Superville Review

AP PHOTO

Wesley Clark's recent appearance on "Face the Nation" has caused a firestorm. I first heard his opinion of John McCain's inability to lead foreign policy based on his POW record of service on MSNBC's ever popular "Morning Joe" program. But the firestorm strikes me a one based in hysteria.

General Clark makes an assertion that has to be taken with seriousness. Senator McCain is a war hero. He is a courageous man. He endured horrors that would have broken a good number of people. However, that is not, in and of itself creating a strategy for waging war. It is a specific instance of bravery and endurance. There is a difference. I believe that his bravery and courage and the stubborn defiance of simple survival is part of what makes John McCain the leader America would get if they were to cast a vote for him as President. McCain's statement on a hundred year occupation of Iraq, be it misconstrued or not, bespeaks of a stubborn mindset. He is not willing to bend.

It might not feel good for McCain to be attacked in an era of "patriotism" and the surround circus the meaning of that word has become in the media and various communities across America. But is it true? It is true that Senator Obama has never served in the military. Obama, however, was not the one who made this case against McCain; at least in a public way that would call him directly or definitively into question. General Wesley Clark, who has commanded troops, said it and is qualified to say it. Clark is a Clinton supporter who now supports Obama in a general election campaign and as such his comments have been attributed to Obama's ledger. Many news pundits have screamed on how bad this criticism is for Obama to make and makes no political sense. They cede McCain the foreign policy battle out-of-hand, point out Mr. Obama's lack of military service and say it is foolish to even question that of Mr. McCain's. This is the problem with what the modern age media has become. The difference between Obama and McCain on issues of war time is based, not on military service, but on judgment.

In a Presidential election any issue can and should be questioned; including McCain's ability to lead foreign policy. At 72 years old Senator McCain will not be in a fighter plane and at risk of getting shot down. In that case he would be the prohibitive favorite for leadership in Office. A General questioning the qualifications of another military man who he outranks is totally within the realm of possibility when America's future in Iraq and possibly in Iran is on the table. Clark's comments were not an attack on McCain's character, but a disagreement on how the nature of his service qualifies him to lead and strategize military operations going forward. It seems that discussion is one that requires too much nuance for the media and its pundits to engage in. It is easier to cede that point to McCain based on factors that General, not Private, not Corporal, not Sergeant, but GENERAL Clark does not see eye to eye with.

Labels: Barack Obama, Face the Nation, Morning Joe, MSNBC, Wesley Clark

Incredible. Stunning. Stupefying. Ralph Nader your green party candidate. Upon watching the current political news cycle from poll to poll, pundit to pundit, CNN to MSNBC to Fox a funny thing happened on the merry-go-round. Ralph Nader accused Barack Obama of talking white and not focusing on exploitation of the "ghetto." Wow on whatever level one wants to choose.

A white Presidential candidate, fringe and independent as he wants to be accusing a black Presidential candidate of a major party, who happens to be of African descent of being white is uncharted territory. It seems that Barack Obama cannot win whichever way he turns and this has played out slowly over the course of the past three months. Reverend Wright; he should not distance himself from Reverend Wright, his mentor, his crazy old uncle. But when the good Reverends dog and pony show at the National Press Club made any affiliation with Wright impossible Obama saved his candidacy and rightly distanced himself from a man he would not outright abandon six weeks prior. Some in the media wondered what it meant about Obama and not in a good way. Those same people wondered why Obama did not leave Trinity United years ago. Obama was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

As the first African-American nominee of a major political party Obama has been credited with running a "post racial" campaign that focused on issues of broad concern and avoiding race based speak. Which isn't entirely true because his speech on race in Philadelphia was necessary and the first of it's kind for a Presidential candidate. But Obama has little choice. He doesn't visit a Mosque he's said by Minnesota's Muslim Congressman, Keith Ellison to have abandoned the Muslim community. However, if Obama goes to a Mosque the aforementioned news outlets would make it 24 hour news and that would feed the fire of internet innuendo claiming Obama to be anything, but a child of God. Some of his staffers have gone overboard, like removing head-scarf wearing Muslim women from behind the podium during one of Mr. Obama's speeches, but he is a candidate that is fighting a unique game perception that no other candidate has had to navigate. Why? Because Obama is a first of his kind for the stage he now sweeps across so charismatically.

