[PBzeer]

From simply an intellectual standpoint, the election has now become very fascinating, with some very interesting dynamics.

On the one hand, you have a candidate who rose on a message of hope and change. Yet, picked the very target he is aiming at, to help him bring about that change. One who given the chance to chart a bold, new course, instead, embraced the same old politics of big government and class warfare. A man, who to this point in his political career, has done nothing to advance the changes he says we need.

On the other hand, you have a candidate who (rightly or wrongly) has not only spoken for change, but actively worked for it. His choice of a running mate though, is one who agrees with his message, not the target of it.

When you look at the two tickets, you see one that says, Yes we can, with one that can say, Yes we have.

The so-called historic issue aside, I think this election could well become a referendum on what people really want from their government. Do they want a nanny who takes care of their every need? Or an uncle that helps them out when they need it?

To be honest, I don't know that any president can really change much of anything at this point. Americans have become far too accustomed to government as nanny. And as Obama showed in his speech, most politicians believe the way to our vote, is with a promise of more government, not less. Oh, and that $1000 check he's promising, courtesy of sticking it to the oil companies? You really believe they won't get it back, twice over, at the pump?