Outside the Box

During an Interview, William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson have a conversation about universities. They blog and post video chats on blogheads.tv. In The Academic-industrial complex they discuss: “Is there still room for big questions in college” In the video chat these to take turns debating their opinions on the matter. They speak formally and prove their point over a video on their blog.

William gives Universities bad image in the opening part of the video. For example he states that universities are businesses and the “purpose of Yale College is to raise Yale alumni”. The University’s goal should be to educate and promote growth in students, not to raise alumni who will give money back to the school. With that mind set, students become objects of money and not brilliant minds of the future. They are only teaching students information that is directly related to their classes. This is a good idea, but they also need to incorporate “big questions” that lead further enlightenment.

Although it seems bad to think of students as investments, the University still puts effort into teaching students because they want students to be successful. If the students become successful, they donate money back into the university. The more alumni that are successful, the more donation money the university receives. There is a problem with this ideology, if they are teaching students what the need to be successful; they are raising leaders, and not thinkers. They do not propose the big questions in these universities to the students.

William uses the term “leaders” differently than a normal person would use it in everyday conversation. For instance, he explains them as people who “insert themselves in hierarchy… and rise to the top and keep the system going”. This sounds like an outstanding person in society, the one who is the best and keeps the system on track. In reality, these people may lead the system or business, but they are just followers who keep the system going. They are just tools for the university to craft and use however they like.

William classifies other people as “Thinkers”. Thinkers are people who are skeptical, ask questions, and stand outside the institution. These are the people who make break the norm, the people who make changes in society, and the people who should be called “Leaders”. Thinkers change society because they see things differently from outside society. They observe and make changes accordingly for the benefit of society. These thinkers are able to change society because they think about the “big questions”. They speak their opinion and stand up for what is right; protesters, lobbyists, and interest groups are examples of “thinkers”.

In the nineteenth century, universities were religious institutes. These institutes taught basic arithmetic and literature. They focused primarily upon religion, Christianity. They used the Bible and other religious documents from the Vatican in class. These classes posed “big questions”. These big questions were religious of course; most likely involving creation and stories in the New and Old Testament. They focused on the morals and messages delivered in the books. These institutions also focused on creating people with manners, gentlemen. These institutions are far different from the current institutions today.

The universities asked the students questions dealing with people’s beliefs, morals, and values. These “big questions” had no correct answer as long as they followed the Christian principles. These are not the only questions asked today. This is because Universities today have become more “secularized” and tolerant of other religions. The institutions respect others peoples’ beliefs and customs. Today the “big questions” involve “what is the good life” and “how does one improve society”. The good life involves; what a person must do to live a good life. Is the good life the American dream of “rags to riches”? Society is constantly running into problems. It is a Thinkers job to improve society and find solutions to its problems. This can be done by creating compromise, protesting, or even using force. These questions and problems are solved by the “Thinkers”. They study society and make changes to it, unlike leaders who just lead society in a circle.

Universities cannot give the answer to the “big question”; they can only lead one in the right direction. It is the job of the “Thinker” to think outside the box and create a solution for the problem. The reason students go to college because “students want a good education”. Students want a good education so they can be successful. This makes a symbiotic relationship between Leaders and social systems, and a parasitic relationship between Thinkers and the system. Leaders do as the system tells them to, while Thinkers always ask questions.
The “Big Question” is something that Universities do not ask anymore. Universities focus on teaching students what is on the curriculum, instead of promoting students to think outside the box.

I Think I'm a Leader

William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson have a conversation about that on there Blogginheads.tv interview. The way the two professors talk is a very relaxed social way. They both have a very friendly at ease sort of tone and its just a simple conversation between the two professors.

They talk about many things, they start off talking about how teachers can't be cool they have to be teachers in order for people to truly take them seriously. They discuss a particular case where someone someone was not making people in her class upset with her and she got fired. They, being professors, don't like that because you can't have everyone like you. They then get into a very interesting debate over being a leader or a thinker.

A leader is someone who sets and example and leads other people. They have a management job and they see over other people. The university really wants to make these because they bring in more money. Think about it if the University makes leaders and those leaders go out and get high paying jobs so they can donate a bunch of their money to the university. William Deresiwicz says "its the job of the university to make alumni". The leader follows the crowd and is the model student. They have to say good things about what ever is going on around them to motivate those around them.

A thinker however is different in most cases he is the opposite of the thinker. During the speech they say a thinker is someone who questions society, questions how things are done and tries to make them better. They don't "roll" with the crowd they do things because they want to not because a bunch of people are doing it. These people are usually very intelligent. These people even question their own university. And thus the university doesn't have a strong interest in "keeping those people around" because they question what they are told they reach out and try to change what is being done and not many people like change.

They also talk about how when a student comes to the school the dean talks and tells them they need to think about the big questions and then when they graduate the president says you should think about these big questions. In the middle nothing is being asked about it. Now colleges have changed over the last one hundred years. For instances the students went to chapel where the "big" questions where asked for them to think about. And now obviously the universities are becoming secularized. So now there is nothing in the middle that questions the students. The two proffesors try to think up ways that they can teach students to think about the "big" questions so they can help themselves.

After defining what a thinker and a leader was Deresiwicz and Edmundson go on to talk about how they can help make more thinkers. One way that they can do this is by allowing their students to come in after class during the teachers own hours and help the students out. However that is at the expense of their own future because they are teaching so that they can study something in their field. I know from going and visiting alldifferent universities around where I live that many of the smaller universities are making it so that professors have to devote a few hours of their day to let students come in and ask them questions. However most of the tour guides said the teachers just sit there and fiddle their thumbs because studentsrarely stoped by. How does this make the University well rounded? You need different types of people to make a university better. You need thinkers and leaders. But providing a place where both of them can grow is essential. The heart of teaching is one on one moments and to make the university well rounded you need that it promotes thinkers

One other thing they talk about is how much of a tragedy that people who are specialized in only one thing is. A lot of people are very smart and they come to work at an university and then they can only really study one specific thing. The model that we use for an university isobsolete and the liberal arts model is a bit better. They also talked about how basically all that the university is doing is selling skills, they are teaching people to do specific things, instead of self knowledge and to learn what skills make them happy on their own.

Overall from the conversation on blogging heads TV that William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson have titled The Academic-Industrial Complex the two talk about the institution as a whole and how they can make it better. They discus the two types of students that come out of the universities, thinkers and leaders. They also discuss how they can help their students become thinkers and not just mindless drones who do what the crowd does.

