On his September 11, 2008 show, Hugh Hewitt had on McCain/Palin campaign manager Rick Davis to discuss the campaign.

Among other things, Rick Davis said that "all four candidates are good Christians"...

Well, I disagree -- Barack Obama is not a "good Christian", not from the point of view that he's a bad person, but that he is not a practicing Christian. Barack Obama talks and writes about his faith, but I believe that deep down, he's an atheist.

That doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that he's a person -- good, bad or otherwise -- who's not a Christian by action.

Barack Obama seems to have no stance on anything really -- he can waffle his way around most issues without actually committing to anything (except that he's completely against the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act), and that lack of opinion is at odds with being a religious American. Let's face it: church- or synagogue-going Americans tend to have opinions on most things; you don't have to agree with the opinion, but at least it's there. Barack Obama doesn't fit the mold when it comes to opinions and faith.

I have always thought that Obama went to church because it made for good politics. As a young prospective senator in Chicago, he perhaps felt his Kenyan roots and Harvard law degree didn't give him the street-cred that he would need in order to win a senate seat. So he decided to join a "black church". But which one?

When you listen to Michelle Obama give her bitter, angry, almost anti-American victimhood stump speeches, it's not hard to figure out which of the Obamas was listening when Jeremiah Wright was giving his sermons! Becoming members of the Trinity United Church of Christ was probably her idea, and Barack just went along with it.

When the Trinity church became a political burden, he separated from it, because for him, it was a case of easy-come-easy-go. It's not an original thought of mine, and I cannot find the quote, but a perceptive political commentator noted that Obama seemed to leave the church for the same reason he joined it: political expediency.

At the Saddleback debates, when asked his views on same sex marriage, Obama said "It's a union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix..."

For someone so known for his eloquence, the vapidness of that comment bespeaks someone who knows that marriage is important to those bitter, gun-toting Americans who "cling" to religion, but doesn't understand why.

So is Obama a "good Christian"? I think not, for the simple reason that he's not really a (practicing) Christian... he's just another liberal who is nominally Christian.

So Sarah Palin hasn't traveled much... big deal!

Palin should just come out and say it: "You know what, I haven't traveled much -- as a private citizen I couldn't afford to, and as Governor of Alaska, it wasn't something the taxpayers needed to pay for, except when I visited our boys in Kuwait/Iraq. But, unlike Obama, I understand the problems in the world, I understand that evil exists and threatens us still, and I understand that you can't wish or talk these problems away. I am ready to meet the challenges"...

And before her debate against Sen Joe Biden, she should be thoroughly briefed on foreign policy details such as the Bush Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, and the leaders of several influential countries (so she doesn't get "Bushed" with a "Can you name the leader of Pakistan" embarrassment)!

Well, I had intended my first blog post to be a brief introduction on why I blog, but events over take me, so here I go:

In his latest column at National Review, Charles Krauthammer argues that McCain will need Sarah Palin to "pull an Obama" so that he can win the election (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NTE4OTc1NjQxNDFiNzk4OTA0YTllZDhjODU2NGY3YzY=).

By "pulling an Obama", he means that her charisma and star-power could be put to use to gloss over the perceived deficiencies in her résumé. Krauthammer posits that by choosing Palin, McCain has forfeited the one attribute where he has it all over Obama -- experience.

I disagree.

Experience is the major factor of the election, and Obama has none. He has never run anything except his own campaign, and even that is run by others.

Palin has experience -- she was mayor of a town of 6,000 people, and she is the governor of a state. She *has* experience. By criticizing
Palin's experience, the Obama camp merely highlights that whatever experience Palin may have, it is still far greater than Obama's.

The campaign will hinge on experience and judgment -- two areas where Obama falls.

His experience is nil, as Hillary Clinton stated so succinctly: "I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-_n_89758.html -- Hahaha, don't you just love it when you can use the Huffington Post to skewer the Dems?!)

And his judgment is poor -- he was wrong on The Surge, he was wrong about Jeremiah Wright, he was wrong on Michael Pfleger, and he thinks that abortion is above his pay grade... judgment much?

McCain's master stroke was to nominate Palin, who -- even with her limited experience (when compared to McCain, or Lieberman, or Biden) still has more experience than the head of the Democratic ticket, AND she has all the 'regular' qualities one would look for in a GOP VP running mate: good values, good judgment, sound ideology; she is a real conservative and will sure up the right wing of the party.

McCain-Palin is still the experience ticket, any way you look at it.