How He Got Here

Many will say that it took too long for a minority to become the president of the United States of America. But it’s better late than never, as others will say.

President-Elect Barack Obama will become the first bi-racial black and white man to hold the office of Commander-in-Chief.

Many black, and even white, Americans suffered from the racial injustices of evil men of both colors. Many black Americans dared to dream of a better life and some, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., paid with their lives for having such dreams of freedom.

And in so many ways, Obama is the embodiment of that dream of Dr. King’s. His mother was white and his father was black and many Americans voted for him because of his character. Dr. King would have been so proud.

And now, Obama is one of the few Americans who has the power to become a racial bridge of equality and will hopefully establish a more color-blinded society. A growing society that will live up to the dream that Dr. King envision:

That people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

What 2008 Meant To Us

It has certainly been an unforgettable year. America saw its economy slowly sink to near depression levels, but America was also able to look beyond a person's skin color and elect the first bi-racial black man to president of the United States.

The U.S. Presidential Election of '08 highlighted for the first time in recent history that a woman was one of the strongest candidates to possibly enter the White House as the first female president. And while Hillary Clinton did not win the title of Commander-and-Chief, Barack Obama did.

Obama will become the nation's first half-black, half-white president. He is truly a minority among minorities. For a variety of reasons why he was elected, Obama won in a land-slide victory and with that, issuing new hope to a struggling economy and a world caught in the grip of deadly terrorists.

But 2008 also saw the American economy, as well as the world's, slowly decaying into financial ruin. Some people who had wonderful, enterprising jobs are now finding it hard to find a new one, despite their impressive resumes. Many are so desperate for work, they are handing their resumes to strangers in the streets.

But how will 2009 treat us? Well it be the final stroke of economical doom for this country or will it cradle us until the time is right to breathe new life into the nation's financial world?

With wise decisions and fiscal responsibility by all, only time will tell.

Showing Respect For
The New President

Maybe it’s a generational thing. The previous generation was fighting two unpopular wars: a combative one in Vietnam and a civil rights one on the home front.

More than 40 years ago, that young generation was split into two groups: one showing respect for the establishment and the other spitting in its eye.

And as time went by, it seems as if each new generation grew bolder in showing disrespect with elected leaders to the point where it went beyond petty remarks to downright nasty comments.

These new attitudes have become increasingly brazen and shameful towards the president in recent years.

Many Americans, sadly, were atrocious and downright belligerent to President George W. Bush these last eight years, as a recent example.

Many have allowed their political bias to take over, causing them to call Bush stupid, a murderer and a warmonger, with little regard to the fact that he is the President of the United States of America.

A lot of these same people have childishly said that he is not their president because they did not elect him.

And sadly, this same immature demeanor has unjustly been aimed at President-Elect Barack Obama. Because certain people cannot see beyond either his skin color or simply his political beliefs, they have already said that he is not their president.

This type of ignorance is being spread far and wide, from liberals to conservatives, from politicians to voters. It’s the increasing political bias of the people that is creating this near socially accepted disrespect for any elected official.

Believe it or not, there was once a time in this country when saying a discouraging word about any U.S. president would result in a bloody nose by anyone, despite his party affiliation.

But where is that respect now? We must respect whoever is in office, whether we have voted for that person or not. Yes, we can disagree with the president. We would not be called Americans if we ignored our First Amendment rights and kept silent about things we do not agree with. It was not what our forefathers fought for.

However, there is a strong, bold line between disagreeing and being disrespectful. We must bring back that level of respect to our elected officials, especially the ones we disagree with most. If not, it just furthers hateful feelings and severely slows the healing process this country desperately needs.

So I welcome, respect and honor Barack Obama as my new president. But I will also respectfully disagree with any of his policies and decisions with which I may take issue.

Hopefully, all of my fellow Americans will do the same in welcoming Barack Obama into the White House as commander-in-chief. After all, it’s the respectful thing to do.

(Editor's Note: This editorial has been edited for clarification.)

Not Sure Who To Vote For?

This editorial is dedicated to Violet Pinto, my grandmother. She suffered a major heart attack and stroke last week, but according to her doctor yesterday, she’s making very good progress. My 88-year-old grandmother is a Democrat, but it’s from her long conversations about politics with me that have shaped my objectivity of America’s political parties. While a lifelong Democrat, she has always been the first one to call them on any political gaffes, shenanigans, or any other dirty handed deed that they have done. And she’s certainly has given an equal blasting at Republicans for doing the same things. This country would be in far better shape if we had more people like her.


Get well soon Grandmum.

The 2008 presidential election is coming to a close and there is much anticipation about the voting results.