Obama has to present himself as a man running for President of the entire United States, not, to borrow an associates line, block captain of Martin Luther King Boulevard. So here comes Mr. Nader, who has not shown himself to effectively enact any policy or tangible action in the past decade regarding issues affecting the "ghetto" he blames Obama for abandoning; and not only abandoning, but doing it in an appeal to white guilt with white ways of speaking at least figuratively if not literally. Obama's past career as a community organizer in the roughness of South Chicago must not give him enough negro points in Ralph Nader's view. But Obama's very presence on the national stage gives him more clout in any ghetto than Ralph Nader will ever be given or can ever earn. Stealing votes from Democratic nominees in the past two Presidential elections that has lead to the Republican rule of the past several years was a bald faced stake in the heart to ghetto's domestic and international. Dig that campaign strategy.

So Ralph Nader posits an old argument that black nationalists have espoused against the black middle class for several decades. A chastisement for not being "black enough." Obama or at least his surrogates have been accused, with some legitimate reasons, of allowing race to be floated in an attempt to knock Hillary Clinton out the box in Dixieland, USA. Obama has no choice but to tell the truth of race while at the same time distancing himself from the same racial hope and resentment that draws itself to him throughout the diverse communities of America. Either way Obama is damned by someone for doing or not doing a racial dance that no other candidate running for President has been made to endure. But that person should not be Ralph Nader.

Labels: 2008 Presidential Campaign, Barack Obama, Race and the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Ralph Nader

Image by B.D. Tyre

Kevin Merida of the Washingtonpost.com has written an article that speaks to the dirty little secret that the media and Barack Obama's campaign itself has shied away from discussing in depth. Racism against Obama's candidacy.

The media has talked about race in relation to polls and constituencies, but the hidden details of campaign workers on the ground, the mean spiritedness, racial epithets and threats of violence have not been covered until now. Veteran New York Times columnist Bob Herbert recently blasted Hillary Clinton's casting of "hard working" white Americans and what it was truly a code for: that Obama could not win the Presidency. Maybe Mrs. Clinton is more in tune with her supporters than anyone realized up to now.

Small town white America as depicted in a "It's a Wonderful Life" and Norman Rockwell paintings has always been a myth to those outside of its supposed quaint and familial environs. How does hatred, ignorance and lack of thought amongst some small town and rural Americans related to God or family values? They are not and that is apparent to anyone with clear vision. Unfortunately, for America her constituents with the least clouded of vision appears to be the so called working class. During the Vietnam war protests of the late '60's protesters were told to "Love it or leave it..." Well, it seems the time has come that that statement can be turned around on those so called patriots for whom America means white America above any and all else.

Beset with jobs that have disappeared across borders and continents, rising fuel and food costs and families depleted from the fatality of war in Iraq, small town America is in the throes of pain; both in pocket and spirit. It has been reported that this is Clinton's base and the base of the Democratic party. It has also been reported that many of these people make less than $50,000 a year and have not attended college. No study has been made public as to how many have even completed high school. With so many challenges to their very survival, one would think, that in concern of self-interest, no white voter in these regions could afford to discount any Presidential candidate out-of-hand. Obama, to be sure, has suffered through the circus show that Reverend Wright made himself at the National Press Club. However, his fate was sealed long before Reverend Wright emerged into the media spotlight. His blackness ensured a segment of Americans would not consider a vote for him.

This fact speaks to a lack of self-respect or self-worth on the part of these narrow minded, hard-workers. If one considered themselves valuable they could not discount any candidate who might present them with a plan that would help them transcend their circumstances; help that any American deserves from their government. Flag pins and pledges of allegiance and the willingness to believe internet lies that have been countlessly refuted by Obama and his campaign staffers lead these people to the same sorry state they find themselves in. Nowhere. It is possible that America's eroding public education system is haunting us with a segment of the United States that does not think clearly, does not think logically or with any eye toward their own possible betterment. It seems the only way their lives can be made better is by the same white candidates that have helped put them into the very circumstances that steals away a way of life that they used to count on. A job, a salary that could feed their families and benefits that would serve them into old age.

The fact that Obama could be the President to turn these things around means little to some of small town and rural America. And it feels troubling to think that the people associated with these negative and self-defeating attitudes must still be accounted for during the remainder of the primary season and the coming general election in November. However, here's the shout for those of open mindedness. Obama has managed to commandeer the lead in states won, pledged delegates, popular vote and now super delegates without the support of this blatant and blasphemous minority. To be sure, Obama will need to address and spend face time with those small town and rural Americans who are active and open minded in their own self-interest and willing to hear if Obama is a candidate that can help them. But for the narrow minded populace an Obama victory in November is a very real possibility and an old statement applies for those who will be hard pressed to stomach America's first black President.

