"This is the UNITED STATES of America"

Life got in the way this past weekend, meaning Obama's speech is in the past.

No worries - I'll recap my opinion here. Lotta talk, little substance.

Hasn't that been the argument throughout his entire campaign? To the best of my knowledge, it's been said that Obama has thrown the word "change" around enough to make people crazy - but that he's never really capitalized on what exactly that "change" will be.

I would never argue that Obama is not a great speaker - he has a way with words, a way to reach people on an emotional level (far better than Bush was ever able). But once you get past the fluff, the eloquent language and the snappy phrases, that's all that you're left with.

And if the majority of Americans are anything like the Americans I know in our "big little" town of Richmond, Virginia, to us -- talk, talk, talk is cheap, cheap cheap.

When the choice came for Obama to begin with with what he plans to actually DO in order to implement change or criticizing and bashing his right wing opponent, he chose the latter. Which only says to me, that Obama is well prepped in the art of persuasive speech.

I have one major issue, or perhaps a better word would be question, with Obama's speech and one huge compliment -- which is also the reason I decided to begin this blog.

Here's where it gets a little touchy. I understand that yes, this a historical election, but it's an historical election no matter which way you vote (especially with the addition of McCain's running mate, Sarah Phalin). And yes, it's quite touching to some that Obama, the first African-American man to have his name on the ballot for President, addressed the DNC on the same day that 45 years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a Dream" speech.

But my question is -- if Obama and his supporters are going to talk about how far we have come as a country, to have a black man on the Presidential ballot, and then compare his running to that of a time when "little black boys and little black girls" were physically unable to "join hands with "little white boys and little white girls as sisters and brother" ... how is it that we've come "that far."

I found this comparison contradictory and somewhat elitist. Making the political race about "race" is something the Obama campaign has harped on, and in order to "come this far" that card needs to be removed from the deck. If not, we obviously haven't come as far as he/she/we would like to believe.

Side note: to answer your question, Democracy Dude, the fact that "a minority" is on the ballot should be irrelevant. If we are not a neither a "Red America or a Blue America" should it matter that the men we're choosing between to lead our US of A be black, white, purple or green?

I think not.

An important point Obama made, is something that I look forward to witnessing first hand in the days ahead. Obama states, "One of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism."

Again, former Democratic VP nominee Joe Lieberman said it again tonight "when it comes time to vote, vote for the candidate who is best for this country, not for the party that you belong to."

I call for an abandonment of party loyalties for all Americans. Politics is talk, and talk is cheap. We have to look for action -- past and potential -- when choosing between the two. And for the record, I honestly don't know who I will vote for come election day. My favoritism has swayed more during this election than ever before. And perhaps, as I said before, it's because I'm investing more time and energy to finding out the facts, the opinions and more on the background of these candidates and their VP running mates as I can.

Why I choose to write these late at night is beyond me. Tomorrow -- a look at the beginning of the RNC.