I guess that we are not smart enough to understand what Obama meant to say!

First, it was Michelle Obama. She said that she was finally proud to be an American because her husband was running for president.

Second, Rev. Wright’s videos amazed us. How did Barrack and Michelle Obama let their daughters hear that?

Now it’s Obama who is making outrageous statements. Now it’s Obama who is coming across as a San Francisco liberal.

Professor VD Hanson is one of our favorites. Friday, he posted The McGovernization of Obama :

The worst hypocrisy, of course, is Obama’s charge that these small towns in Pennsylvania express “anti-trade sentiment.”

It was not George Bush or John McCain, but Barack Obama himself who tried to salvage Ohio by demagoguing NAFTA and opposing a free-trade agreement with Columbia.

His entire campaign is predicated on showing more anti-trade sentiment that the Clintons.

Yes, Obama is saying that small town folk cling to anti-trade statements. Who is telling these folks a bunch of lies about free trade?

What about clinging to religion? What about the Obamas clinging to a racist minister! What church in rural America is saying what Obama’s minister said of Sec. Rice?

Mike Allen has a suggestion for Obama:

“If you are going to say something that makes you sound like a clueless liberal, don’t say it in San Francisco.”

Better than that, don’t turn off the teleprompter. Obama always gets in trouble when he is speaking rather than reading a speech!

Hillary can’t take advantage of Obama’s gaffe

Obama is a lucky guy. He just made a huge mistake. In other words, he stepped on some very bad stuff.

Obama is lucky because Hillary Clinton can’t take advantage of it.

Hillary was doing a lot of Obama bashing today. According to The Caucus:

She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.”

Her father taught her to shoot when she was a young girl? Is this what inspired Hillary to join the Marines in Arkansas?

Is this the latest version of the Bosnia sniper fire story?

Again, Hillary Clinton’s credibility is Obama’s best ally:

FLASHBACK: HILLARY 1999: Lobbies for Massive Gun Control…

She was for gun control in ’99 and now she is for fathers teaching young girls to use guns!

How can anyone believe a word out of this woman’s mouth?

The Dems are caught between two unelectable candidates. On one side, there is Obama, a left wing elitist! On the other side, there is Clinton, a woman who will say whatever she needs to say!

My money is on McCain! I hope that you are also betting on McCain because he will win a fairly easy one in November!

I have watched Hillary Clinton make the case to Texas Dems that she has the experience. Over in Ohio, I saw a smooth Barack Obama say that experience is the old measurement to elect presidents.

At some point, Dems need to stand back and take a look at the big picture.

You can’t hope that your candidate has experience. You can’t say that your candidate has experience. Either she does or she does not! In this case, she does not!

If her name was Hillary Rodham, would anybody be supporting her for president? Would she even be the Senator of NY?

At some point, Dems need to understand that she is Bill’s wife and that’s her only real experience.

Don’t give me the “Bush was a president’s son” bit. GW Bush was a businessman and a very successful governor of Texas. For the record, Texas is the 10th largest economy in the world! Did he benefit from being a Bush in 1994? Of course, he did. Was a successful governor? Indeed he was!

With respect to Obama, he can’t get away with saying that experience is the old way to choose a candidate.

Obama emphasizes judgement. Yet, his only example of judgement is that he gave some interview to a Chicago TV station in 2002 about the Iraq War. Obama claims to be a uniter but has a rather dismal record of uniting anybody. (Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder by David Ignatius)

Why does this matter? We are choosing a president, the commander in chief of the world’s largest military, the one and only person in the country who can give the order to fire a nuclear missile, the leader of the free world, etc.

In that context, it’s hard to believe that the Dems have reached the point where their two finalists are the least experienced people ever to seek the presidency.

Obama and Clinton are not serious candidates. I don’t care how much Democrats hope it or say it. They do not have a single day of executive experience. They have never managed a city, a state, an agency, a business or anything at all.

Here is the larger question: What does this say about the modern Dem party

In my memory, the Dems nominated a VP Humphrey, a Sen. McGovern, a Gov. Carter, a Pres. Carter, a VP Mondale, a Gov. Dukakis, a Gov. Clinton, a Pres. Clinton, a VP Gore and a Sen. Kerry. Along the way, there were serious candidacies from Sen. Bentsen, Gov. Brown, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Hart, Sen. Glenn, Sen Bradley, etc.

What did all of these men have in common? They had some degree of executive, public sector, private sector and military experience!

How can anybody in their right mind say that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama match the experience of any of these men or even the ones who did not make it?

This is insane. This is today’s Dem party! (Slate reporter to Hillary aides: Name one foreign policy crisis she’s been tested by)

Why is Hillary Clinton having such a hard time making the case that Barack Obama does not have experience? Because she does not have any experience but most Democrats are just too blind to see the truth.

On paper, it is very difficult for a party to win 3 presidential elections in a row. It has not happened much except for 1988 when Pres. Reagan was succeeded by VP Bush.

History favors the Dems. However, they need to put forward an experienced candidate, specially when our side is putting up one of the strongest national security cards in Sen. McCain!