Love it or leave it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24588813/

Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic Primary, Economic Recession, Hillary Clinton Supporters, Kevin Merida, Media Coverage, MSNBC, Reverend Wright, Small Town America, Washinton Post, White Voters

I left the Geraldine Ferraro commments and aftermath sitting on the table because I was bone weary from eating the racial discourse being offered in the the Democratic Presidential primary. Then Pastor Jeremaiah Wright's sermons came to light last week and put race squarely in the face of American's of every ethnicity, religion and political affiliation. I still am beaten up on race in this country, but as this blog also deals, seemingly less these days, with sports and culture, I felt the need to say something about Barack Obama's speech on Wright and race.

Senator Obama's speech was not politician giving a speech; it was a man with a unique view of the racial divide offering reasons for that divide and calling for his countrymen to not "retreat into our individual corners..." but to have an honest discussion about racial anger and resentment amongst the electorate of America. I have never heard a politician of any stripe discuss this issue with such forthrightness.

To be sure Pastor Wright's comments were above and beyond reason at some point. But he is a man that did not arrive at those views by happenstance. Whether some people can deal with those truths are another matter, but if this country is to move forward there must be an understanding why a man of Wright's stature would speak so bitterly, with so much mistrust of his own country. And why many people he ministers to might feel similarly. But the genius of Mr. Obama's speech was his acknowledgement of white resentment toward being tagged as racists for their fears of city crime, or feeling as if they are losing out on something as a result of set-aside's and programs for African-Americans due to a racism they do not feel or participate in.

Now already pundits insult these "uneducated" blue collar whites, who they feel will not be affected by Obama's speech because it was geared toward the educated, the intellectual, the wine drinker. And already there are pundits who say the speech did not answer the question of how Obama could sit in the rows of pews in his church home and not walk away after hearing such comments. Already there are people who would not vote for Obama anyway and have a reason to cover the real reason why they would not or could not vote for him. And already are pundits and I am sure citizens who miss the point of Obama's speech entirely. The point of the speech is not whether it was politically expedient; which it was not. The point of the speech was not to castigate America for it's sins against black Americans, which are historically factual. The point was not simply to explain legitimate resentment of white Americans. The point of the speech was to call Americans to be truthful about those feelings; to understand why those feelings exist; to call Americans to come together and be more than we are separately.

To be sure, questioning the Senator about his association with Wright is valid and necessary. It is a sign of respect for the legiticmacy of Obama's candidacy that the media and pundits are digging into the bone gristle of Obama's message and vision. Obama did not throw away his pastor, his spiritual mentor, despite the calls of many to do just that. And that says something about Obama's character. His ability to lead in the face of adversity. His abilitiy to take discussions to a new level. Whether we like it or not America is one country made up of many parts. For this nation to work as effectively as possible Americans must recognize this truth. Obama's speech was a call to arms against a problem that continues to be a scourge on this country's soul. But who will listen?

The point of Obama's political speech was that it made politics and the gain of politics secondary to social concern. Race in America specifically, but in actuality, the world, has been a political tool used for gain or solid evil. Yesterday in Philadelphia, Obama might have fallen on a sword politically, but raised necessary questions socially. At some point Americans will have to leave behind a desire to hide from the past. At some point America, which has become the one-stop-shop for mindless entertainment and other forms of escapism, will have to address, as adults, the nuances present in Obama's speech. Or else. The 'or else' is the reckoning that will take place on the spirit of the country for ignoring problem areas in its character. Black, white, brown, yellow and red have a stake in self-assessment and constant communication. If not, the 'or else' leads us to harder questions.

If Mr. Jackson from Martin Luther King Blvd., and Ms. Nakumura from Seattle and Mr. O'Connor, immigrant from Ireland and Bill Joe from rural Alamaba or Ms. Hernandez from Southern California or any of the varying combinations inherent only in United States, do not feel enriched by their presence in each other's lives what is there to do in America? It seems the alternative is to become a territory of racial nation states; black people take the north; white Americans take the south; white immigrants control the midwest; Hispanics and Native Americans take the Southwest; Asians rule the northwest and so on and so forth. Wouldn't the better alternative be to get to the bottom of our divisions and find a way to come together? Yes, but that supposes that people are ready to be adults and deal with reality instead of running from it. Unfortunately, in today's American culture that is asking a lot.