A New Take on an Old Idea

Are we really missing out on knowledge that our schools and institutions should be teaching us? The answer to this question is looked at closely in a recent Bloggingheads video involving William Deresiewicz, of Yale University, and Mark Edmundson, of the University of Virginia. The two discuss the modern ways of the University and how a elite education might not necessarily be as great as it’s hyped up to be.

The video is set up with the screen divided in half with Deresiewicz on one side and Edmundson on the other. I found this quite interesting and fitting because when one made a statement we were able to see how the other reacted and what kind of facial expressions he made. This was fitting since these gentlemen though relatively close on the east coast are from different areas and could have different takes on some of the topics. Also, the video was part of a larger page that allowed the viewer to access some of the articles that these two men had written in regards to the topic at hand. I found this helpful in further clarifying the statements and ideas that they were discussing.

The article that seemed to be one of the central pieces to their discussion was Deresiewicz “ Disadvantage of an Elite Education”. This article was central to the idea that true teaching involves one on one time between students and their professors. I highly agreed with this statement because, being the type of person who learns better in an intimate environment, being thrown into a classroom with two hundred other students can be quite difficult to handle. This has actually been something that has played a part in my own life.

Six months ago I was faced with the question of which college would I like to attend in the fall? I had already prepared for this selection at the time and had narrowed it down to two schools University of California, Irvine or Chapman University. Ultimately, I chose Chapman, even though University of California, Irvine, was better specialized in my field of study, chemistry, because of its smaller size and the personal attention I would receive if I were struggle with some of the material in my classes.

Further the two men discuss this idea of leaders and thinkers of an institution. They came to the consensus that a leader buys in to all the ways of the school and its structure. Leaders are those who follow without question and are able to rise up to the top of their institution. While, thinkers are skeptics, they question everything and accept nothing. The idea of leaders and thinkers are at complete opposite sides of the spectrum, most college students fall somewhere in between the two. The real question should be how far to the thinker/leader side are they? In my case I fall somewhere between completely neutral and a leader. I have a tendency to follow what I’m told and sometimes forget to stop and think, is this really right or am I just being oblivious to my own surroundings?

The idea that schools are trying to produce leaders rather than thinkers that way leaders can comeback and later invest in their institution and help the institution continue to modernize and grow, brings forth the idea that universities are simply industrial complexes. A school that aims to produce all leaders is like a car factory in that the cars are produced and produced and once they are sold the money is used to further establish the factory and improve tools and machinery. The university is like that car factory and the cars are the leaders who are produced that comeback later in life and donate to their alumni to keep the school moving along. This idea of a school being an industrial complex makes absolute sense when being looked at from the standpoint of the alumnus who donates back to their institution.

Furthermore, in regards to universities and the two central questions: what is the good life? And what is the good society? It’s difficult to pin point an absolute answer to these two questions. The meaning of the good life/society for one student may be totally different from that of another. The two may have similar parts and expectations but, rarely will they be the same exact thing. Ultimately, only ones own self can answer the question of what’s the good life/society.

Lastly, a piece not mentioned in the video but, discussed in Deresiewicz’s article of how students at elite colleges are deprived of some of their innate freedoms can be seen from Deresiewicz’s observation at Yale. “I’ve been struck, during my time at Yale, by how similar everyone looks. You hardly see any hippies or punks or art-school types, and at a college that was known in the ’80s as the Gay Ivy, few out lesbians and no gender queers. The geeks don’t look all that geeky; the fashionable kids go in for understated elegance. Thirty-two flavors, all of them vanilla.” I found this highly interesting because modern society is the same way. They develop this idea to the public of what’s wrong and what’s right and the public is unwilling to go against the common ideals.

All in all the segment of the video makes one really think about their university and gives them a different perspective to look at rather than the one being shown to them everyday at school.

The “big questions?’’ Leader vs. Thinker

A Leader and a thinker can be defined differently depending on who you are talking to and where . A leader as a person, who is strong, composed that has a positive attitude and most importantly someone who is able to set a good example for everyone around him or her. A leader can also be described as some who rises to the top and does everything to stay in that position, and also keeps the system going.

A thinker is someone who, Leads the way they think it should be done, and can dare to question the power or the institutions themselves if there is anything they think is not right. A thinker is opinionated and says it as it is, and does not always say things people want to hear but they should be heard. These types of people like to think inside the box rather than outside the box.

In most of the Institutions today there are more thinkers than leaders but once they enter the institution and start to become more adapted to the institutions, they train them to be leaders but some never change, they remain thinkers. Institutions like universities need both of these people because if everyone was a leader then there would be no one to lead, and there would be no changes in the universities themselves and also in society.

When the professors in the video are talking about leaders vs. thinkers, their giving their own personal opinion on what they think about this subject. One cannot assume that everyone thinks like these men, you also have to ask yourself a few questions, if the universities did not want thinkers in their institutions why are they continuing to admit thinkers? The answer to this is that they need a balance, because there are disadvantages and advantages about having thinkers. They might come up with bright ideas that advance the universities and they can ruin the image of the university. I agree with professor William when he says that leaders never show ''skepticism, sarcasm'' however it does not mean that if they do not show it they are not thinking it, ''A wise man thinks about all the things he says but doesn’t say all the things he thinks'', the reason why leaders can never say or show what they are thinking is because tit would cause chaos and there would be no leadership to stop it.

In this video it talks about the ''big questions'' and how they are not addressed in the time that they should be, that time being college. But really Universities/colleges do not have these answers for us only we do, all the institution can do is help us understand the questions and the answers are ours to find out. The problem is that these institutions are not helping people understand the questions because most of people in these places,have not found the answers to these questions. The reason for this is that when they were in the same position that their students are in the answers were already given to them, but the answers were what the institutions at the time wanted them to be and do,most came to find it was not what they wanted.

What was done then is what is trying to be done today but there are and more thinkers coming into these institutions and can not change their opinion. And because the universities are more interested in creating leaders, they let the thinkers think and concentrate on the leaders ,who keep the system running. It is just like the examples given of the Yale student,’’ the purpose of Yale College is to manufacture Yale alumni’’ I think that this is the only way the system can work. We need a balance of thinkers and leaders, but it is becoming more apparent to me that in future there going to be more thinkers than leaders.

