In addition to Senator Obama's previously discussed accomplishments it has also been brought to my attention that he was a Constitutional  Law professor at the University of Chicago. As a resident of the Mid West you probably know the caliber of this school. While you rely on a slip of the tongue regarding the number of states/possession of the U.S. as evidence of drug addiction...the truth of the matter is that you do not rise to this level of excellence so quickly unless you are in full control of your mental faculties.

With respect to his position with the Harvard Law Review, I have been told that he did write an article relating to abortion rights. Although I have never read it, and would have to rely on what I have been told. Whether or not he wrote an article does not diminish his position as president and editor. As any law student will tell you only the top of the class are invited to join the law review at a law school...and only the best of the best rise to the level of its president. You may choose to attribute his ascendancy to political office to Chicago's democratic machine, but that does not change the fact that ultimately the voters of Illinois were impressed enough to elect him to office.

I do not think I said that the leaders of the European Union vote in our election. I believe I said they were foreign heads of state. They are trade partners and allies in NATO. I would not attribute reports of his popularity among these heads of state to any "delusions of grandeur", but rather to independent reporting of the news media. 

Insofar as a governor's authority to activate national guard units is concerned...they certainly have such authority internally within their respective states.  A number of years ago we had severe flooding in the Connecticut Valley. Martial law was declared, and guardsmen were activated to enforce the law. Riot control is another reason to activate the guard. I think we can all remember how this function was mishandled at Kent State University. However, when called up by the federal government to supplement the U. S. military gubernatorial activation is little more than a formality. I see that my friend, Scott, takes issue with this position in his post below, and relies on Perpich v. DOD, 496 US 334 (1990). I have to disagree with his interpretation of this case, and will address it in more detail in my response to his stated position. Enlistment in the national guard is also enlistment in the U.S. military. There is a dual enlistment. The federal government has every right to activate these troops in the event that they are needed for national defense. The Montgomery Amendment of l986 severely limited the ability of a governor to object to federal activation. Foreign affairs, national defense and the ability to raise and maintain an army for purposes of national defense are the preserve of the federal government...not state governors. You had indicated that the Air National Guard was our first line of defense, and went on to discuss the proximity of the Alaskan border to Russia. This is an issue that Palin has never had to experience, nor is she likely to in her capacity of governor.

Yes, I did listen to McCain's speech at the GOP Convention. I was not impressed. Although the extreme right wing rags will play it up for all it is worth.