Labels: Barack Obama, Jeremiah Wright, Race in America, Speech on Race

(AP Photo/M. Spencer Green)

2025. That is not a science-fiction number from some made up galaxy where the future of man will be at stake. 2025 is the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic Presidential nomination. And some would argue that number is related very intimately with the future of the United States. Barack Obama 1307. Hillary Clinton 1175. Despite her latest resurrection, the New York Senator still trails Mr. Obama in pledged delegates and her lead amongst Superdelegates is narrowing. All this indicates trouble for the DNC in November.

Hillary Clinton, at this point, is well within her rights to stay in the race. Things are tight between her and Senator Obama and too much money has been spent and too much heart has been expended from her to simply walk away now. But there is a problem that Howard Dean, DNC Chairman, has to foresee. In America, race has always played a pivotal position in the national landscape, allowing Americans to be their best and alternately their worst in any given moment in time. To be inspired and bitter. Barack Obama has wisely done his best to preclude the issue of race from his campaign. However, it is sure to make an appearance if the Democratic nomination comes down to a brokered convention in Denver. Should Obama continue to have a lead in delegates, and all mathematical indications point to this probability, then by the rules of the party he should win the nomination. If the Superdelegates for some reason choose to back Hillary Clinton and award her the nomination race jumps center stage, live and on fire. Black America, one of the staunchest supporters of Democratic platforms will be smacked in the face. There would be no way around seeing this occurrence for anything but a qualified black man who played by the rules, being pushed aside to prop up a white American. It is what it is and this is the last thing the DNC or Hillary Clinton should want.

The Republican party does not need nor count on African-American votes to win elections. The Democratic party, at this point in time, does count on that voting block to win office. Hillary Clinton is already losing the black vote by substantial margins in every state with a serious black population; a trend that began in South Carolina after perceived "race talk" from Bill Clinton. How much support could Mrs. Clinton count on from the black electorate if her nomination comes in a back room at the expense of a Mr. Obama who will have more delegates? How much support could Mrs. Clinton procure from Obama supporters of every denomination if she were to receive the Democratic nomination in this way? A vote for Obama is more about wanting a change in political operations than about voting for a black man.

If one truly supports Obama because they believe in his message of changing the ways of doing business in Washington is a vote for Hillary Clinton against John McCain really a vote well spent? Clinton and McCain, lifelong politicians, who based on their current campaigns are well versed in playing the "game" of politics would really be a choice between the lesser of two evils for Obama supporters. In other words, the election in November would be the same election Americans have lived with for decades and would be a bellweather election for black America as well as Obama supporters of all backgrounds.

For African-American's a Superdelegate nominated Clinton would be a clear indicator that a change in political affiliation from Demcorat to Independent is in order. The Democratic party, whose history has origins on the wrong side of slavery and equal rights, would have once again, taken the vote of African-American's for granted by producing a candidate not based on their vote and expecting black support. It would be an indication that black American's must separate from sentiment and embrace a proving of the question, "what will you do for me" from the Democratic Party. For Obama supporters it would be an even clearer indication that change, even though Clinton will no doubt use the term during a possible acceptance speech at the convention, is not what they will be getting. Do they vote, in good conscience, for a candidate nominated by the will of political insiders, because she is better than McCain who has promised a continuation of George Bush's economic and foreign policies? Or do these Obama supporters cast protesting votes for the only candidate of change in the race, Ralph Nader or worse stay home altogether to prove a point. That point being change or else? After eight years of George Bush and the current crisis' America finds itself in, why not sacrifice four more years to McCain? And what about the youth vote that Obama has successfully mined into political engagement? Do they ever return or recover from a brokered convention?

There are many questions for Howard Dean. He had better have the answers or the yellow brick road Democrats were supposed to enjoy on the way to the White House will become a potholed nightmare.

Labels: Barack Obama, Delegates, Democratic Convention, DNC, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, John McCain, Race and the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Ralph Nader, Repulicans, Superdeleagtes

Back in the day, on the black tops of elementary school, if one team ran up a lead on the other team of ten to nothing we would call it a "skunk" and the game would be started over; the point being one of mercy for the team that didn't have it going on. They needed a "do over." Well, from February 6th now Barack Obama's campaign has skunked that of Hillary Clinton. She's the kid that had her pants pulled down on the playground. And it has to be embarrassing beyond belief.

