reason Obama himself doesn't like it is that he just thinks he's prettier than either of them.

As everyone not living in a cave somewhere probably knows by now, presidential pretender Senator Barack (Hussein) Obama is currently on his "Magical Media Middle East and Meet and Greet World Leaders Tour," part of which is cleverly disguised as a senatorial fact-finding trip.

[Aside: I put the freshman senator's middle name in parentheses lest the PC Police accuse me of not too subtly pointing out that all three of his names are Muslim (which they are), or something. However, I'm guessing I would get no such retribution if I insisted on saying Senator John Sidney McCain. Well, unless there are some overly thin-skinned and defensive Scots out there somewhere. Weird, huh?]

But, anyway, let's see, does that mean we taxpayers pay only for the fact-finding part of the trip and the Obama campaign pays for the rock star tour part? I wonder how that works, exactly. It's not that I'm all that cynical, mind you, but if I had to bet, I would bet that we taxpayers are probably paying for most, if not all, of the whole she-bang.

Obama's accompanied, no less, by all three primary "news" anchors of the alphabet TV networks -- Charmin' Charlie Gibson, Barritone-y Brian Williams, and that CBS cutie Katie Couric -- hard-charging field reporters and unbiased journalists, all. Let's see, the last time any one of the alphabet network "news" anchors accompanied Senator John McCain on any of his many senatorial fact-finding missions was..... Um, it was..... Hmmm, I guess that means none of them are competing to be Senator McCain's presumptive Press Secretary. Either that, or they already just think (hope?) he won't win.

Oh, but wait! Forget that part about someone living in a cave perhaps not knowing about Obama's trip. Osama bin Laden probably knows about Obama's trip, too. After all, he's already publicly supported Obama, as has the terrorist organization Hamas, anti-American and racist preacher Jeremiah Wright, convicted federal felon Tony Rezko, unrepentant former Weather Underground leader William Ayers, and..... Who else? I don't know, but do you see an associative trend here? Has Hezbollah, Syria or Iran signed up for the Obama campaign yet?

But I digress.
 
On last Friday's CBS Early Show, a correspondent reported on Obama's then-impending international tour and declared: "Senator Obama is taking to the skies to stride on the world stage. It's a chance for Americans to take a look at how he measures up as a statesman...it's an attempt to demonstrate he has the necessary gravitas to maneuver through diplomatic minefields, especially in the Middle East."

Taking to the skies? He's flying on an airplane, along with a lot of other people, for goodness sakes. It's not like he has a cape and a big "S" on his chest (although the mainstream media often act as if he does) and is flying over there all by himself, worried only about who might have some Kryptonite. And "...to stride on the world stage"? How about hopping from country-to-country on an airplane, then walking around on the ground? You know, the way ordinary mortals get around on international trips. How he measures up as a statesman? He hasn't even proven himself a competent freshman senator yet, much less any kind of statesman. He started running for his "next job" as president with less than 150 workdays as a freshman senator under his belt and has not been responsible for any significant legislation so far in that job.

Oh, but at least it's good that he's finally visiting Afghanistan for the first time on this trip, since he's on a Senate committee which is supposed to oversee our efforts there and for which he has held NO hearings nor conducted any previous fact-finding missions. I'm sure, after visiting for one day -- his first and only day on the ground in Afghanistan -- and shooting some hoops with the troops, that he will know exactly what we should do to "win" in Afghanistan. After all, anybody knows that basketball informs strategic military planning, right? In fact, I guess that's how he "knows" -- it must be something like prescience (a gift of the gods!) -- that we should have put more emphasis on Afghanistan than in Iraq all this time.

And, finally, "...an attempt to demonstrate he has the necessary gravitas to maneuver through diplomatic minefields..." Gravitas? Maneuver through diplomatic minefields? Can we be at least objective enough to tone down the "purple prose" about everything Barack Obama says and does? His actual record reveals someone with the "gravitas" of an empty suit. He has soaring oratory, but actual gravitas? No, I don't think so. There's an implication that gravitas is, at least in part, gained by experience -- and Obama's is limited, to say the least, on both the national and international stage.

And, so far as maneuvering through diplomatic minefields goes, he -- and we -- had better hope that he is really good at that, especially since he wants to meet with the likes of Iran's ideologically and theologically driven Israel and America hater Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But, oh, wait, Obama's lately changed that position -- among many others (causing virtual whiplash in some sectors) -- and now says that some preconditions may be necessary.

Does that give you any real confidence that Obama really knows what he's doing? Or is he just making some of this stuff up as he goes along, pandering to whomever he needs to in order to get elected? And, if that's the case, how do we know he won't just change his mind again, as he's recently done on a whole host of issues, if and when he's elected? And, if he is elected, do we really need him making stuff up as he goes, while being tested by other world leaders or perhaps when and if we're all challenged again by a radical terrorist attack? I don't think so, but you really think about it -- and I mean r-e-a-l-l-y think about it -- and decide.

