[In response to Stephen's blog from Dec 2, 2008, Two Words For You: Incoherent and Confused.]

"It sounds like being thoughtful and motivational is the threshold a candidate must pass to be the DNC's nominee. This standard is so low they will be nominating Dr. Phil next."

These are the kinds of things that do not contribute to positive political discourse. You are a big fan of Ronald Reagan, so I will remind you, it is he who is known as The Great Communicator. He was not a policy wonk. He was not concerned with details. He was a man who the people seemed to relate to because of his style and his not being a member of the party in office. He is considered as a macromanager-- a president who expressed his belief in the greatness of America, Dawn in America, who promoted the idea of change after the failed Carter administration. He was not beyond controversy (see Iran-Contra Affair). Many of the things you complain about in Obama are analogous with Reagan. There are two major differences: they are on different ends of the political spectrum; Obama, despite your reluctance (of refusal) to admit it, does involve himself in the details of his policies.

So no, being a person who is well able to communicate with the people is not the only requirement, but just as it helped Reagan, it has helped Obama.

"It can't be called "reasonable" when your voters are mindless lemmings who didn't know shit what kind of stuff they were voting for."

I cannot defend the ignorance of the people interviewed in that poll. I wish a similar poll had been conducted concerning McCain. (Though, admittedly, I am afraid of the results comparison). Despite this, however, I voted for Obama because I do know about his ideas, and agree with many of them.

"I know somebody who was just like that—Adolf Hitler."

I hope you do not honestly believe that being a motivational speaker somehow puts Obama into the same field of politicians as Hitler. It is highly unlikely that Obama will invade any country to unite those of his same race(s), nor could I imagine him putting anybody into any sort of concentration camps. However we might disagree about what is reasonable, I think we can both agree that comparing Obama to Hitler does not fall within even the most broad of definitions.

"We no longer hear about his plans to withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months and many other promises he said during the campaign."

Which campaign promises are you not hearing about? Please detail them so that I can point you to where they are being discussed. As for the withdrawal or troops in 16 months, Obama mentioned as recently as Dec 1, less than one week ago, his desire to remove most of the troops within 16 months, as he pledged during the campaign.

"So yeah I agree we should hunt down this one man and the rest of the population that shares this one man's ideas."

This is America! We punish people for actions, not ideas! I will refrain from mentioning the regimes throughout history who have punished people for their ideas, as that would place you in very infamous company.

"Conservatives do want to compete with world powers, is that not apparent enough?"

I'm no psychologist, but I do not perceive that Conservatives wish to compete with world powers-- they want to be the only world power. Conservatives appear to be insecure, suspicious and afraid of the possibility that others might rival our economic supremacy and global influence. We have completely backslid from the Monroe Doctrine-- which, I might add, was written by one of the revered founders of our great nation. How can we hold sacred the ideals of those founders while ignoring one of the most important policies they developed? But this is nothing new, it is a transgression we have committed long ago and have chosen to follow this path ever since.

"What environmental policy? Global warming?"

It is unfortunate that this global warming thing has detracted from the real issues of environmental policy. Global warming is going to happen, with or without us contributing to it. However, the policies of striving for clean air and water-- even if those policies areincorrectly touted as helping to control global warming-- are sound. The goal of each individual measure is positive, even if the overarching goal of preventing climate change is impossible to achieve.

"We believe in diplomacy too but without appeasement to those hostile to the interests of the country."

Diplomatic attempts to resolve differences without resorting to war is the best policy, even if it does not always work. Preemptive war certainly has the possibility of succeeding, but along with it comes long-term resentment, perpetuating the problem it ostensibly aimed to resolve. It is a near-sighted approach.

The policies of Barack Obama, if you examine them without prejudice, are neither incoherent nor confused. You may disagree with them, or question their ability to achieve the desired effect, but they are quite clear and understandable. I can honestly say that I disagree with some of his policies, but I also admit that I understand the reasoning behind them.

History has proven that we cannot depend on the beneficence of the business community or the generosity of the wealthy to fulfill the needs of the citizens of the country. They will spends hundreds of millions in naming rights for a stadium (see Citi Field), but cannot be depended upon to build roads, sewers, schools, or other necessary civil infrastructure. Businesses are made to make money, and it's quite understandable that they do so. This leaves the onus on government to keep America in working condition.

As much as I hate paying taxes, this is the way it has to be. That is my contribution to America, and I vote for those whom I believe will spend it responsibly.