And while many voters have already decided which major candidate they will be voting for, many undecided voters are still scratching their heads over which one to choose: Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain or his political rival, Democratic Presidential Candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The die-hard staff of these candidates have been working hard to cater to undecided voters by giving them pamphlets of information about the candidates and telling them which pro-candidate Web sites they should go to for more information.

And while their intentions are honorable, the information that the supporters are giving out about their candidates are biased, dishonest and/or deceitful.

Most of the information and Web sites do not go into great detail about how the candidates plan to get the money to help fund a lot of the spending that they plan on doing, as one example. And let’s not go into how both Obama and McCain have been less than honest with the American public in their attack ads against each other.

Thankfully, there are many Web sites out there that give unbiased information on McCain and Obama. Hopefully, undecided voters will find the following Web sites useful in deciding which candidate will be the best one to lead our great nation.

And always remember this: An informed voter who gets his or her information from objective sources is far more powerful than the voter who only relies on political bias and sound bytes from the candidates.

www.ontheissues.org

www.factcheck.org

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/

www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/candidate-match-game.htm

www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

www.votebyissue.org/election2008/

Riots If Obama Wins?

I have heard a few disheartening things about black Americans recently. Because Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama has the support of a good number of black voters, allegedly they will riot in celebration if Obama wins the White House.

I've heard this a few times already and even on some talk radio shows and I have to say that I have more faith in my fellow Americans. I don't want to believe that my fellow Americans would resort to becoming drunken college football fans and start to smash cars and loot stores simply because Obama would become the first American, with a strong black heritage, to be president of the United States.

I want to think that black American voters will walk a bit taller if Obama wins the election and rightly so. But I hate to imagine that they would become drunk with jubilation and trash a city or start a riot out of spite because GOP Presidential Candidate John McCain won the election and not Obama.

After all, Obama surely would not want any American to behave in such a disgraceful manner in his name or anyone else's for that matter.

Campaign Ads Discredits
‘Change’ Slogan

For months we have heard Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama saying he is for change for this country. He says that he is not the same as other candidates or politicians in Washington.

And his Republican counterpart, John McCain, has joined the change bandwagon for a while now. After eight years of the Bush Administration, many Americans are not happy where this country is heading and McCain wants to make it clear that he’s not part of the Washington “same old, same old,” group. While he does have a reputation for being a maverick, he has been in Washington for a good number of years too.

But with Obama and McCain trying to desperately convince voters that they are the change this country needs, their actions do not reflect this. Their campaign ads towards each other are just as dirty and underhanded as the countless ones we have seen before in previous election years.

Is this the best our alleged leaders can do? Trash talk about their opponents as if they were running for an elementary school student body election? Can you imagine if you walked into a professional office meeting as a supervisor and start putting down your competitor without offers any real solutions on fixing your company’s product? Any respectable CEO would not allow that type of worker as a supervisor and we should not allow these candidates to act this way either.



But the only way to do that is to stop with the political bias that is so strong with Democratic and Republican supporters. Sure, it’s fine to have party loyalty, but it should not get in the way of fixing the problems that this nation is facing.

And McCain and Obama are their leaders. They should be leading by example, by showing ads and giving speeches that explain in detail how their plans will work and how they will actually change this country for the better. But instead, just like an elementary school student body election, this presidential election, much like others in the past, is very much like a popularity contest.



But let’s be realistic. Many supporters from both parties are too blinded by their candidates to care about the details of fixing this country. For them, a 2-minute sound byte from the local news report is good enough for them and the candidates know this. Essentially, getting elected to be president is as cheap and easy as a McDonald’s ad: Give the people what they think they want in the fastest, simplest way possible.

Which is why it cannot be stressed enough that all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, must demand from their respected candidates to offer the American people something more than a cheap car sale slogan. Yes, researching the candidates’ voting records and any bills they created or sponsored is great and using nonpartisan Web sites is fantastic. But the candidates are making us work too hard to do the job that they are supposed to be doing.

But sadly, this is not how the game is played.

If this is how the game is played in order to win an election, then there is something severely wrong with not only the political process, but also us, the voters, who seem to either tolerate it or are too much in awe of these candidates to care.

The Biden Factor

The wondering has ceased and the political world cannot stop talking about Barack Obama’s choice to be his vice presidential running mate, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden.

Many Hillary Clinton supporters are no doubt furious that the presumed Democratic nominee did not choose the New York senator, but it was a calculated maneuver that he had to take. As it has been mentioned before, having a double-minority ticket would be too much for some closed-minded Americans to accept.

