I know that the price of tuition is higher than ever, which is why if you are willing to volunteer in your neighborhood or give back to your community or serve your country, we will make sure that you can afford a higher education. And to encourage a renewed spirit of national service for this and future generations, I ask this Congress to send me the bipartisan legislation that bears the name of Senator Orrin Hatch as well as an American who has never stopped asking what he can do for his country – Senator Edward Kennedy.

You know – that’s a very inspiring thought and a good idea. I wonder about how realistic it is in action, though. For example, what will the cost be to the government if High School Student A volunteers X amount of hours in his or her hometown and thus meets the requirements of this program? Will the government pay all of their tuition at a public school? Half? A quarter? What is the number that makes college affordable for a student?

Further, what happens if High School Student B – who is from a better off family than Student A – does the same amount (or more) of volunteering than Student A? Since Student B is from a well-to-do family, then does he or she get anything for their community service? The same end was achieved – citizens served their community. Right?

And what happens when High School Student C needs another 50 hours of community service by the deadline date to qualify for whatever this grant money will be? Are we to believe that if Student C’s family knows people who know people that they won’t write-up false letters showing all of the service hours that Student C volunteered?

I don’t want to sound like a negative guy on this proposal, but it seems like it’s a bit too nebulous right now. I’m all for college affordability so long as 1) it is a program with no discrimination (income included), and 2) it’s fiscally responsible. We didn’t get that information last night. Other than that, I thought the President’s speech sounded more like a campaign speech than anything else, but I had no major fundamental problems with it.

Yes, her speech was lacking a lot of flowery language and poetic verse. But folks, Hillary isn’t Obama. Senator Obama gets on the stage and sounds like the modern day Mark Twain, yet says nothing in the process. Sure, he’s someone that is probably fun to listen to live, but he gives no indication on what his specific course of action will be if he is elected as President.

For those of you who expected a flowery speech from Hillary – you’re nuts. Flowery speeches are reserved for those political figures who are on their way out (think Senator Edward Kennedy in 1980 – YouTube it if you’ve not heard it). Poetic speeches are reserved for those who will not run for higher office again and you KNOW Hillary is going to run for President again!

All in all, I was pleased with Hillary’s speech. I’m having a major problem with the DNC, though. It seems like it’s a good time out in Colorado, but I’m not able to get that feeling in my living room. By matter of contrast, both the Republican and Democratic conventions in 2004 brought a palpable excitement into many homes around the nation. This year the Democratic convention is missing that electricity. I think it’s because there are no specific policies being explained in detail (and if they are being explained, then our biased American media isn’t reporting it).

Here’s hoping the Republican convention has as many good speeches as the Democratic convention has had so far…and that’s it more fun to watch!

I understand, however, how some people will never be able to forget his connection to the Chappaquiddick incident. But putting those issues aside, the man looked pretty good for someone who has recently undergone brain surgery and chemotherapy.

As for the rest of the convention, I thought it was a good night. And I don’t subscribe the theories that the Democrats should have been stronger on the attack. Americans have been promised “change” and a “new politics” and I think the Democrats are carrying out their end of the deal by not using their convention to bash the opponents. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi gave a nice speech (giving a great shot out to Italian-Americans – whoo hoo!). I didn’t care for Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s speech, but that’s because I don’t think he really said anything…which is par for the course.

Michelle Obama gave a good speech, too, but mainly because she has completely changed course from her previous anti-American stances. I’m sorry, but when a person says that “America in 2008 is a downright mean country” and that this is the “first time in my adult life that I am proud of my country,” those are extremely negative statements. But her speech tonight was very well written and very well spoken. An excellent job by Michelle Obama!

Unfortunately, these conventions are always marred by morons on the outside. The anarchists who are protesting the DNC should be ashamed of themselves. They represent that worn-in crud on the boot of American politics and, frankly, that’s too high of a position for them. I saw one article that reported there were anti-Obama, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-war, anti-Democrat, anti-government, anti-American, and anti-FOX News protesters outside of the convention yesterday…to name a few.

Talk about people who are brainwashed!