Hillary Clinton is a tough lady. She's a politician who has no qualms about being a politician with all of the subterfuge that that can entail. She was a prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic nominee for President not even two months ago. She had the experience. She had the solutions. She had the support of the laborers, women, white America. Now Barack Obama has arrived on the scene with more money, more magnetism, a message that is more bulletproof than Superman. Who wants to be the candidate to tell me "no we can't." Barack Obama is Campaign Santa Claus, offering the gift of hope in a time when American's are cynical about our political structures.

Rudy Guiliani, America's Mayor, implemented a head scratching strategy of relying on Florida to launch his victory march to the Republican nomination. It proved too late and by his third place finish, much too little. Now Hillary Clinton's campaign roars into Ohio and Texas, two big states, that the Senator feels confident will bring her candidacy back from the dead. But unless she has Caesar Romero campaigning for her she faces an uphill climb. She has no momentum. She has no verve. Barack Obama's 18,000 people attended arena speech in Houston, Texas last night pulled every network away from Hillary Clinton's high school bleacher speech in Youngstown, Ohio. It was a case of the average Jane who walks into the party and gets some attention until the dime steps into the door and restores order with longer legs, a brighter smile, and more style. Every time Clinton gives a speech she must be waiting for Ashton Kutcher to pop out and say, "You got punk'd!"

Clinton and John McCain, the probable Republican nominee, have to figure out a way to position their qualifications in the media without being seen by the American populace as the grinch who stole their belief in the possibility of a new type of politics in Washington. A politics that calls for bipartisanship in legislation and for the American people to play their part in building up the country as Obama says, "block by block, county by county, state by state." Obama is on a better roll than a Vegas casino regular.

Labels: Ashton Kutcher, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Houston, John McCain, Punk'd, TX Rally

Julian Bond, current NAACP Chairman and veteran Civil Rights activist and politician, is a man certainly worthy of honor and respect. But his stance on the seating of delegates from Florida and Michigan in the Democratic convention is puzzling to say the least. The fact that each state was warned in advance of their decision to go forward with moving up their primaries that the penalty would be harsh does not seem to play a part in Mr. Bond's request. The fact that no candidate in the Democratic race campaigned in either state nor that Mrs. Clinton was the only serious Democratic candidate on the ballot in Michigan.

Mr. Bond rightly says that the citizens of Michigan and Florida, including their populations of color, would be disenfranchised if their voters wishes were not counted and delegates not seated. That begs this question: did Mr. Bond not send a letter detailing these concerns to DNC Chairman Howard Dean at the time he made his decision to penalize Michigan and Florida? It appears late in the day to take up for the populations of Michigan and Florida after the fact. In fairness, how can Mr. Dean seat delegates from Michigan and Florida based upon votes made under the circumstances in which they were cast. One would expect Hillary Clinton to call for those delegates to be seated as she sees her delegate lead wiped out after tonight's Potomac Primary sweep for Barack Obama. But Julian Bond? A man who has fought for justice for over forty years? Where would the justice be for Mr. Obama in this instance?

Chairman Bond's letter correctly spoke of disenfranchised voters. However, what he should have requested,as opposed to delegates being seated from Michigan and Florida based on their January primary votes, is for the DNC to pay for caucuses in Michigan and Florida if not primaries. This way each candidate will have a fair opportunity to compete for Michigan and Florida voters and those states will have delegates seated at the Democratic convention based upon a fairly drawn election.

Labels: Barack Obama, Caucuses, Delegates, Democratic Converntion, DNC, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Julian Bond, Michigan, NAACP, Primaries

Barack Obama sweeps through Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, The U.S. Virgin Islands and Maine over the weekend. Then comes word that Patty Solis Doyle, Campaign Manager for Hillary Clinton, is being replaced by long time Clinton adivsor Maggie Williams. The Clinton campaign spun Doyle's "departure" as one based upon the grind of campaign season, but who doesn't know better? For a campaign manager of Doyle's experience to walk away from a campaign in the middle of the race would be like Tom Brady asking to be pulled out of a game because the Patriots were down. It would not happen. Political advisors and activists are as competitive as professional athletes. They are in it to win it and ,unless there were serious health issues going on, would never just walk away. Which leads to the reason Doyle was replaced.