In addition, many are already having a hard time swallowing the hypocrisy of having Clinton throwing support to the Illinois senator after hearing from her about how unqualified he is to be president during the long campaign trail.

But sadly, many of us have to deal with a double dose of that hypocrisy, because Biden too has said that Obama does not have what it takes to be president. And that’s not all he said.

“I am not running for vice president,” Biden said at the time, as a Democratic presidential candidate himself, in an August 2007 interview with FOX News. “I would not accept it if anyone offered it to me. The fact of the matter is I’d rather stay as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee than be vice president.”

Of course Biden would take it. Not too many politicians would refuse to have that job title. But that is something that Obama has to be concerned about: Biden’s infamous “running of the mouth.” Who can forget in a February 2007 interview that the Delaware senator said this to his possible future boss?

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man,” Biden said in a New York Observer article. That “openness” created a backlash and it just might cost Obama his chance at the White House.

However, Biden does have a lot to offer as vice president because of his long history of being in the Senate. And his liberal voting record may help Hillary supporters swallow the bitter pill that Obama picked someone else, but who does mirror Clinton’s views.

Biden’s experience will clearly help Obama’s inexperience and he can certainly guide him on important issues. But this grandfatherly portrayal just might magnify Obama’s inability to lead this nation.

Only time will tell if Obama made a wise choice in Biden.

Yet, Obama seems to be one step ahead of his Republican counterpart, John McCain. The Arizona senator is expected to announce his own vice presidential running mate soon, but Obama made sure he beat him to the punch by doing it first. It shows that Obama is more organized than McCain and the Democratic Duo has already politically attacked him.

McCain will have to make a quick recovery and wisely choose his partner if he hopes to overcome an Obama-Biden ticket in November.

Clinton’s Name On Nomination List

Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s name has been placed on the nomination list for the Democratic Convention for symbolic reasons.

Now, it couldn’t be that symbolic if it took both her and presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama (or their people anyway) weeks to negotiate to have her name on the nomination list in the first place. If it really meant something, it would have taken less than an hour to place her John Hancock on the list if it was really that symbolic.

Sure, it’s a nice thing to do for a political loser. But the reality is it’s like giving a kid who came in second in a bowling contest a small, cheap plastic trophy cup, while the winner gets a solid-gold statue of himself. That’s what it really boils down to: They placed Clinton’s name on the list just to stroke her badly hurt ego.

Because what type of “emblematic” meaning is there behind getting Clinton’s name on the list? Sure, it’s to recognize “the former first lady’s groundbreaking presidential run.”

But it’s not like Clinton is the first woman to run for president. Sure, you can call it “groundbreaking,” but that’s only because Hillary Clinton is easily the most recognizable woman in politics. It’s her celebrity-like recognition and status that allowed her to go so far and not solely because she’s a woman. Don’t believe me? Go ask Caroline P. Killeen or Cynthia McKinney how their campaign for president is going.

However, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that symbolism is the only reason why Clinton’s name is on the list. Her name is on there just to make her disgruntled backers happy and hopefully convince them that Obama isn’t such a bad sport and back him for now on. Because a lot of them are still extremely bitter that Obama basically won his party’s nomination.

When Hillary Clinton entered this race, I wrote that it would be a wild ride. She hasn’t let me down yet.

Can Edwards Recover
From Affair Scandal?

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ dreams of being Barack Obama’s vice president are shattered after he admitted to having an affair with 44-year-old novice filmmaker Rielle Hunter, reported ABC News today.

It has been speculated that meetings with Obama and then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a few months back after dropping out of the race that Edwards would be their choice for vice president. That speculation was further fueled when Edwards endorsed Obama this past May.

While Edwards’ experience in the Senate and in politics in general would have made him a very attractive candidate for the VP position, having an affair on his terminally ill wife would turn down even the most morally challenged politician. Granted, Edwards told ABC News that his wife’s cancer was in remission during his affair, but that isn’t how some people are going to see the 2006 fling.

And when the National Enquirer first reported on this recently, it was reported that Edwards fathered a child with Hunter, but Edwards’ former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has stated that he is the baby’s father.

Now, what does this really mean for Edwards’ political career? It will hurt him, but he can recover from it like Bill Clinton. Clinton had numerous alleged affairs, not including the Monica Lewinsky one, and he’s approval ratings were still quite good. America still loved him.

With Edwards background of helping the lower class and the poor, he is basically a media darling in that regard. Whatever political faults he may have, Edwards’ heart is in the right place when it comes to people in need. Many might easily forgive Edwards for his affair and say he was under stress of losing his wife Elizabeth before hand. Some might see that as a “noble” and understanding cause of running into another woman’s arms.