One of the links next to the video, takes you to a part of a book called '' the disadvantage of an elite education'' something important is mentioned here that ''being and intellectual begins with thinking your way outside of your assumptions and the systems that enforce them'' I completely agree with this statement because an intellectual will think like that but in order to make something out of life they need to work with the system and keep with the system going . I think we should think about things the way we want to but sometimes it is better off for keep our thoughts to ourselves. A leader is leading everyone not just him or herself.

Well Rounded Institutions, The Mind, and Careers

What is the good life? What is a good society? These were the questions posed by William Deresiewicz and Mark Edmundson when discussing if there were is still room for the big questions in college. From what I understood in their argument, is that there really is no longer room in college for the big questions. While this may be true, I personally do not believe that these big questions should be asked in college anyway. While it may not be the case for many, through my experience, these “big” questions have been asked and somewhat addressed way before I even started college. A college or university should provide students help in finding the answers that they are looking for and give them the tools and knowledge to use their education however they want to use it.

Growing up in general will give any individual some sort of idea of how they want their life to turn out. The question of what a good life or good society may not be openly discussed but not everything in life is learned from discussion. Actually, most things learned in life are learned by actually living them. The way I see it, why should a college pose such questions unless they can provide multiple paths in finding the answer. Things cannot be imagined, they have to be achieved. Anyone can have an idea of their good life and anyone can simply state what a good life and society should be. However, if the person’s ability to encompass their ideals, that essentially makes them who they are, and they cannot be acted out, well its just plain hypocrisy.

College is the place to discover who you are, to accept and reject certain believes, and know why. That being said, the main way for a college to pose these questions is to become a well rounded institution that has many different fields to study and the best of everything. As Deresiewicz even addressed in his article called “The Disadvantages of an Elite Education”, an education should “exist to produce minds, not careers”. If your mind leads you to a career then great, but its easy for people to go to college believing that if they get a career out of their education, they learned something, which obviously is not always the case. If people have options then, they might actually look into their options and do something with their life that fulfills their good life/society. Every person finds their own happy medium in life that they consider “good” by simply living their life.

That leads me to a topic that the professors talked about; is college merely a financial institution created to produce alumni that will become successful and donate ridiculous amounts of money, ie. The university- industrial complex. Well, it’s not a bad idea. There are more benefits to rich, successful, popular, and educated alumni, than well… college drop outs. Rich alumni most likely equal large quantities of money. How any person or institution can find fault with that is tough. But, like Deresiewicz brought up, there are those who believe that it can be a bad thing. If money is the main motivational factor for an institution, then obviously it’s a defective institution.

Wrong.

Consider how that alumni becomes successful. I mean, that guy/girl could be born with savvy business intellect and incredible persuasion skills. Most likely, they were not. They were educated to some degree at some institution that knew what the hell it was doing. Furthermore, unless an individual is exposed to everything how can he or she know the difference between the good and bad life.

The main goal of a university should involve producing a well rounded education, that in turn would produce well rounded alumni, who most likely would become successful in some sense of the word, and being that they are successful, maybe through means of wealth, they will want to share that wealth with the wonderful institution that, well shaped them, and that means that they are providing monetary funding for what ever project it may be, and hopefully, aiding the institution in becoming a better institution, which that intelligent alumni would interpret as, well rounded and diverse. And the circle then repeats itself.

So, what I’m saying is that a person that is successful is well rounded and had an opportunity to find what it is that they excel in. That again directs me to another point of discussion. The difference between leaders and thinkers. As defined by Deresiewicz, leaders are the individuals that make their way up the institutional pole and go along with everything in which that particular institution believes. Thinkers on the other hand are those individuals who are skeptical about what their institution has to offer and puts up certain constraints of the content that they take in.

Now, the rich alumni who donates to the school is what Deresiewicz would most likely consider a leader. My problem with this idea of “the leader” or “the thinker” is that any person can encompasses both of these “personalities”. I think that both aspects should be encouraged when learning. A university is obviously going to maintain that university- industrial complex, but if they want to be a legitimate school they have to encourage both forms of thinking. Producing successful people is certainly an aspect that applicants will consider in choosing an institution of study but, I know I personally don’t want one position to listen to and to conform to my whole life. I want options because based on my experiences, what I may want out of life is going to change.

While I don’t think the “big” questions are necessary to establish “true teaching” they are bound to be asked. The guerrilla movement that was mentioned by the two is a prime example of that. True teaching, as they call it, will be taught, it just a matter of how often, by whom and well, who wants to listen.

A Critical Look at "A More Perfect Union"

Obama’s speech "A More Perfect Union" has been hailed as one of the greatest since Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream”. People who say this are not being critical enough of the speech. Yes, it was brave of him to mention this volatile topic, but did he offer brilliant insight? No. Did he offer concrete solutions? No! Certain parts of his speech lack critical support, making the overall message seem illegitimate.

He opens the speech with a short history lesson, referring to the constitution, and how it is a document that gives everyone freedom. Yet regardless of the government being based on its principles on African Americans were still discriminated against. A few minutes later he says, “We do not need to recite the history of social injustice in this country.” This directly contradicts the opening of his speech.

To explain the discrepancy between white and African Americans income and education he, again, cites past discrimination against African Americans. He says that because of slavery and Jim Crow laws, African Americans were unable to give their descendants much upon their death. Therefore inhibiting their successors from being able to access decent educations, jobs with higher wages, and ultimately prohibiting them from being able take care of their families.
While this is a logical reasoning in explaining current differences economically and educationally between African Americans and white Americans, the statement of not having to recite the history of past social injustice towards African Americans contradicts half of his speech. A lot of time, and emphasis, was spent on elaborating past discrimination and their effects.

Obama also uses race to appeal to a wide audience throughout the essay with phrases like, “problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all” and “…unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction.” Another excellent persuasive idea that is imperfect.
An imperfect idea because only African American and White American problems are mentioned - also the majority of this reference is focused only on racial discrimination against African Americans. While America is made up of mostly white people, the Hispanic population is larger than the African American. Regardless of the major ethnicities, he’s trying to appeal to all peoples - to bring everyone together.