One, Clinton and her campaign advisors are dissatisfied with their current position and needed a change or at least the appearance of change for rankled supporters or two, Now that Clinton is losing momentum all the stops will be pulled out on Obama and Doyle was not in agreement with the coming strategy. Either way this is not a good situation for Senator Clinton, especially with the Chesapeake Primary fast approaching. However, if she is able to pull out the Virginia primary, which most do not expect, she can take some steam out of Obama's current winning streak and have something to hang her hat on as the campaign motors toward junior Tuesday on March 4th. After all, trying to lessen defeats with disclaimers of expectations, cannot be good for a woman who was the clear front runner in the Democratic race not one month ago.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, continues to put a dent into John McCain's coronation as Republican nominee. His chances of winning enough delegates to seriously derail McCain are less than nil, but his contiually defiant presence illustrates to the country what McCain supporters must be shaken by and that is his support amongst the conservative idealogues in the GOP do not like him and at least in Kansas and Lousiana this past weekend, do not support him overwhelmingly. Huckabee refuses to leave the race citing his presence as giving voters in the coming primaries and caucuses a choice. It is a good point on his part and the longer he's able to win states and stay in the race at best inches him closer to an improbable nomination and at worst, for McCain and ultimately the GOP, embarrasses McCain in front of the nation. If Huckabee drops out of the race and accepts a Vice Presidential offering from McCain, which he says he will not do, then the country will know why.

Labels: Barack Obama, Caucuses, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Junior Tuesday, Maggie Williams, Mike Huckabee, Patti Solis Doyle, Primaries

And here we go. Politricks as usual. On Meet the Press with Tim Russert, Hillary Clinton defended her comments about Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King by saying that obviously Barack Obama's camp had put out the undue criticism that followed. That this criticism had injected race into a campaign that desperately needed to avoid the issue of race or gender. Politically, this is a good strategy on Clinton's part; if it weren't so transparent. No one from the Obama campaign had commented on Clinton saying that the Civil Rights dream of Dr. King would not have been realized without President Lyndon Johnson. That was Congressman James Clyburn from South Carolina, a man with a long history in the civil rights movement, who came out on the record as saying he and others in the black community were offended.

Now for the record, as a black man, I didn't take offense to her comments. Dr. King's influence and impact on American and world society is unrefuteable. However, for the issues that were pressing the black community at the time the movement needed a strong voice in the executive branch. Dr. King, by himself, could not pass legislation. He had no vote in the congress or the senate. Bill Clinton's comments were also misconstrued. Clinton's Fairytale view of Obama's record on the Iraq war very different from him saying that Obama's candidacy itself is a fairytale. Neither of these comments were "racial." However, Mrs. Clinton has now injected the issue of race, purposely. The waters are muddied and won't get any clearer.

Barack Obama's admission to drug use in his earlier years was a pre-emptive strike against what the country is seeing now. Direct questioning from Clinton campaign workers and sneaky assertions from supporters such as Bob Johnson. The same Bob Johnson who lorded over a BET network that single handedly contributed to the exploitation of half naked black and brown women in ninety percent of the music
videos that ran on his network. The same network that at one time offered the black community an array of programming from world news, talk shows, youth programming and entertainment shows that did not solely rely on various strains of rap music.

Bob Johnson is a smart man. He built an empire despite the fact that he allowed it to crumble from bad programming. He is too smart to tell us his veiled reference about Obama "doing whatever he was doing in the neighborhood..." was not a direct inference to Obama's past drug use. He seemingly was saying Obama's past drug use separates him from Clinton's ability to lead the United States. This from a man who has one of the only film company in Hollywood, Our Voices, where black American's can greenlight a project and its first offering is the stupifying comedy, "Who's Your Caddy." A film that is no better than the least of what "white Hollywood" has given to its black constituents. How irresponsible is that? Socially, very irresponsible. Financially, a smart move. Draw in kids with loud characters, loud clothes, loud music under a supposed theme of being misunderstood. The bigger coup is that these kids are the ones who advertisers covet; which leads us back to Mr. Johnson's true interests. Money.

There's an old expression about like birds flocking together. Johnson is out for money. Hillary Clinton is out for the power. And some muddied water is fine as long as their bottom lines are met. I would advise Mr. Johnson and Mrs. Clinton to watch the company they keep because soon, they could be the ones with mud in their eye.

Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bob Johnson, Hillary Clinton, James Clyburn, Lyndon Johnson, Martin Luther King, Obama's Fairytale, Race and the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Tim Russert

Well, well. Last night's debate for the Democratic Presidential potentials alerted me to a couple things. One, I'm not sure if a debate with eight candidates is the most effective means for all, but the top candidates to get their message out. Obama, Clinton and Edwards seem to dominate the proceedings, from questions to answers. Which leads to point number two. The limited chances for those candidates not seen at the top of news polls have to make their case in a sound bite or else.

Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel's position that the Democrat were more to blame for the Iraqi war than President Bush. This type of statement, while allowing the candidates to state firmly held beliefs and at the same time get "face time" could serve to undermine whichever Democratic nominee comes out of this process. Senator Clinton's tack of minimizing differences between the Democratic candidates while pointing out the disparity between the GOP and the Democrats is a sound one and one that Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama might employ in as insistant a way as Senator Clinton.

If the candidates at the low end of the media radar need to ravage those at the top, it will only damage the Democratic chances in a general election, strengthening a GOP which, at present time has no clear front runner. The small gang of GOP candidates participating in tomorrow night's debate face similar issues due to the size of the proceedings. No clear front runner has emerged and despite the emergence of Romney and McCain's steady hold on the public consciousness there are too many voices to get a strong sense of individual plans and belief.

So I propose a new paradigm in Presidential debating. Identify, through official polls and popular sentiment the top three candidates from each party, Democrat, Repubican, Green or Independent. All other candidates have debates to see who gets to the main stage. Of course there will be issues with fair access to media time and the like, however, it is far from fair for the American public to be given a smorgasboard of candidates that is high in calories, but low in value.

Labels: Barack Obama, Debate, Demorats, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Republican, Republicans

The New York Times and television news outlets are reporting that Senator Barack Obama is receiving Secret Service protection. He is one of the earliest, if not earliest, recipients of secret service protection in the history of presidential candidacies. No specific reasons were given officially, although CNN reported racial threats divulged in hate correspondences. Allow me to say that I am far from surprised.

What is interesting is that there are still many in America who truly cannot get over the hue of a person's skin or get over their own arrogance in believing that they somehow, by virtue of their "whiteness" deserve more or have more right to accomplishment, power and leadership. In fact the lack of vision or concern of some of these types of Americans denotes, in an of itself, a lack of the quality that produces true leadership, the resulting command of respect and the circumstances that would lead to power or accomplishment in any endeavor.

So in response to those small minds and sadly, even smaller visions, I say, 'run Barack run.'

Labels: Barack Obama, Presidential Election 2008, Racism, Secret Service

Now let me get this straight. David Geffen, in essence, calls Bill Clinton shady and Hillary Clinton unable to galvanize people, therefore throwing his name and financial clout behind Barack Obama and the Clinton campaign team is calling out the Senator from Illinois, demanding he apologize... For statements made by Geffen? Politics are in full effect and we haven't even passed mile one on the marathon to the White House.

Hillary Clinton maintains that she will focus on the issues and not get caught up in the Geffen controversey. But her team, yes the one that she commands is shifting Geffen's comments onto Obama. As Mr. Obama stated, why exactly is he supposed to be apologizing for another man's comments about the Clinton's? They should be after an apology from Geffen himself. But Hillatricks has begun and that program's unstated agenda is to cast Obama as a candidate short on experience, a man who will be a death knell to the DNC's objective of White House attainment based on his black status (Stanley Crouch and Debra Dickerson not withstanding). So shift Geffen's comments off on Obama and put him on the defensive.

Mrs. Clinton was my Senator when I lived in New York. She has long history of controversy on the National and Regional political scenes. After this latest move by her "strategists" that aura of polarization that surrounds her appears to be alive and well. Demanding an apology from Obama for Geffen's comments are clear politics and a harbinger of the brewing fight for America's leadership.

Labels: Barack Obama, Campaign Support, David Geffen, Hillary Clinton

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia recently criticized United States Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's call for American troops to withdraw from Iraq by March 2008. Prime Minister Howard is under the impression that this will bolster the resolve of Terrorists. Well, whether that is a true statement is debatable. What is not debatable is that the Prime Minister of a country that currently has 1,4oo troops in Iraq compared with the upwards of 100,000 America has deployed and the 21,500 more who George Bush plans to deploy, has little room to criticize the big dog in the fight against terrorism.