By no means is this an excuse for Edwards to cheat on his wife, but merely how some will see it. Besides, Edwards is no Eliot Spitzer, the former New York Democratic governor who was caught with a call girl earlier this year.

However, there seems to be more to this than meets the eye. Hunter, who was hired in 2006 to film campaign videos for Edwards, had been living under false names while she was pregnant and lived in expensive homes in North Carolina and California, according to ABC News. Her baby girl was born on Feb. 27 of this year.

And Edwards claimed that he has not paid any money to keep Hunter silent about their affair, “but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him,” ABC News reported Edwards as saying, a former North Carolina senator.

(Editor's note: It an updated story, ABC News has reported that Edwards' 2008 national finance chairman Fred Baron stated that he gave "assistance" to Hunter without the former senator's knowledge, according to an e-mail sent by him to the news network late on Friday.)

And Edwards also told ABC News that he did not tell his wife of the famous Beverly Hills Hilton meeting with Hunter last month.

It is only a matter of time before the whole truth comes out. Edwards just has to take his medicine that the media onslaught and his wife will give him before he even considers entering politics again.

McCain’s Sleazy Campaign Ads

Recently, Paris Hilton created her own ad to counterattack presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s ad that compared the heiress and celebrity with his political foe.

Yes, McCain has launched some sleazy ads against his Democratic presumed presidential counterpart, Barack Obama. Because of certain things that Obama has said, McCain had campaign ads that linked the Illinois Senator with airhead celebrities or is the next political Messiah.

And yes, these campaign ads are sleazy and tactless. Sadly, they do not begin and end with John McCain. All politicians from both sides of the political aisle enjoy launching their attack ads at their opponents.

But who is it really for? Are these ads for die-hard political supporters with their rose-colored glasses locked on? It’s only these people who usually eat up these ads, but where does it leave the rest of us who are looking beyond these political shenanigans and want real substance from the people who want to be our next president?

People like us would rather have McCain and Obama spend their money more wisely by telling us what their plans are for this country with its crumbling economy and facing a global terror war. But instead, they would rather childishly criticize each other than offer real solutions to the problems we face.

And the real sad part is that Paris Hilton made more sense in her mock campaign ad than either McCain or Obama in their attempts to fix the oil crisis.

Paris Hilton For President - Wait What?!!

But no, that does not appear to be what these candidates are after. As one reader told me in the last presidential election while I was an editor of a newspaper, “It seems as if the candidates spend more time telling us how bad the other guy is.”

And that’s exactly right. Last week we had Obama falsely accusing McCain and President Bush of planning on using racial scare tactics and offered no real proof of them doing it. And McCain has been telling us that a star-struck Obama would not make a good president.

If candidates are unwilling to give voters more informative campaign ads that tell us how they are going to make their plans work for Americans, than at the very least, stop with the tasteless attack ads. By doing so, these candidates insult our intelligence.

NY Times Attacks McCain
For Defending Himself

I want to say this burns my bacon, but to be honest, it explodes it.

The New York Times’ editorial board wrote an opinion piece about Barack Obama accusing John McCain and President Bush of using or planning on using racial scare tactics. But while many would think that they would go after Obama, they instead attack John McCain for firing back at Obama’s false accusations.

First, they claim that McCain’s attack ad of comparing Obama with drunken celebrity Britney Spears was a “racially tinged attack” on the Illinois senator. How they make this great leap of illogic, The New York Times makes a weak case for it.

While there has been no real evidence that McCain has or will use race against Obama, The New York Times decides to paint him guilty of racial attacks anyway by associating the Arizona senator with a few dirty Republicans who allegedly used a racial attack on black Senator candidate Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. The ads against Ford “juxtaposed” him with white women, according to The New York Times.

However, the only ad that I could find that’s against Ford isn’t a racial attack at all and it’s still a weak comparison with McCain’s ad, because if you’re going to sleazily compare a presidential candidate with an airhead celebrity, who better than Britney Spears? It seems like a good case of The New York Times seeing things that aren’t there.

Is John McCain's political ad a racial attack against Obama? The New York Times seems to think so.

And instead of attacking Obama for his obvious and false racial assault on not only McCain but President Bush, The New York Times goes after McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis when he defensively said, “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.”

Now, it’s interesting that The New York Times doesn’t have a problem with, “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” but they’re having kittens over what Davis said.

Because according to The New York Times, Davis’ statement conjures up a “loaded racial image” of Robert Shapiro during the famous O.J. Simpson murder case when he said, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”

But isn’t that what Obama did? He blatantly played that card and it was from the bottom of the deck because it was a low thing to do to accuse our nation’s president and another politician of using racial scare tactics and don’t offer any solid proof.