This is slightly understandable, as Barak Obama is both White and African American, but he still should have made reference to different ethnicities past and/or current discrimination. It would have been easy to mention how illegal immigration has caused discrimination for those of Hispanic descent, or how terrorism has led to the discrimination for people of Middle Eastern heritage. Mentioning these, or other different ethnicities would have supported the idea of people of different backgrounds coming together better than only using black and white examples.
At the end of his speech he tells a long story about a white girl, Ashley Baia, who helped organize his campaign in South Carolina. Her reason for participating in the campaign was to help others, similar to herself, overcome poverty. She asks others their reason for supporting Obama’s campaign, and an old black man says, “Because of Ashley.”

That is the only explanation given. No elaboration as to how Ashley helped or affected this man enough to be his sole reason for donating his time to Obama’s campaign. The story would have a bigger impact if he explained what about Ashley had made him come, how they had met, how she impacted him, etc. The story lacks any depth or insight.

He used this story as an example to show how recognition between the black and white communities is increasing. He used this as his conclusion, to tie up his entire message. It does show two people of different ethnicities and backgrounds coming together, but it has no kick or warm fuzzies. The only point of using a childish example like this would be to make people feel good, but it is too stale and lacking in detail.

To close his speech he mentions the problems that America needs to come together to solve: “It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we start.” This is a weak way to close the speech because the entirety of his speech is meant to support these things, and then he says it is not enough? Presenting a further goal, or ideas of what could be enough would have been far more interesting and inspiring.
Also, he never mentions any concrete solutions to health care, education, the housing crisis, jobs, etc. His only advice is that everyone join together to fight for these things. If everyone could agree on a way to solve them that would be great, but for people to come together over these issues ideas and solutions need to be offered to them.

Overall this speech came off as fluffy political jargon, all talk and no substance, except for the valid point of racism's current and non-ignorable existence. Comparing it to Martin Luther King’s inspired and hallowed speech is similar to holding a rave at his grave. Just don’t do it.

Analysis of "A More Perfect Union"

Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech is not just about hope and change. It is about our problems - where they come from, why we should look at them now, and start to change now. He delivers a powerful message on a volatile issue that many are afraid to address. It is delivered in a way that is appealing to a wide audience, logical, and effective in uniting different people. His message is how we need to, and how we can come together to create “a more perfect union.”

The first problem he addresses with the imperfect union, which his speech revolves around, is racism. His purpose is to prove that racism is still in effect today. To introduce the subject he recites some US History focusing on how African American’s were discriminated against even though they were living under a constitution “…that promised its people liberty and justice and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.”

While a short recitation of US History is not very interesting to a college student who has had it drilled into them during a 101 class, it is rousing to the general American, especially African Americans, and others who feel their race has impacted how successful they can be. It’s also effective in eliciting sympathy from those who feel they haven’t been discriminated against for those who have.
Another point of the history lesson was to show that progress has been made – through previous protests, a civil war, and civil disobedience. He supports this notion, using himself as an example: a half-African American man running for president. This point is made to disprove comments made by Pastor Wright – offensive and biased comments which Obama feels divide the nation further. But regardless of the progress that has been made, more still has to made,

To show current discrimination he cites discrepancies between predominately white and black neighborhoods, “…And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pickup, building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continues to haunt us”. This is effective because it is true, and not only in black neighborhoods. Problems like this exist in communities with illegal immigrants where too many people are forced to live together in cheap, unsafe slums.

Because of this, and past discrimination African Americans hold deep resentment which non-African Americans probably won’t see. He mentions how this resentment prevents African Americans and others from coming together and understanding each other, and how politicians use this resentment to get elected – playing on people’s fears and bias to get more votes.

He also mentions his “opposition”, White Americans who don’t believe there is racism, problems. How many immigrants view themselves as having had no special privileges from being white ,“They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pensions dumped after a lifetime of labor…So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.” Because of this, white Americans also hold resentment, which politicians have also taken advantage of in the past. Obama says politicians used, “anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition”.

To solve this resentment, the gap between black and white understanding, Obama says people need to recognize “…that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together, unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction — toward a better future for our children and our grandchildren.” It is an effective phrase in uniting these two different communities through appealing to their common logic – everyone is different, but everyone wants to the same thing.

These points about racism being alive, and the resentment people have about it, are all used to support Obama’s phrase, “A more perfect union.” He shows imperfections in America, and proposes to solve them by having Americans understand each other’s differences and work together for their common goals. This phrase is effective in that it appeals to, and unites, a wide audience through patriotism.

Through appealing to people’s patriotism and resentments he effectively shows America’s ignored imperfections and how to solve them. He was logical, and forceful in executing his speech by not stumbling over words or contradicting himself. A beautiful speech with a strong message – unity.

Obama is Living in the Past

Obama’s speech is mainly about the inequality that still exists between the different races present in the United States of America. He talked about the history of America and how it used to be a prejudice country even though the core documents of the country said that all men were created equal. Obama says that prejudice is still a problem in the American community and that the United States of America has to work to get rid of it. The practical implications or consequences of this speech are that Obama will seek to create more laws and acts to integrate racial mixing more into the lives of Americans.

Obama believes that the “white man” still resides on top of the “black man” socially and economically. He thinks that the American people are not equal and that the problem cannot be ignored. The problem though apparently has no ready solution though as Barack Obama gives no solutions to it and his only comment remains that these problems cannot be ignored.

Obama states “This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.” Then immediately says “that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.” This sounds to me like a contradiction, Obama tells first of all that blacks and whites are not working together to be a better community. This statement is one that is false. In American culture today you see white men and black men completely mixed into the community. There is no real pattern of white men always working above black men or black men in higher financial positions that white men. Both groups have equal opportunities in the America that we know today.

Barack Obama also states that the racial problem we have now cannot be solved in one election cycle. He leads the audience to believe that the prejudice problem is one that will be fixed by the government. And that the American people are not responsible or decent enough to learn to accept other races and cultures without the government intervening and forcing them to do so in many times unpleasant and frequently embarrassing ways. He then says a baffling line which states that it is as easy to fix the problem as working together. This “answer” is extremely ambiguous and leaves no clues as to what will actually fix the problem. And the statement also contradicts his immediately preceding declaration that the racial barriers will take many elections to heal.

Barack seems to me to be beating an old irrelevant drum. The drum that makes a man sound righteous because of his belief in human rights. He is telling us that the government will make many more laws to “end discrimination”. This cause is one that at one time was very important and had a major purpose for being debated. After all legal matters involved in discrimination were fixed the subject became more so a part of the past.

