NewView

Missed Opportunities

“A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used.”

--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.--

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”

--Abraham Lincoln--

"A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions."

--Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.--

When history books are written about this election cycle many historians will write about how the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary made history and may have even shattered barriers. Volumes will be written about how Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s candidacies broke open barriers for African-Americans and women. I look forward to reading or even writing those volumes, but the truth is that the country has missed golden opportunities to deal with subjects and issues that are long overdue for attention. And the main reasons the opportunities have been missed are due to our cowardice and the media’s lack of back bone.

This election cycle has already presented a golden opportunity to face at least two ugly realities in our community and our country. One reality is that there is little to no diversity and courage in our media. The other is that we as a community and a country are easily manipulated by both major political parties as well as individual politicians because we punish the people that raise issues we do not want to hear when it is necessary to hear them and reward people that tell “us” what we want to hear when that is the last thing we need.

We as Americans are cowards at times because many times we do not want to face harsh realities about ourselves. The harsher the reality the less willing we are to face it and the media is more than willing to help us avoid it by telling “us” what we want to hear instead of what we need to hear. Our knee jerk reactions are used against our better judgment to manipulate our emotions to vote based on fear, prejudice, and hubris instead of wisdom, experience, and strength. Haven’t we finally learned the lessons of manipulation from our country’s decision to go into Iraq?

The number one culprit in the knee-jerk reactions derby is the media. The media is littered with too little diversity and too much cowardice. The media usually presents many faces, but only one perspective. When I say lack of diversity I am not referring just to the racial, economic, or gender make up of the media. I am referring to the lack of diversity of perspectives. The media seems to suffer from a bad case of the group think syndrome. Many times members of the media act as if they can not fathom any other perspective regardless of how legitimate it may be. It is not about who is right or wrong. The issue is whether the people need to hear different perspectives. In almost every case I think the country is always better off by being exposed to a diversity of perspectives.

The controversy surrounding the comments by Rev. Wright is a perfect example of the media’s lack of diversity of perspective. Rev. Wright is perceived as an un-American, hateful, and deeply flawed person because the media never addressed the glaring question of whether Rev. Wright’s comments accurately depicted his views or was manipulated to give a false message. The reason I call the media a coward for refusing to raise the possibility that the comments were taken out of context is that is what they normally do in a situation where there are controversial comments. The media will usually air the comments in order to stir up ratings then try to objectively place the comments within the context that they were given. Then the media will allow both sides of the debate to address the comments. Today on Meet the Press the media did that with the ad that the DNC is airing against John McCain that gives the impression that he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. The ad shows McCain stating that the U.S. could be in Iraq “for maybe a 100 years” but Tim Russet quickly pointed out McCain’s assertion that according to the transcripts from the town hall meeting where McCain made the comments that the comments where taken out of context. That was the correct thing to do. That was the professional thing to do. That was the informative thing to do. I do no think that was ever done for the comments by Rev. Wright. Why?

I believe the media has not extended the same objective coverage in the case of Rev. Wright because of fear of a backlash from people that will hurt their ratings. There is a war of ratings that is being waged between the three major cable news networks: MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. Fox news is on its own program. It is clear that they have bias political coverage against democrats and liberals. That is nothing new so I do not blame them for their bias coverage that was way over the top against Rev. Wright. However, MSNBC and CNN are another story. Both networks addressed the issue by having debates between the right and the left on the issue. I did not see anyone from the networks take an objective view of the comments and parse fact from fiction regarding the entire sermons and the real message. The media has instead chosen to continue to give a three to five second snippet from an hour long sermon and pretend that the misinterpreted comments are an accurate depiction of Rev. Wright’s message on that particular day. That is why the controversy is still alive and well because no one in the media has taken the time to separate the myth from the fact.

I have seen several guest commentators such as Roland Martin, Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, or Joe Madison that raised the perspective that the comments were grossly taken out of context and manipulated in order to prey upon some deeply rooted prejudices and suspicions about black folks in hopes of attacking Barack Obama. The only problem is that those commentators’ views are easily dismissed because the rest of the main stream media seem to embrace the perspective that Rev. Wright’s comments were controversial and therefore wrong, instead of manipulated, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

However, there is still time for someone from the media to show some courage and address the comments in the context that they were given instead of the context that they have been edited.

Complete Relief

“Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

--Friedrich Nietzsche--

“It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.”

--Voltaire--

“The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.”

--William H. Borah--

We have heard a lot of talk from both candidates for the Democratic Nomination for the Office of the President of the United States of America about the need for government action to address the mortgage crisis that is sweeping across this country. However, I have yet to hear about a part of the solution that must be included in order to give relief to millions of home owners. That is an immediate repeal or amendment of the Bankruptcy Act of 2005.