The New York Times not only kicked John McCain when he was down after being falsely accused of being a racist by his political opponent, but they stomped on him for trying to defend himself from Obama’s baseless attacks.

It’s bad enough that they turn a blind eye against Obama’s despicable statements, but they also made a feeble argument that McCain will use racial attacks simply because he is guilty by association because of what fellow Republicans allegedly did in Tennessee.

This sadly certainly gives credence to what many McCain supporters have been saying about Obama: He’s a Teflon candidate that the media simply loves too much to be objective with.

But more importantly, The New York Times just destroyed its own credibility when they attacked the victim and not the attacker.

Obama: McCain Will
Use Racial Tactics

In a speech yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama said his opponent Sen. John McCain and his fellow Republicans will use scare tactics on voters to persuade them not to vote for him, including racial ones.

“So what (President Bush and McCain are) going to try to do is make you scared of me,” said the presumed Democratic presidential nominee to a crowd in Springfield, Mo., Wednesday, as reported by the Associated Press. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

It is extremely disgraceful that Obama would make a false claim that McCain and our own President would use racial fear during the campaign even though there has been no evidence of either one of them, or other elected Republican officials, of doing that.

And if they did do that, it would be all over the news and right here. Does anyone honestly think that McCain or Bush, or any other type of politician, would commit political suicide by even barely mentioning Obama’s mixed heritage as a reason for not voting for him?

And what’s hypocritical is that while Obama is allegedly saying that McCain will be using race to his own advantage, Obama is doing the same thing by saying these false allegations.

This is a disgusting display of dirty politics at one of its lowest forms. How can Obama even say such a thing and he does not even bat an eye when he’s doing the same thing himself?

The Times Observer has written many editorials and columns in defense of Obama when he has been racially attacked. So there is a good record of sticking up for him when it was just, however, this time there is no defense for him when he accuses our President and his fellow presumed presidential opponent of racial attacks while there is no proof of either of them doing so.

It’s common for politicians during an election to flip-flop on positions, to make false allegations against their political foes and use just about every clean and dirty trick in the book to win votes.

However, to actually accuse an opponent and the President of the United States of America of saying that they are going to use a person’s race against him is extremely low.

It makes one wonder why politicians even bother to make such repulsive, groundless statements to begin with, since they are usually called on them and shown them to be a lie or untrue. Perhaps they do it just to win over voters and make a grand impression on them and in this case, get a pity vote.

For someone who keeps saying that “change” is needed for D.C., Obama again shows that he’s acting like a typical politician out for votes and it would be hard for his supporters to refute his shameful attack on McCain and President Bush without real evidence of them using race against the Senator.

And what’s more important, how can Obama bridge the racial divide in this country when his false attacks like this further spread it?

Obama’s Other ‘Change’

While saying that he is not the typical politician, Barack Obama sure does act like one.

On the presumed Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign Web site, any mention of the troop surge in Iraq has been removed from it, according to CBS News.

Obama was a strong opponent of the troop surge in Iraq when President Bush mentioned it in January 2007.

“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” Obama said at the time. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

However, since then, the troop surge has been credited for curtailing the violence from the insurgents. Yet Obama still feels that the troop increase was not worth it, which is contradictory, considering the new added sentence to his Web site.

It states that as president, Obama “would reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress genocidal violence within Iraq.”

So according to Obama, any military action is OK if he does it, but not by a Republican president.

For months Obama has been telling Americans how he’s not the average D.C. politician who says anything for a vote and will clean up Washington.

But he is doing just that by erasing key things that he has said himself just because it conflicts with the reality of what’s going on in Iraq.

Apparently, Obama’s “change” isn’t that much different from the typical politician when faced with things that make him look bad and inexperienced.

Obama Tells Blacks
To Be More Responsible

Just like comedian Bill Cosby and Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington, presumed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is telling black Americans to be more responsible for themselves at the annual NAACP convention.

And this is why the Rev. Jesse Jackson said that he wanted to cut off Obama’s male anatomy. But these are some hard truths that need to be heard, especially coming from a black presidential candidate who is trying to bridge the racial divide in this country.

And Obama is one out of many shining examples of a minority working hard to get where he or she is at.

And working hard is a key thing, because if black Americans do not pull themselves by their bootstraps than no amount of government programs will help them.

“Because I believe that in the end, it doesn’t matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch — none of it will make any difference if we don’t seize more responsibility in our own lives,” Obama said, as reported by the Associated Press.