Besides, be honest now, at least with yourself, does one world-wind media tour really establish anyone's -- even Obama's -- bona fides as an expert on what's needed for Iraq or Afghanistan? Or, for that matter, anywhere else? Does it really give him any real gravitas? Does it make him -- almost overnight -- a statesman, instead of a mere freshmen senator of little real accomplishment or record? Does a media tour alone really qualify him to be our Commander-in-Chief, especially in a time of war? Color me crazy, but I don't think so. I think the Magical Media Tour is just that -- maybe not that magical, but definitely more of a media than an actual fact-finding (or mind changing) tour. Lots of photo ops, though. His campaign can make good use of those, making him look presidential and like he knows what he's doing. (After all, who could not like that beaming smile of his, anyway?)

But that's just it -- appearing to know what you're doing and actually knowing what you're doing are two entirely different things. In the Army, we had a couple of phrases that sum up what I think this Magical Media Tour is really all about: "smoke and mirrors" and "dog and pony show."

I guess we're at least lucky that all the Middle Easterners (even the terrorist ones) and Europeans can't vote in the American election for president. If so, Obama might just be a shoo-in.   

Reference Senator Obama's recent suggestion that American children learn SSL (Spanish as a Second Language), English is the international language of trade and foreign affairs, so it is already the most generally spoken language in the world. However, the second most spoken language worldwide is Spanish, so there is merit in suggesting not only that our children learn a second language in general but that Spanish would be a good one to learn.

However, in the US, first, our children need to be better taught how to speak, read and write English. Just look at most English compositions by high schoolers or college students these days for proof of that. Or read some blogs and/or comments posted thereon.

Second, all official government publications, to include ballots, should be published in English. Not only would that save government at all levels a lot of money but it would also encourage immigrants (even the illegal ones) to learn English and therefore better assimilate into American society. And don't forget, decades of immigrants somehow miraculously did this without the benefit of public-funded ESL classes. If you really want to learn, you can find a way to do it. If you're going to vote, for example (and you are a legal citizen, of course), and you don't speak the language well enough yet, bring a translator with you. The burden should be on you, not the government and definitely not the American taxpayer.

Third, when I go into a store in the United States -- anywhere in the United States, even if it's in the Southwest-barrio-enclaved part of the United States -- I expect to be able to conduct my business in English. And when I have to make an 800-number phone call for anything, I expect to be able to understand the person on the other end of the call -- even if they are Indian and in India. After all, I am an American and calling an American company, no matter where or to whom that company may have outsourced its telecommunications support. And while I would not mind having to press 2 for Spanish on a business phone call if that's what I wanted to speak, I resent having to press 1 for English and should not have to. And there is really no debate in my mind that an American employer has the right (for safety and other customer service reasons) to require employees to speak English in the workplace. Take your smoke or meal breaks in Spanish, or Farsi, or whatever your native language is, but do your work in English. After all, you're being paid in money which is printed in English. 

So, if you are an American company, or a foreign company doing business in America, or in a foreign country but representing an American company, or an immigrant (legal or illegal) in this country, learn and use English. If you're an immigrant, even if you're an illegal immigrant (or to use the liberal euphemism: "undocumented worker"), learn and use English. It will help you better do anything you are trying to do. It will help you read road signs or street maps better (which will also probably contribute to public safety). It will help you deal with other English-speaking Americans better. For example, I don't really care that my landscape guy may be Honduran, or Mexican, or Russian, for that matter. I just care that he does a good job for the pay I'm paying him, so I do care that he and I can mutually understand each other so I can tell him exactly what I want him to do in my yard.

If you're an immigrant, there's nothing wrong with being proud of and maintaining your ethnic culture. America is the amazing melting pot it has long been because immigrants from various countries brought and contributed pieces of their native cultures to this one -- this uniquely American culture -- and enriched it in doing so. Speak your native language at home and among your friends, celebrate your traditions and customs, be proud of where you came from. But, given that you are here now, also learn English so you can do things better. Teach your children your native language, customs and traditions as part of their heritage, but also teach them English and American civics so they can do things better, too.

And, if you want to live and work here, if you want to aspire to the American Dream, if you want to benefit from all that America has to offer you (and we must still offer a lot not found elsewhere because people from other countries still come here in droves, despite how some in and out of America say that we are in decline or "broken"), then proudly be an American first. Don't just be what President Theodore Roosevelt called a hyphenated American.

You may be of African descent but that doesn't make you an African-American (a term, by the way, invented in the late 1960s-early 1970s and used by various black militant groups, increasingly used by some black politicians, social rights activists and within the black community in the 1980s, and not generally accepted until the mid-1990s), especially if you were born here. That makes you an American of African descent. You may practice Islam or Judaism as your religion but that doesn't make you, respectively, a Muslim-American or a Jewish-American. It makes you an American who practices that religion. You may be white, black, brown, yellow, or red, or different shades in between, but that doesn't make you a Black-American, a Yellow-American, or even a Beige-American. It makes you an American with whatever skin color you may have.

And in case you're wondering, I am proudly English-Irish-Cherokee, but the decal on the back of my vehicle simply says: Proud to be an American.