America has put more troops in harms way and continues to do so, in spite of the seeming fruitlessness of it. Howard's comments denote a critical chasm in thinking. That thinking being that the war on terrorism can be one as a result of a continued conflict in Iraq. The truth is that that eventuality is uncertain at best.

Until the Iraqi governement can stomp out corruption within its ranks, grow a competent military and find a way to accomplish an end to the secterian violence that is sweeping that nation, no amount of American troops will be enough to bring a natural democracy to Iraq. But if Prime Minister Howard feels America should continue to feed the beast of chaos in Iraq he can put at least fifty thousand more of his own military citizens on the table. Senator Obama said fifteen thousand, but a man of resolve like John Howard should be more than willing to display the great strength of his Australia with a major deployment, right?

Labels: Barack Obama, George Bush, Iraq War, John Howard

2007 is here, countdown to presidential election 2008 and I dare say
what is shaping up to be one of the most interesting presidential elections
in my young, but growing old, life. Citizens, there are no stand-ins for the parts we will play in this election. We must show up, on cue and off book. Everybody in, everybody in. This play will be legendary for its socio-political hidden meanings, intellectual spawings and political ideas as presented by an all-star cast.

Introducing the main players...

Hillary Clinton, the female candidate as villain, loved and hated equally by the elite and the regular jane's and Moe's from sea to shining sea; former first lady mired in health care,
real estate and infidelity scandals with a wildly popular husband known as Slick Will.

Barack Obama, the Hendrix-esque rock star who is charismatic, seen as "clean" in the regrettable words of Joe Biden. He's the innovator of political speak; in an age of politicking for points with style and little substance, Obama is the forthright candidate who no one has been able to pin down on the substance of his potential platform. If this were a 1970's comic he would be, The Black Candidate.

John Edwards, country boy politician with a core of steel, burnished in the shadows of Vice Presidential nomination in '04. Running as the candidate for the common man, he has already shocked the competition, putting forth a plan for universal health care for all Americans. He's the can-do man, but can he make it do what it do when it's time for votes to be counted and nominations won?

Joe Biden, as foot-in-mouth or the gaffe-man; undressing his chances before they even have an opportunity to catch the carriage that would have turned back into pumpkin further on the election trail. But every story needs a bumbler for comic relief.

John McCain, the tough talking centrist, running as a republican in this era of Republican as "right" and all the way to the "right." Will his support of more troops in Iraq rally the GOP throng to his cause or turn off a sizable segment of Americans Republican and Democrat who have come to see this war as the quicksand it has become?

Rudy Guiliani, former Mayor of New York, socially liberal, but so hard line in terms of policing and urban renewal during his reign over New York that the "Apple's" black and brown citizen's will tell you the man has no people skills. He has not officially declared, but it seems a matter of time. If he does win I won't leave my house in 50 states without I.D. and my hands in plain view.

Mitt Romney, flip-flopper. As Governor of Massachussetts, when it came to abortion, he was for a woman's right to choose, but since he's running for the GOP nomination, he's realized that he had a change of heart. Who is his campaign advisor, John Kerry?

Truthfully, I'm looking forward to seeing if an independent candidate can present enough votes to be blamed for losing another election for the Democratic or Republican candidates. This country needs an infusion outside the main stream. Obama, could be that, to a degree, but is America ready for a black president or what about a woman president? A Republican president who is occupying the same center Democrats tried to occupy in the 2000 and 2004? Will the Democrats willingly return to their roots on the left and be unapologetic in doing so? How many of her issues will America confront in regards to race, gender and class? There is no room on the fence in '08. Stakes are high, war is stuck in netural in Iraq, a conflict with Iran is being courted by "W", global warming is starting to get the world hot under the collar and terrorism and it's various ways and means are as much a threat today as it was after 9/11.

This country of ours is about to change course in ways that will prove historic and possibly transcendent or tragic. Which outcome Americans see will be determined by the effort everyone of her citizens is willing to contribute in this electoral process. Everyone has a part to play in this production. No American can, in good conscience, sit this election out. With so much on the line and a variety of candidates that have not been seen before (a black man and a female with a legitimate chance for success and Republicans who could be called moderates.) it's imperative that each candidate is researched, given audience, and challenged, not followed down party lines, racial lines, gender lines, or other. This election is about the policy and the plan. Fellow citizens, let's go to work.

Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Presidential Election 2008, Rudolph Guiliani