This is great advice for all Americans and things that needed to be heard. Because even the most well-intentioned white man who said these same things would unjustly be called a racist and quickly ignored. Obama is wisely using his presidential political status to good use. Maybe if Jackson took more initiative like this years ago, the black community would be in a better place than it is today.

It cannot be denied that white Americans for far too long have kept the black man down, but since the Civil Rights Act was created, many whites have worked hard to correct the evil that their kind have done against their fellow Americans. Sadly, many whites still do not see blacks as equal or deserving of basic rights that all Americans should have and enjoy.

Yet, Obama is at least trying hard to correct past mistakes made by some in the black community. He is certainly a new member of a growing choir conducted by Cosby.

If elected president, Obama would force many whites to look differently at blacks and it would force many black Americans to look differently at themselves.

Obama’s Other Reverend Problem

It’s not the first time that some in the black community thought that presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama was not white enough and the Rev. Jesse Jackson just added some fuel to that quiet fire.

Jackson thought his microphone was off while he was on a FOX News program when he answered UnitedHealth Group executive Dr. Reed V. Tuckson’s question about the Democratic senator’s speeches on faith-based programs.

“See, Barack’s been talking down to black people ... I want to cut his nuts off,” he whispered to Tuckson and ultimately to the nation as well.

Of course Jackson quickly apologized to Obama once he learned that his comments were recorded and were going to be aired. And of course Obama accepted Jackson’s apology. After all, whatever hard feelings the two may have for each other, Obama is still a politician and he realizes that Jackson will help him carry the black vote.

But this is not the first time that Jackson attacked Obama. Jackson said in an interview last September that Obama was “acting like he’s white” for not bringing more attention to the Jena 6 case.

Will these recent racial attacks from Jackson hurt Obama’s run for the Oval Office? Since he weathered the Rev. Wright controversy basically unscathed, this should not damage his chances for the White House.

But quiet rumblings about how black Obama is and where his loyalties should be have plagued him for a long time. In November 2006, black columnist Stanley Crouch wrote a piece called “What Obama Isn’t: Black Like Me.” He said that because Obama’s black father was from Kenya and his mother was white, the senator does not understand the struggles the typical black American has faced since the days of slavery.

What many do not understand, especially Jackson, is that Obama’s parental background will help bridge the differences between the two races. If one thought that being black in America was hard than imagine how tough it is for a biracial man trying to find his identity and not wholeheartedly accepted by either community. Jackson’s attacks are evidence of that.

And while it’s typical for a candidate to cater to one particular group to gain votes that does not mean that candidate has to exclude other groups, which is something that Jackson does not understand. This country is a rainbow of people that needs to be addressed and recognized by anyone running for president.

Obama has his many faults but he cannot help his background anymore than we can. The question shouldn’t be: “Is Obama black enough?” The question needs to be: “Is he right enough for this country as a whole?”

Because if the former question is given more importance than the latter, than that is a racist question that will further divide this country no matter who says it.

And Then There Was Truly One …

Presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain can breathe a little easier now that fellow GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has finally quit the race.

It is a sign of relief for McCain, because the U.S. representative from Texas could have pulled a Ralph Nader and ran as an independent, stealing precious votes away from the Arizona senator.

And he would have given McCain a run for his money. Granted, Paul was failing to achieve the same level of supporters, delegates or donations that McCain has, but according to the Associated Press, Paul “raised large amounts of money online and developed a huge grass-roots following.”

In addition, in an open letter to supporters, Paul stated he gained “1.1 million votes in the primaries.” He didn’t win a state, but that’s a number that’s hard to ignore.

While Paul should have stepped out of the race a long time ago, we should not write him off. He struck a cord with a great many Americans, especially Libertarians, Democrats, and independents, who became disenfranchised with the Iraq war, big government spending and what they feel is the desecration of the Constitution. And let’s not forget Republicans who joined Paul's flock.

This is a man who throughout his long political career has stuck to his guns on issues that even his fellow Republican leaders wished would go away. Paul brought up issues that many wanted buried and pointed an accusatory finger at anyone, including fellow GOP members, who were not standing right by Americans.

America has lost out on not having a man with Ron Paul’s integrity in the White House, but Ron Paul has not given up on America. Despite his huge defeat by McCain, Paul has decided to create the “Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.” He plans to educate Americans about various topics, like free markets and non-interventionism, and will support candidates that share his political views.

And while he lost the political race, Paul is not giving up on who he is. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who gave her full endorsement to presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama, Paul refuses to endorse McCain because he does not think the senator is the best choice for America.

Like him or not, you have to admire this man for his gumption. America could use a good dose of reality from a politician like Paul.

