With all due respect to the immortal Rod Serling, imagine if you will, a land where up is down and left is right. It is a land where the normal has become the abnormal and everything you once knew has turned into that which you knew nothing about. While the world watched, a procession of voices changed the status of an issue in the American presidential race.

For as long as I have been politically aware, the issues of military and national security have almost exclusively belonged to the Republican party. From Ronald Reagan, to both of the Presidents Bush, the Republican party has maintained a stranglehold on the issue of which party supports the military more and which party is stronger on national security issues. On Thursday, July 28th of this year, the Democrats made a concerted effort to inject themselves into this issue. During the night that Hillary Clinton would accept the Democratic Nomination for president of the United States, the stage found itself dominated by a General, a group of veterans, and the Muslim parents of a fallen U.S. Army captain. The common message was one that suggested that the Republicans had forsaken the national security and military support issues by nominating a man that had literally not even a single day of public service.

Perhaps the strongest message of the night came from retired General John Allen, who took to the stage to discuss Hillary's qualifications to lead from the perspective of someone that has been involved in national security decisions. Adding weight to Allen's speech were the assembled veterans that took to the stage with Allen while he spoke. Later, the story of an Army captain that was killed in action was shared, along with the fact that he was the son of Muslim parents. As if this alone was not enough, the fallen soldier's parents, Khizr and Ghazala Khan, would take to the stage afterward and deliver a blistering indictment of Trump's lack of expertise on military matters. Khzir defiantly held up a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution and extolled that Trump could borrow his if he had not yet read it, while also stating that Trump had "sacrificed nothing".

Putting a bow on the evening, Hillary took to the stage with concrete ideas for how to address the nation's security issues and then lambasted Trump for his lack of experience in such matters. In the span of a couple hours, the Democrats achieved what may have previously been thought of as impossible: they hijacked the military issue and did so decisively. There can be no rational person that saw both Trump's acceptance speech and general lack of military presence at the RNC and the military presence and Hillary's acceptance speech during the DNC that could believe that Trump is better suited to be in charge during a national security crisis. Say whatever you will, and I am sure that many of you will do just that, but at the end of the day Hillary Rodham Clinton is the more prepared candidate to be in charge if the stuff hits the proverbial fan. For the first time to my recollection, the Democrats may have just successfully hi jacked the military and national security issues.