My humble analysis of Obama's speech

There was little detail in the speech by Barack Obama, but that is to be expected. His purpose here was to excite the crowd, and hope they go home and tell stories of how he -- Obama -- is going to save America and carry this nation into the future.

He is a great speech giver, I'll give him that. He introduced us to himself, for those who were not familiar with him. He tackled the issue of his patriotism, by saying things like, "So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first."

He set the stage, however, shortly into his speech, by jumping right into his strategy of making America look as bad as he can, in the hopes that if it looks bad enough, people will vote for him.

He said, "Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach."

All of this is true, and people can relate to it.

As I predicted, though, (click here) he did not mention that the GNP grew by 3% this last quarter, nor that despite the economic picture painted by the media, we have not had an economic recession since the one we were in when Bush first took office.

That's fine though, that's his strategy.

Yes, he did a good job in this speech. He did his best to compare McCain with Bush: "But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time."

However, the reality is that most senators vote along party lines 90% of the time. Even Obama has voted along party lines 90% of the time.

That's fine that he doesn't say that, because he's trying to paint a picture here. Still, I thought you should know what Obama is not saying.

Obama said: "How else could he (McCain) propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans?"

Obama didn't say he plans to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, which in turn would be the biggest tax increase in American history. That's fine. His goal was to paint a picture for republicans on the fence with McCain that he will cut taxes. This is part of his strategy to be everything to everyone.

"...or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college..."

Where does the money come from? This is a great idea, but where does the money come from. Can we afford more taxes to pay for this?

"...or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?"

McCain's plan would actually give us that option. Yours allows us one option, and doesn't even guarantee that it will be there when we do retire. This is a perfect example of a case where one politician thinks he knows what's best for all of us.

"I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow."

That's a flip-flop. Weeks ago he said he would double the capital gains. You have to remember that 98% of income from capital gains comes from those making over $250,000, and that's where economic growth comes from. And these are people he's looking at excluding from this cut.

"I will, listen now, cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class."

This is another attempt at catering to repubilcans sitting on the fence. He's trying to sound like a conservative.

I agree we should not raise taxes.

What he doesn't tell us that he wants to raise taxes on the upper middle class and upper class individuals who create all the jobs, meaning there will be less jobs available for those in the middle class and lower class.

Later he said he said he wants "to protect social security for future generations. " Yet he failed to say that he would like to raise Social Security taxes to incomes above $250,000 -- the same people who create most of the jobs in this country that "trickle down" to the rest of us.

"And for the sake of our economy, our security and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We will do this."

Another flip-flop.

"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy. "

This is interesting, because he said months ago he is against a government audit. Another flip-flop??

"For while Sen. McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face."

Three fourths of the way through his speech and he finally mentions national defense. Still no mention of terrorism. Still no mention (3/4th of the way through the speech) of the number one priority according to the Constitution: defending our nation. No mention about how radical Islam wants to see us blown off the face of the map.

"You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq."

The terrorists went to Iraq to try to stop us, and they have been decimated. Al Qaeda is but a fraction of its former self thanks to the Iraq War.

"I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan."

That's the same goal of republicans. When Iraq is completely secure and able to defend itself, we should exit. That's no different from any war. However, we must not leave so early that all progress in that nation is for naught. And we must maintain a stronghold over there, right in the middle of the radical Muslim unrest in order to work toward goals of stability in that region.

Obama didn't say that he has historically held the position that he simply wanted to leave the nation regardless of the consequences of doing that. Is this another flip-flop?

"We are the party of Kennedy."

Earlier he said: "For over two decades, he's (McCain) subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else."

This "trickle down" economic theory is the same economic theory that John Kennedy prescribed to. So, we are the party of John F. Kennedy?

"So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe."

Books have been written on how Democrats have made this country less safe, and maybe even helped to cause the mess we are in today. Check out this link for one example.

It was Carter who started the breakdown of the ability of the CIA and FBI to communicate in order to catch criminals, which is, according to the 9-11 report, one of the reasons that lead up to 9-11, and the inability to catch those thugs before they hijacked those airplanes.

Bill Clinton further broke down the links of communication, according to the same 911 report, and he also decimated the military.

"And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future. "

So, you are saying we are not the last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future? Once again, you are dissing your own country.

My main criticism, through it all, is that he did not start out talking about national defense and the threat of terrorism. This makes me wonder if he will take this seriously at all. However, I have this same trend in other democratic speeches.

You can bet your life that McCain will come out with national defense #1, domestic issues after that. Obama came out talking about domestic issues, as though they are more important than our national defense.

That's fine, because he has said before that the war has taken our focus off domestic issues. He sees less importance on the war, and maybe doesn't even see terrorists as the real threat. Perhaps he is of the belief that America is the real threat. That we are too arrogant.

Your going to read all over the media today that this was a great speech. It was. But I also think people should have an idea of what Obama did not say.

I've filled in some of those blanks.