Now Obama is telling us that it is not enough to give equal opportunities to the white men and the black men but that they must be completely equal. This is something that shouldn’t be forced by the government. There are many examples of white men and black men coming from disadvantageous back rounds and succeeding in their lives financially and socially. They happen because both races have equal rights under the government. When the government makes it easier though for a person from a minority to gain entry to a college than another non minority person it is discrimination inherently.

The new “anti-discrimination” laws that have been seen lately are so in favor of the races that were once oppressed that they give them an unfair advantage of the other races. The government should just make sure that there are no institutions in place to take advantage of people because of their race and not do too much to make the races perfectly equal.

Obama needs to focus on the problems that Americans face today. When the problems of one or a few races, instead of the whole, are elevated to make sure they have the same rights as everyone else and laws are made to do so. You inherently make them more important than the rest.

Obama to Make Everyone Equal

Obama’s speech on March 18, 2008 was a speech that will change the way Americans interact with each other and make everyone more equal. Obama told us how black Americans are still deprived of the equality they seek. Obama is going to try to fix these problems with equality if he is elected. The practical implications or consequences of these actions are more equality in the American culture.

Obama tells us how the black people and white people are still not equal even though they were made legally equal back in the civil rights period. He tells how the black man may not have recovered still from the prejudice that he had to deal with many years ago. And how he might still be suffering from the disadvantages he once had.

"But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination.” This struggle against the force that once held the black men back is one that can be a very hard one. The struggle and the possible failure of the person struggling have created resentment within some members of the black community. They feel that they are still being cheated of the life they could have by the racism of the past. They must be able to get the equal rights that they were promised but feel they did not full receive.

In order to receive the same rights though sometimes they must be given advantages. They receive scholarships based on their race even though whites do not have these scholarships and colleges are many times pressured into choosing their classes based more on race makeup than grades and test scores.

“In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race“. These Americans are angry because they feel that they are not receiving equal opportunities when other races are given advantages when applying and attending college.

That is why Obama wants to make the American people equal, because they are not. He tells us to work together so that we will not be a prejudiced nation anymore. That is what we should do to live in peace. We should make sure all races remain equal even if we have to give one advantages over the other to do it.

"BAROCK N' ROLL" AT THE D.N.C.

The date was August 25th. People from all over flooded the Pepsi Center for the Democratic National Convention. The place was laced with energy and buzz over one man, Barack Obama. The occasion was in celebration of the last day of the Democratic National Convention. The experience of being there would have been like attending woodstock or an out-door Bob Marley concert. The only difference was that there was no mud, no recreational drugs (I think), a better sound system, and better music. On the flip side, the audience had to listen to politicians like Al Gore. Few experiences in life are perfect.

Barack Obama's speech, which lasted nearly an hour with applauds, was a curious blending of the old and the new. The Barack Obama who spoke about "hope" and "change" was still there but today the audience got the Hardcore "all-business" Barack.

He began his speech talking about the last eight years of republican presidency and how horrible it was. Barack Obama then painted the picture of unemployment, people being thrown out of their homes, and economic turmoil. Many victims were used as examples in the speech. There was the woman who was one illness away from disaster, the man packing up his factory equipment to be shipped to China, and the veterans sleeping in the streets. Basically he was saying that George Bush's America is really Hell on Earth.

Next Barack Obama, like most politicians, made an attack on McCain. He claimed that McCain and George Bush are the same. He also elaborated on how McCain is out of touch with the American People.

Next came His promises, Tax cuts for the middle class. Tax increases for the rich. Diplomacy rather than war, a huge program to get us off Middle East Oil, health care for all, and of course education for all. The problem is that many, if not most people, have grown rather cynical of the ability or even the desirability of government to deliver on such promises.

Finally, Barack Obama ended his speech with an exhilarating conclusion with references to Dr. King and staying strong with his usual popular message of hope and change.

OBAMA 08



CARRYING HIMSELF TO VICTORY

It is said that a man gains the respect of others by the way he carries himself. During The Democratic National Convention there was no doubt that Obama showed that he deserves that respect. When Obama delivers his speeches he doesn't just give fact after fact like most dull politicians (John McCain), instead he beefs up his sermon with exciting and uplifting words of hope and change. The staging of the event, energy in the audience and most importantly the visual impact of Barack and his family were like an elixir of political magic. How could anyone who watched the event not feel good about this man and his transcendent rise to the top of the Democrat ticket. The way Obama carries himself is revolutionary to presidential campaigns and change the way candidates run in the future.

Obama’s speech at the 2008 convention was simply a reminder that he stands alone when it comes to captivating an audience, giving them hope and inspiring them to believe in their dreams. The tears and the cheers in the packed stadium were evidence of the power and charisma in his words. He began The speech thanking all the people who helped him get to wear he is today and of course like a the gentleman he is, he thanked the love of his life; his wife. He also showed us real rhetorical skill by varying the heat of his delivery.  Too many politicians make the mistake of shouting all their lines as if everything were equally important.  Obama has different pitches and passion for different issues and subjects.  The speech had highs and lows, and that’s what a good orator does to hold our interest.

Obama also used his speech to go beyond laying out the main points of his campaign. In a move that even republicans would applaud, he called for Americans to show renewed individual and mutual responsibility. This showed that he is not bias and that he believes we have a responsibility to help others as well as ourselves.
Perhaps one reason why Obama is so good at these big events, when expectations are so high, is that he writes his own speeches. Of course when he recites his speeches he is saying them off a TelePrompTer, but because these are his words that he wrote after much preparation, it seems natural, almost conversational. Forceful without being forced. Obama closed with a homily to Martin Luther King, who 45 years earlier to the day delivered his famous "I have a Dream" speech, and an appeal to America to continue its journey towards equality.

His speech gave him an eight point boost over John McCain in the polls, further proving that his overall personality and the way he carries himself has changed this campaign. For years to come in the future do not be surprised if people take a page from "The obama book"

The President Needs Palin

Sara Palin embodies what women of the 21’st century have become. She has a progressive view of America and wants to improve the standard of living for all Americans. She promotes becoming less dependent on foreign energy and becoming self-sustaining. Her goal is to not just talk about change but make it happen. There are many arguments against her in many different regards, but Palin is able to rise above these claims in her speech. Palin has a voice about her that connects with the average citizen and is a voice for middle class America. Sara Palin is not only the key a republican victory in the 2008 election, but a leader who will turn this country in the right direction.