Kucinich’s Impeachment Quest May Hurt Obama’s White House Bid

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush. But his quest to remove the President from office may hurt presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s own quest to win the 2008 election.

What was the reaction by his fellow Democrats? They pretty much opposed the former presidential candidate’s futile efforts. In fact, Democratic leaders are expected to table the resolution by referring it to the Judiciary Committee, where they hope it will be buried and forgotten.

The articles deals with such things as the Iraq war, global warming, allegedly holding American citizens and “foreign captives” (let’s call them terrorists) illegally, voting rights, and President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina, just to name a few. But let’s focus on the Iraq war.

Now, let’s forget a few things about why the impeachment will fail, such as how the U.N. never enforced its own resolutions against former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, so no one knew if he really had his weapons of mass destruction. Or that the U.N. voted in agreement to the resolution that Saddam still had WMD.

Or how former President Bill Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox to deal with Saddam’s weapons programs, after Iraq failed, again, to provide U.N. weapons inspectors with an honest account of them. Or how there were reports that Saddam shipped his WMD to Syria before the 2003 war.

But let’s remember that a great number of Democrats who said many times during the buildup of the war that Saddam was a danger to America and the world with his deadly weapons. Did they lie too? They saw the same information that the President saw. So, does that mean there will be an impeachment for Bush and the Democrats?

And more importantly, this will not only shatter Obama’s chances for the White House, but the Democrat’s as well. Why?

Obama was strongly against going into Iraq from the very start. And here is a speech he gave in October 2002 at an anti-war rally that will probably come back to haunt him:

“(Saddam) has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him,” the possible future president said nearly six years ago.

Now, if Kucinich’s goal is to get rid of President Bush from the White House, it could also rid the Democrats’ goal from getting into it.

This is why House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and fellow Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have said that they would not pursue impeachment charges against the President. Because not only will it air the Democrat’s dirty laundry that a good number of them voted to give President Bush the power to go to war, but it will show how they are not unified if their presumed nominee was against going to war.

And more importantly, Obama’s speech is a huge weapon against him. He said that Saddam had WMD and knew that Saddam was a threat to the world and that U.N. resolutions were useless against the bloody dictator. But he didn’t think removing him was important enough for America’s safety.

Wow. What a thing to say. Because the Republicans can highlight this speech and point to Obama’s global inexperience and how he should not be the one to answer the phone about a national security threat at 3 a.m.

Granted, the President should have handled the war better. He should have given the U.N. weapons inspectors a lot more time before considering military use. His administration should not have allowed retired generals and other former military leaders to sell the war to TV networks. But it still boils down to one thing: At the time, we found ourselves in a global terror war and we needed to know once and for all whether or not Saddam had those weapons. And because Kucinich opened up this can of worms, the Democrats are going to have a hard time putting the lid back on.

Kucinich is the little engine that shouldn’t. He either does not realize or care that he is sabotaging his party’s chances for the White House. And Kucinich is showing how ineffective Obama will be as a Commander-In-Chief.

Kucinich’s impeachment crusade is like Don Quixote’s battle with the windmill: There is nothing there that warrants these charges.

Clinton Calls It Quits, No Big Surprise

Sen. Hillary Clinton, certainly one of the most powerful Democrats to seek her party’s nomination since her husband, Bill Clinton, quit her quest for the White House as first woman president.

But it was not that big of a story. The media was reporting since Wednesday that Clinton was expected to step out of the race and would endorse her one-time foe since Sen. Barack Obama seemingly won the nomination. And it did not come to a great surprise that she would urge her faithful supporters to switch sides and join Obama.

However, one had to hold their nose at the blatant hypocrisy when Clinton threw her endorsement and support to Obama. After all, she was the one who said that the Illinois senator was “irresponsible and frankly naïve.” Certainly not the words of encouragement she had for him then. But that’s the world of politics.

But it can be said that Hillary Clinton did the decent thing today by stepping out of the race and not prolonging it by taking it to the Democratic National Convention in August, as she vowed to do.

But just because there were no big surprises today in Clinton’s speech, it was still a historic moment in history.

“Though we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you it’s got about 18 million cracks in it,” Clinton told her audience from the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C., as reported by CNN.

This is the first time in American history that a woman was very close to getting her party’s nomination. But the best person won, a biracial black man, who also made history by getting his party’s nomination.

The cracks of equality will not be easy to ignore when we all either look up or down at the glass ceiling.

Clinton-Obama Meeting Stirs VP Rumors

Rumors are spreading today as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are holding a not-so secret meeting.

