“And I come here as a Mom whose girls are the heart of my heart and the center of my world -- they're the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning, and the last thing I think about when I go to bed at night. Their future—and all our children's future—is my stake in this election.”

–Michelle Obama, Democratic National Convention

I don’t often listen to the radio, but I was in the car the other day, so I decided to listen to what people were saying about the Democratic goings on in Denver.  To say that the radio waves were awash with sloppy sentimentalism would be the understatement of the year.  According to the talk show host I was listening to, Michelle Obama’s speech on Monday evening was “very possibly the most inspiring speech ever given at a convention.”  Listeners who called into the station described Mrs. Obama as “sincere”, “honest” and “heartfelt”.

Which raises a question in my mind.  Was she really being sincere? 

“...that’s why I love this country.”  

Was Michelle Obama sincere on Monday night when she expressed her love of country, or was she being sincere in February when she stated, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” ?  Is Michelle Obama in love with her country simply because her country is falling in love with her husband and his ideology?  What if John McCain wins in November?  Will she go back to being ashamed of the country where, by her own admission, “the only limit to the height of your achievements is the reach of your dreams and your willingness to work for them.”?

Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish called Mrs. Obama’s speech “One of the best, most moving, intimate, rousing, humble, and beautiful speeches I've heard from a convention platform. Maybe she should be running for president.”

Excuse me?  Does being an eloquent speaker really make you qualified to run for president?  I’ll admit that Michelle Obama’s speech was both articulate and emotionally compelling.  However, her eloquence in no way erases the questions I have concerning her husband’s suitability for the office of the presidency.  Should an eloquent speech by the wife of a presidential candidate really influence the votes of the American people? The fact that Americans are getting caught up in the compelling power of the rhetoric scares me more than anything.  Do we really believe that Mrs. Obama’s “emotional connection” with the American people means that her husband is competent to lead our nation?  Do we really think that Mrs. Obama’s articulation of how much both she and her husband love their children somehow makes Barack qualified to be one of the most powerful leaders of the free world? 

And since we’re on the subject of children…

“That’s why he’s running—…to make sure every child in this nation gets a world class education all the way from preschool to college. That’s what Barack Obama will do as President of the United States of America.”

I take issue with the Obama’s attempt at convincing me that they really care about my kids.  They talk about caring, but when push comes to shove, Barack Obama’s record (and rhetoric) has shown that he cares more about political power than doing what’s right for children.  He cares more about pandering to special interest groups than endorsing programs that could actually help our children. 

In support of their own children’s best interests, the Obama’s have chosen to spend somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 per year to send their daughters to the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, one of the nation’s best prep schools.  A timeline of Obama’s wishy-washy support of school choice vouchers and charter schools provides some perspective on just how far out on a limb Obama is willing to go in support of our children’s best interests.  In 2002, when asked about school vouchers in an interview with Jeff Berkowitz, host of Public Affairs, a Chicago area cable talk show, Barack Obama said, “I would support anything that is going to be better off [in education] for the children of Illinois…whatever is on the table I think has to be debated.”  But in a 2003 Public Affairs interview, Berkowitz again asked Obama about his support of vouchers.  His reply reversed his previous position. “What I said was--I think that we have to consider every possibility of improving what admittedly is an intolerable school system for a lot of inner-city kids. I do not believe in vouchers. I am a strong supporter of charter schools, as you know.” 

But even that position changed when Barack Obama addressed the National Education Association on July 5, 2007.  Jeff Berkowitz voiced his concern about Obama’s latest flip-flop on his blog, Public Affairs, saying: “Speaking today to the NEA, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, Obama decided to pander with the best of the pandering presidential candidates, telling the assembled teachers that he would not “abandon public schools,” by handing out school vouchers. Instead, Obama is going to abandon the kids in the failing public schools and make sure they have no way out, whether it be via school vouchers or charter schools. Obama’s solution? Investing “billions of dollars,” in teachers by “raising teachers salaries.”  So in other words, Barack Obama supports school choice, but only for his own kids and anyone else who can afford to pay for the privilege of choice.

It would seem that when he’s discussing our nation’s educational crisis, Obama has proven that what he really means when he says “Change You Can Believe In”, is “Change you can’t count on unless you’re rich enough to pay for it.”  An editorial on the IBD (Investors Business Daily) Editorials website states it quite clearly, “While Obama's children enjoy the best education money can buy, he wants to deny inner-city children the education change we can believe in — school choice. He prefers cradle-to-diploma collectivist education.”  

I’m glad Michelle Obama loves her children.  I love my children, too.  And that’s exactly why I’m NOT voting for her husband.