This speech is definitely the key for the Republican Party. Many die hard Hilary fans will turn to the republican side because of Palin. Women wanted a woman president for the first time, and since that is not going to happen through the democrats; republicans have offered an alternative option. It is Palin’s strength as a woman that is enticing these women to follow her. These women voters are pulling McCain ahead in the election giving Obama a lot of catching up to do.


Palin is strong enough to stand up to any man, but at the same time she is still a loving mother. She speaks passionately about her family and openly shows her love for them. She has the same priorities as the rest of America families and knows the challenges of being a working mother. She is pro life and a strong supporter of special needs children. Sara Palin is a mother herself of a special needs child and states, “Special children need a special kind of love”. This makes voters sympathetic towards Palin and makes her seem more relatable to many Americans who are involved with special needs people.


Palin’s ability as a speaker matches that of Obama’s speaking tactics. Obama has been so successful in his speeches, because he is able to adapt his speeches to the audience. Palin is able to speak in front of thousands of people but give off a sense of personal connection. The difference between Palin and Obama is that she does not have to adapt her diction and tone, because she is able to connect to everyone equally well without the change. Palin calls out Obama for doing this and says that “McCain is the same man wherever he goes”. She is trying to exploit the fact that Obama is actually being deceitful by changing how he presents himself to different people.


Palin is not only about the major juristic changes that need to be made in America but also takes into account the little things. She will fine tune the American budget and cut out unnecessary losses. During her term as governor, she disbanded many personal expenses such as having her own personal jet, having her own personal chef and anything else that did not help the people of her state. She is an unselfish leader and knows that the taxpayers’ dollar is not to be wasted. During this economic crisis someone who has Palin’s conviction for eliminating unneeded costs is ideal. She does not want to make the American citizen pay more because that would only worsen the economic situation.


Her one weakness is a lack of experience which her opponents and voters have realized. In Palin’s Speech she levels these claims by declaring the opposition’s presidential candidate as unqualified more so than herself. She focuses on how important her work in Alaska is and how it will affect her experience in the White House. She states in her speech that her experience as a governor has given her the ability to manage people efficiently and be productive day to day in making change. Some people believe Palin will just become a puppet in the White House and that she will not be able to stand her ground. In her speech, she dismantles this argument by showing her will to make change happen, even when her own social view is in danger of being harmed. Palin cleaned up Alaska and the corruption within its own leadership.


Sara Palin is no doubt the best pick as the running mate with John McCain. Her ideals match McCain’s perfectly, and she complements him in areas that he is weak. Many people looked at McCain and thought that if he is elected it will be the same as if President Bush was elected for another term. Sara Palin changed that for McCain. She gives McCain the new look that people are looking for, a change in the White House that has never been seen before. If the republicans win the election in 2008, it will be because of McCain’s choice of a running mate. Many people did not think McCain was progressive at all, but there is no question left anymore. McCain and Palin are ready to make some changes to this country.

Palin is Powerless

Sarah Palin is confident that the Republican party will win this election. For the sake of our country, I hope not. Palin presents herself well but where it counts does not have what it takes to be a major leader in a country as great as the United States. During Palin’s speech at the Republican national convention she talked about all sorts of things but did not say anything of much importance. The Republican Party picked Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate to attract women voters. Palin has little experience at her position and will not be able to handle the amount of pressure she will be under if McCain were to win. The vice president of the United States must be someone who is able to run the country and stand up against the greatest leaders in the world. Palin might look good as a running mate, but she will be the reason McCain will fail in the end. The first quarter of Sarah Palin’s speech was about her family, but for some reason she left out a few details.


One of the first things said in her speech was that she was all about family. Her son, a brave fighter in the war against Iraq, her loving husband who has always supported her and looked after the family while she was working hard, and of course the new born baby, Trig, born with disabilities. Palin decided for some reason to mention her seventeen year old daughter. Telling millions of faithful republican supporters across the United States that her daughter is pregnant and unmarried at the age of seventeen might ruin her perfect image. This shows that Palin is not as perfect as she seems and that her image is most important to her and lacks what really matters to be a leader.


Palin’s speech lacked substance and some of the important issues she talked about seemed brief and uninformative. It felt as if she was unprepared and lacked an understanding of serious issues. Palin says that victory in Iraq is in sight and that John McCain will not let this country lose this war. This war’s victory is not in sight, because it is a war that will never end. There is no doubt about it though that McCain would be a sound and tactical military leader. The problem is what would happen if Palin had to take over McCain’s place. Palin has no experience militarily and could not defend this country. Palin also stated that more drilling was greatly needed. She did state that “drilling would not fix the energy crisis but it would help”. A temporary fix will not help anything. The problems will continue and be just as bad as before if we do not become more energy efficient. The democratic presidential candidate Brock Obama is focused on the big picture and does not want to waste time with more drilling. Palin does not seem to have a problem voicing her disapproval of the democratic candidates though.


In Palin’s speech she attacks Obama’s lack of experience and lack of accomplishment. Palin believes that Obama is all show and presents himself in a way to just attract voters. Finally she says that he talks about change but cannot back it up. Many of the same remarks aimed at Obama by Palin apply to herself. She was picked because she could attract the public eye and steel voters. Sarah Palin has not done anything significant to benefit this county and yet attacks Obama for never creating or proposing a law with the senate. Palin goes on to say, “But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.” Palin does not have any experience either and has no right to call Obama out when she is just as guilty of being under qualified if not more so.


Our country is not ready for a Sarah Palin yet. This election is very important for the United States, and there can be no weakness in its leadership. The country needs a leader who will be strong and progressive. If Sarah Palin was put in charge of this country due to something happening to John McCain, it would be disastrous. Palin would lose control of this nation and would have little to no respect in congress. The country would not be able to progress especially with the democratic influence that is taking over the congress. Progress would be impossible and the country would be at a standstill that it cannot afford.


There is too much risk to invest into Palin with not enough reward. Many people are saying that they are going to vote for McCain now that she is his running mate. If McCain were to go down, the result would be terrible for this country, so why risk it? What real change does Palin bring that other Politicians have not brought before, besides the fact that she is a woman? She appears to be strong but does not have what it takes and does not have the experience to be the leader that this country needs now.

The man Speaks, will he be heard ?

''The man speaks, will he be heard?''

