Senator Obama says it is all about judgment and not about experience.He minimizes experience as a requirement to be President and points to his judgment demonstrated by his voiced opposition to the war in Iraq.He offers that judgment is preferable over experience.Let us assume that he is right and judgment is the key to being a good President.Does a voiced opposition against a war, which at the time had some compelling reasons – now debunked, represent that Senator Obama will bring King Solomon like judgment to the office of the President.

For the past twenty years Barack Obama has chosen to be a part of a religious congregation in Chicago – in fact he did not just fall into this congregation, but selected it as it suited his needs.He and his wife chose to have Reverend Jeremiah Wright marry them and they chose to have their two children baptized by Reverend Wright.During this twenty year association he has chosen to call Reverend Wright his friend and has remained a faithful member of Reverend Wright’s congregation.

I had thought about providing a link to the most recent inflammatory video of Reverend Wright, there are plenty of them on the internet – just search Google or go to Fox News or ABC News.It is not necessary to post the video, but it is necessary to comment on the commentators at this point.The commentators seem to talk in terms of an apology from Senator Obama, or a rejection of the rhetoric of Reverend Wright by Senator Obama.

This is not a matter of apologizing or of distancing oneself from Reverend Wright.It is a matter that Barack Obama been a friend to, been affiliated with, participated in the congregation, been married by, and had his children baptized by Reverend Wright for a twenty year period.What does Barack Obama truly believe – clearly we know little about his thinking as he has not had time in public life to demonstrate that thinking.

More importantly, what is his judgment capability?If he believes the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, should he be President?If he does not believe the rhetoric of Reverend Wright, why has he been a prominent member of the congregation and a friend of Reverend Wright for twenty years?What kind of judgment does Senator Obama possess? Does he buy into Reverend Wright’s rhetoric – if so, than I cannot vote for him – this may be the Real Change that Senator Obama talks about?Does he reject the rhetoric of Reverend Wright – if he does, then what kind of judgment does it take to associate with the Reverend for twenty years and subject your family to rhetoric you do not believe in?

One last point – now you can connect the dots to what Mrs. Obama said – paraphrased (first time being proud to be an American).Do she and Senator Obama really buy into Reverend Wright’s thinking – when connecting the dots, it is starting to look like it.America, look out!You had better peel back the onion on Senator Obama – because the media will not.What kind of Real Change are you seeking?

For those of you who have not given this thought, I ask “what is change?”Is change the same thing to you as to the person standing next to you?Are you sure that the change you are seeking is the change that is being offered from the candidates?Change can mean many things.According to Webster’s dictionary “change” is a noun and a verb.It can mean make something radically different or to simply shift position.It can mean to become different or to completely transform.It can also simply mean to pass possession from one owner to that of another.

Have you thought about the change being offered by your candidate?Are you quite sure that your definition of change means the same to your candidate.What if your candidate wants to radically change something you thing works well?What if your candidate wants to NOT change what you want changed?Senator Obama appears to be setting a record listing something like 140 issues in need of change.Have you studied each of these items on the change hit list to be sure you agree with them all or most all?

We have three potential new U.S. Presidents running for office today.Each candidate talks about change, one has driven a whole lot of change already while in Congress – some like the change, some do not.One candidate claims to be an agent for change, but has not demonstrated that he or she is a proven agent of change. Another candidate wants to make a host of radical changes and again without any evidence that that candidate is capable of steering radical change.To support all these changes, you need to do two things, especially when the word radical is in the mix.First, you need to understand what your candidate really wants to change and whether that candidate is fully capable of delivering the change; second, you need to understand whether the change your candidate wants to deliver will be more harmful than no change at all.

Another element of change is determining whether the candidate can do it alone or does the candidate need help.None of the candidates running will be able to effect change without help.Currently there are 468 assistant change agents up for reelection in November (435 Representatives and 33 Senators).Many of these folks do not want change because they have it “pretty good”.Some have been sitting in their power perches observing the scurrying about them by new folks who earnestly desire to make things better, yet these birds of prey like it just the way it is, despite what they tell their constituents.Let me be clear!Anti-change is so intense in Congress that changing one person, the President, will change very little other than window dressing.

An example of the wrong change by the wrong person and the impact of that change recently came to light.Senators Obama and Clinton, pandering to win Ohio, each derided NAFTA as being the cause of the misery in Ohio.Each candidate knows better, but instead of pointing out that NAFTA is not the reason for the misery in Ohio, that it is our country’s failure to remain competitive in world trade, they heavily derided NAFTA.They pandered for votes and delegates and in doing so, made our loyal trade partner, Canada, a major supplier of oil to us, very nervous.Canada started to talk about reviewing the amount of oil they send us.The push for NAFTA change, misplaced as it was, caused both campaigns to let Canada know quietly that they were just campaign posturing – you know, blowing smoke up the electorate’s collective butts!Remember be careful what kind of change you seek and who you choose to deliver it.

(See http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/nafta-means-lost-jobs-%e2%80%93-probably-not/ for more insight on NAFTA.)

To recap, if you want change, determine just what change you want, what will its affect be, and if the person you want to deliver that change has the know-how for change, veracity, and a history of driving bipartisan change.You will also need to give that person change assistants, which means changing the 87% of Congress up for election to remove the perched power brokers using seniority to block change.