So far, no one in the know has revealed what the two are discussing. However, we have New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Clinton supporter, saying she will accept the vice president’s position if it’s offered to her. No kidding and no big surprise there.

Then we have Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson saying, “She is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her.” Bull. Of course she’s trying to get the position. No one can seriously believe that she isn’t.

In fact, tomorrow Clinton is expected to make her official announcement that she’s stepping out of the race and will endorse Obama. That might be a good time for the two of them to announce together that they decided to put their differences aside, forget to mention the dirty attacks on each other, and tell America that there will indeed be an Obama-Clinton ticket.

It has already been discussed how an Obama-Clinton ticket could hurt the presumed Democratic presidential nominee. But it has been mentioned that one of the key things that could help the Illinois senator is the huge amount of die-hard supporters that Clinton can give him.

Whatever experiences Hillary Clinton has, it’s her supporter base that will be more beneficial to Obama. And it’s something that he is surely considering.

Granted, Clinton has also served on many committees while as senator of New York, such as Committee on Armed Services, Committee on Budget and Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, just to name a few. And she is also a commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

So those credentials might be useful as well for Obama. However, she seemingly does not have the great number of years behind her as an elected official and just as important, Clinton does not have any experience holding an international title that would help Obama’s lack of one. He simply does not have any global leadership experience.

Yes, Obama has gone overseas as a U.S. senator and has been involved in important meetings and speeches. But he lacks experience that comes with years of being in office. Now, as mentioned before, one of the people who would be better suited to help Obama in the international department is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Richardson can be a very attractive person to have by your side.

After all, educated voters do look at what the vice presidential nominee can bring to the table.

However, if Obama only cares about winning the race, then he might very well bring Clinton on as vice president and use her supporters only as a giant stepping stone to the White House. Once there, he can have his pick of the best political and international advisors. But it’s hard to imagine Clinton just silently sitting by the sidelines. There will be a lot of headbutting between the two until they can reach a resolve, hopefully.

And let’s pretend that they will make an announcement tomorrow about a joint union, then that gives them a big jump start in their campaign against GOP presumed nominee John McCain, who has not announced his own vice president as of yet.

With politics, you never know what’s going to happen next, but rumors do make things more interesting before anything is official.

Hillary Clinton’s Shattered Dreams?

Poor Hillary Clinton. When she unsurprisingly entered this race in January of 2007, the New York Senator probably thought that by tonight, she would be giving her victory speech to her enduring fans and supporters, after clinching the majority of the delegates. She was supposed to be the first female nominated presidential candidate in U.S. history.

But not all dreams come true, because out of nowhere, came Barack Obama, the young, charismatic junior senator from Illinois who stole Clinton’s dream. He wowed Democrats and the nation with his charms and offered a fresh new look to the tired, old faces that we were all too used to seeing.

But regardless of Obama’s entrance, why isn’t she preparing her victory speech tonight? Because for the large part, it’s been her undoing. Clinton played too much dirty politics, with trying to label Obama as a Muslim, to claiming she was under sniper fire but wasn’t, and when her aides were caught giving soft-ball questions to audience members to ask her during speeches. And let’s not forget about those teary-eyed incidents. Plus, getting into the two candidates’ policies would be very time consuming to get into.

These poor excuses used to run part of her campaign and combined with Obama’s dynamic entrance to this race made Democrats leave her side and join his ranks. Democrats in political boards right now hope that Hillary will lose the nomination to Obama, and that speaks volumes about the New York senator and her lack of unifying her party.

Many believed that because of her large female support, she would be a shoe-in for not only her party’s nomination but the White House. But even that wasn’t enough to lead her to a victory speech tonight.

It’s surprising that after years of being in law, as a governor’s wife and then a president’s wife, one would think that Hillary Clinton would have learned some critical lessons and mistakes made by politicians she has met. Many expected her to be in top form, a well-polished politician who knew what to say and what to do in a major election.

Surprisingly, this was not the case. She dropped the ball too many times and made an embarrassing spectacle of herself. Who knows what would have happened if she ran a cleaner, a more well-oiled campaign. But at the moment, it looks as if we’ll never know.

So, with one shattered dream down, another one like the legendary phoenix will arise: Clinton’s new goal is to become Obama’s vice president, if the media reports are true.

But when the dust settles tonight and Hillary Clinton walks into her bathroom to get ready for bed, what will she see when she looks in the mirror? What will her reflection reveal to her? Maybe she’ll think about the poor choices that she made that led to her failed campaign. Or maybe she’ll think of ways to blame her losing race on someone else and save those “excuses” some time later.

But will Hillary Clinton admit that the one candidate that made her lose her most precious goal was not Barack Obama but herself?