This speech was delivered by Barrack Obama on March 18, 2008, in Philadelphia, PA. He was speaking about race and politics. It is very important for Obama to touch this subject of race many more times than his running mate John McCain because he is the first African American to get this far as a presidential candidate. Part of the reason why he speaks about racial issues is because that is what his campaign is about ''change''. A new way of looking at things.

At the beginning of the speech, Obama goes into details of the past by mentioning the declaration of independence. He is doing this in order to introduce the issue of slavery and racism. He is very clear from the beginning on his thoughts about the subject. His delivery is an attempt at reaching out to all types of people. He says that the founding fathers work and documents produced were ''ultimately unfinished and stained with the sin of slavery''. Referring to slavery as a sin, it makes the public more aware of how bad it was enslaving people; it was a sin that America committed that later on became one of the biggest mistakes in history. Slavery could have been stopped but the power at the time did not agree, this would have a bigger effect on America. The people should continue to strive higher and fight for a more just more equal America. The point he is making here is that all Americans should come together as one and fight for this.

The Obama Campaign took a different turn on the issue of race. The Public are now claiming that his candidacy, ''is now an exercise of affirmative action'', there is no way that Senator Obama can avoid this because for some the only reason they are voting for him is that he African American and are hoping this will bring change to their communities. But what the senator is really trying to get across is that we all have different stories, beliefs, skin color but we all hold ''common hopes''. But this does not mean that Race is not an issue in the campaign.

If the ideas presented in this speech are acted on, America will be affected positively. It would be a great accomplishment not only for Obama but for the whole United states. He promises to better the economical institute, equal pay role and universal health care. This would also give other people outside the United States hope and respect to the US. The next generation would aim higher than before because of the examples that were set before them. This also ties into what is said on how one must ''embrace their past but not become victims of their past ''. For the past 50 years or so people have become the victims of their past instead and have blamed their misfortunes, if this continues there will be no hope for the generations to come.

People of different generations see this in different perspectives, the older generation of African Americans views the issue of racism as something they grew up around a lost cause but they have hope that their children lead a better life than they did. The younger generation of African Americans have become victims of their past, most are angry and resentful. The older generations of Caucasians are not comfortable with this change, whereas the younger generations are fighting more for this change. This is not to say that all African Americans are resentful or bitter and neither that the older generation is against change and the younger generation is, it is the way most people see it.

At the beginning Obama begins with the problems of race before and now. Then he starts to talk about how to better the American economy. Which is crucial now that the American economy is at a melting point? The American economy in the last few years has been going down the drain because of the Iraq war and corrupt companies. He ends with a very strong point saying ,that ''This union may never be perfect but generation after generation has shown that it can be perfected'' this true in more ways than one. No one can ever be perfect but they can always seek perfection and by doing that they make the place a better place.

The example given about the young white Caucasian who campaigned for him and her mother had cancer and she had to eat mustered and relish sandwiches because it was the cheapest food. She asked was later on asked why she had joined the campaign and said that ''the reason she joined the campaign was so she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too''. This young lady did not blame anything for her misfortune but she wanted to make a difference for other people going through the same thing as her, after that a black man that was their also was asked why he was there and he said he was there because of Ashley. By telling this story Barrack Obama is not saying that this will change everything but it is an example of people taking a step forward to a more perfect union.

Obama Dreams

Senator Barrack Obama delivered this speech on March, 18, 2008 with a title of '' A more perfect union''. To begin with what is a perfect union? I do not think there is a correct answer to this; it varies depending on the person. The senator does not go on to address this at the beginning of his speech. The Title could have been more specific, a more perfect union is a very big generalization.

Obama is campaigning to be the next president of the United States not to teach a history class. The audience looses focus when the person giving the speech is saying everything they already know. The senator begins his speech with the founding fathers and all the general history that most Americans know especially his audience at that particular time. The audience present was journalists; the people who work in the national constitutional center, all of people mentioned are well educated. This makes people not focus on the subject that is being presented.


When speaking the senator speaks with confidence. He talks as though he was addressing people who all agree with him, the speech is very dull, it’s not very lively it sounds much practiced. Someone else in could have delivered exactly the same way because he does not put emotion into it.

One purpose of this speech was to respond to the controversial comments that his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright had made previously. Obama talks about anger that African Americans have and how it cannot be wished away, this is true but what can be done? This is where the senator's opinion is needed because by giving his opinion it will the world will know where he stands on the issue of race in American. But then again he makes a very important remark by mentioning how the other people/races in America feel. Some may ask themselves is this the purpose of this speech to explain why most African Americans act they do? It is a theory rather than an explanation.


The speech is very long and could be summarized into very few words, because it itself is almost a repetition of what people prior to him have said in different circumstances. Although it was a historic moment because it was the most direct attention paid to the issue of racial issues in the US by a presidential candidate. This affected his campaign positively, he was very courageous because of this he got a lot more respect in the public eye. He always earns points for being the bigger man, although this does not justify racism. He responds to his opposition in a very intelligent but provoking manner but in this speech he did not speak that way because this is not only a political issue but also a moral issue.

Obama’s idea of change is very radical there needs to be a stepping stone between the America we live in and that the candidate and many Americans hope for. It is change day by day not over night because then all of would be defeating the purpose, the idea is for it to last. The fact that he is a half black, half white makes him seem less biased. In this speech Senator Obama is not campaigning himself but he is tried to make history, his ideas are revolutionary.This being an audio file makes it even more boring because then you do not see the facial expressions as his making his point. Also the senator’s voice drags if I nay say, so you lose interest very fast. The one thing a person listening to the speech you would wonder if the senator is no secluding himself from his black back ground and leaning on the white one. The reason I say this is because when he is explaining the reasons to why his former pastor had acted the way he did, he talked as if he had never been there (been angry). But the speech in is well written if some humor and emotions would be added it would be a very powerful speech.

When concluding he mentions the Iraq war and how it should have never started, I completely agree with him on this but it happened we do not have to dwell on the past because then we are not moving forward, now that there is a war they should concentrate more on how to get them out not complain about why they went there. What is done is done, Obama has a dream but we are living in reality, if he becomes president let us hope he will act on his dream ,our dreams and hopes for us and those that will come after us .For more information about this speech or to listen to it click here.

Palin's the Golden Ticket

Sarah Palin delivered the speech to remember during the Republican National Convention this fall by successfully relating herself to many different types of Americans in a stylistic, witty fashion. She scattered one-liners throughout her speech in the short time she was given. She chose the specific content that she did so she could constantly relate every point she made back to the common people of the United States. From the introduction to the cutting down of her opponent, this stylistic method fueled her applause and praise. Coming into the Republican National Convention no one knew much about who Sarah Palin is, or what she stands for. This heightened the pressure for her to deliver. And she did just that.

Palin proved to be a relatable, down to earth candidate by cracking jokes along the way in her speech at the Republican National Convention. Palin spoke in a confident, powerful tone during her speech throughout its entirety. She filled time flawlessly when her teleprompter malfunctioned by bringing up her signature joke comparing pitbulls to hockey moms, "the only difference? Lipstick." This instantaneously related her to not only hockey moms, but sports lovers everywhere. It also empowers all women to an extent by showing they can be powerful and intimidating while also still being ladylike and classy. She lets her joke sink in by giving a respectable amount of time for applause. She does not let it get out of hand, however. She keeps control of her audience by cutting off applause in a polite fashion. The audience really responded well to her largest chunk of comedic politics however, bashing the opponent.

Palin proved her loyalty to the Republican Party and the American people by cleverly cutting into Obama with that stunning beauty-pageant smile on her face. She speaks of the democratic candidate from not only a vice presidential nominee's standpoint, but from the common American's point of view as well. She lets them know she's on their side and will not manipulate them. Being from a small town she starts off this segment of her speech explaining her role in the small town in which she lives. This instantly makes small-town America comfortable with her. The smart thing Palin does to seal the deal of showing her loyalty to other small town Americans is through showing how Obama does NOT fit the profile. While her opponent looks down on her small-town mayoral experience, she cuts into his background.

"I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have ACTUAL responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of  a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. WE tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco"

Here she not only cuts into Obama's past "experience," but she includes herself when talking about small-towns which proves her to be on the side of the working people of America. She's letting Americans know that she will not flip flop of waiver on her views depending upon her location. She's where you're from and she has your back. She even brings up how her family relates to all American families, in a more refined manner, however.

In the beginning of Sarah Palin's convention speech, she tells everyone, "I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way." She acknowledges that her son and her nephew are each involved in the protection of our country and lets every soldier, family member of a soldier, veterans, and anyone affected by war know that she relates and knows how they feel. She goes on to say that her family 

"has the same ups and downs as any other... the same challenges and the same joys. Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge. And children with special needs inspire a special love. To the families of special needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

She reaches out to those in a situation similar to hers and strikes a chord in the hearts of those who do not. She grasps the attention of mothers as well. Having a strong willed, powerful, outspoken woman (and mother) on the ballot lets females everywhere know the sky's the limit. The sincerity in her voice while she talks about her families reassures Americans that she is there for them.

Palin relates herself to the middle and lower class citizens of America when she cuts down the supposed perks of being a governor. She doesn't need the luxury jet because it was "over the top," and she would rather give that money back to taxpayers. The working class relates to her view of unnecessary materialism. She drops a joke about selling it on ebay as well, keeping to her witty style. 

Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention recieved the highest TV ratings of any of the convention speeches. She was a mystery. She proved to America she was on their side and can relate to everything they go through by cleverly cutting into opponents and sincerely explaining her family's situation. She proved to be the ticket that McCain and the rest of America needed.

A MUCH ANTICIPATED!!!.... flop

Sarah Palin was the talk of the country this fall when the National Conventions were taking place. She's a woman! She's Alaskan! She's.... not ready to potentially lead our great country. In her much anticipated speech at the Republican National Convention she simply bashed Obama and highlighted the sympathy points her family had to offer. She didn't really explain the details of what she wanted to accomplish while in office. She flew over major issues and focused on easy-to-understand topics. Lets face it. McCain is no spring chicken. The Republican potential future Vice President has to be up to the full challenge of being president, not just excelling at trash-talking.

In her speech at the Republican national convention Sarah Palin spent a great deal of her thirty six minutes bashing Obama. Yes, politicians should definitely address the views of their opponents and explain their flaws, but that is not what Palin did. She took unfair jabs at Obama rather than explaining why his stance on important issues are not in the best interest of our country. 

"What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ...take more of your money ...give more orders from Washington ...and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world."

Palin simply bashes Obama by asking what's he going to actually accomplish, but her serious flaw is not saying what SHE wants to accomplish. She generalizes the flaws in Obama's platform and jumps to conclusions about Obama's plans regarding the war in Iraq. Her speech is only a veil covering the immense problems the extreme problems facing America today.

Palin simply generalized her entire speech at the Republican National Convention while flying over any possible policy details she wishes to implement if elected into office. 

"Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests. The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it. No one expects us to agree on everything."

Here she simply stated the obvious and simply filled time in her speech. The words really don't contain substance. One would think that after she said this she would go into what she plans on doing to actually "serve the common good," but in reality she simply rambles on some more and generalizes her experience as governor. Palin spent a significant amount of her speech preaching why she's the candidate for small-town America. Her broken record tactic of throwing this in the audiences face repeatedly isn't effective on more intelligent Americans. Her small-town blabbering is no different then listening to a drunken sports fan preaching for his home team. It's all talk, no substance. Much like the portion of her speech dedicated to her family.

Palin spent around the first fourth of her speech talking about her family. She simply highlighted the aspects of her family that would gain her sympathy points. She doesn't explain what she's going to do to better the situations that merit these things however. She begins talking about men in uniform and how her son and nephew serve our country. What she misses is what she's going to actually do as a "soldier's mother" in office. What will she realistically get done to keep troops safer while in office? She seems to forget that minor detail... She also has a heartwarming moment where she talks about her youngest son who has a disability. She tells Americans with disabled children that they will have a friend in office, but seems to skip over the part of what she is actually going to do to help them. 

One of the most controversial issues in the media about Palin leading up to her convention speech was the fact that she has a 17 year old, unmarried daughter who is pregnant. She spoke of her sons, her husband, and her nephew, but casually did not talk about her daughter. I don't know what she was hoping would happen -that we would just forget about her? We didn't. She had the time and place to explain the situation and how her family is going to deal with it, but she just skipped it entirely.

Palin delivered a speech that highlighted the good on the surface, skipped over the controversy altogether, and generalized everything rather than actually bringing up reality and possible policies to remedy the shambles our country is in. It was a sham of a speech full of trash talk, empty of any type of details.