Both candidates for the Democratic Nomination have talked about the need for a bail out for home owners that have sub-prime loans where their payments have exploded to levels where they can not afford to make them and pay the rest of their bills. I do believe that something must be done to specifically address the issues that were created by an industry that wanted to prey upon a simple need to own a house. However, there are plenty of home owners as well as renters that are being pushed to the wall of homelessness or forced to retreat back home with their parents or other family members because they can not afford to pay all of their bills and they have no workable recourse under the law. They have no recourse under the law because the current Bankruptcy Law favors creditors and makes it difficult to discharge debt especially if you are a home owner.

Due to the current law people are locked into a debt structure and have no opportunity for relief so they could be forced to choose between paying their mortgage payments or their grocery bill. People are losing their homes because they can not afford to make their mortgage payments and the rest of their daily bills. One good way to give people permanent relief is to give them a chance to get out from under their debts if it becomes too much for them to bear. That is why the current Bankruptcy Law must be changed.

Under the current Bankruptcy Law many hard working people that can no longer pay all of their bills are forced into a Chapter 13 repayment system that may still saddle them with a repayment plan that they still can not make. This should be changed immediately!!!

A few changes to the current Law could mean relief for millions of people that are being forced out of their homes because they can no longer make all the payments on their daily debt. 1) The Law should be changed to provide a federal homestead exemption of at least $25,000 or the state exemption, whichever is higher. The homestead exemptions could also be increased at the state level by the state legislatures. 2) The Law should be changed to shift the burden of proving fraud from the filer to the creditors by eliminating the means test. 3) The Law should be changed to remove the prohibition of people with “high incomes” from being able to file bankruptcy under Chapter 7 when they have high non-dischargeable debts such as student loans and/or child support. 4) The Law should be changed back to valuing property by what it could be sold for at an emergency sale. 5) The Law should be changed to remove the requirement that people that file bankruptcy under Chapter 13 have to give a portion of their income to the IRS, instead of just submitting a repayment plan to the trustee.

The American people should require all of the Presidential Candidates to address the Bankruptcy issue along with the mortgage crisis. We should also make every senator and representative that voted for the current Bankruptcy Law to explain their vote. They should also be required to explain why they voted for a law that was labeled as The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, but instead was the Credit Card Industry Protection Act of 2005.

The Banking and Credit Card Industries gave more than $100 million dollars in political donations to lawmakers between 1999 and 2005. The credit card and banking industries said they needed the changes because they were saddled with annual losses of $3-4 billion due to well-off consumers taking advantage of loopholes in the old law to rack up and walk away from unpaid loans. Yet, they still retained enough profits to be able to make such huge political donations over a six year period. The reality is that the lawmakers that voted for the current Bankruptcy Law chose moneyed interests over the best interests of the American people and now we as a country are suffering the consequences. Maybe it is time that we as a country turned the tables and forced our lawmakers to correct their mistake.

All About the Delegates

“People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.”

--A. J. Liebling--

“Once a newspaper touches a story, the facts are lost forever, even to the protagonists.”

--Norman Mailer--

“I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.”

--Thomas Jefferson--

The Clintons have done it again with a little help from Saturday Night Live (“SNL”). They have somehow turned water into wine. They have spun straw into gold. They have made mountains from mole hills. They have cajoled, prodded, and bullied the media into doing their dirty work. They did it while accusing the media of being biased against them. The Clintons have baited the media into turning away from the real story that Hillary Clinton did not close the gap in pledged delegates and instead focused on her wins in states where she was supposed to win.

The Clintons have played the media like a musical genius using a finely tuned instrument. They have used the media to define her as the experienced candidate, although in reality she is not. They have used the media to define Barack Obama as a man of rhetoric instead of a politician with some experience and a will to return the process back to the American people. They have used the media to define which states matter and which do not. And they have done all of this while playing the victim.

Hillary Clinton has the benefit of all the resources of an incumbent President that was hugely popular. She was the frontrunner a full Presidential cycle before she ran. She started with a huge advantage over everyone in the field in name recognition, in addition to having the last name of the last Democratic President and also a two term President. She also had a favorable primary schedule that front loaded many of the larger states in the primary process that gave her the advantage since she was the frontrunner. And even with all those advantages, she still has the audacity to play the victim card and actually get away with it. On Tuesday, March 4, 2008, she pulled off her biggest slight of hand. Her campaign was able to maneuver the media away from discussions about the numerical reality that she faces and instead focused on the bottom line of who won which race instead of the all important delegate count. The media did this even though Hillary Clinton won in states where she was supposed to and saw huge leads in Ohio and Texas evaporate. That is not a bad deal for a candidate that claims to be the victim of media bias.

Prior to the SNL skit that portrayed the media as being hard on Hillary while being soft on Barack the media discussed Hillary Clinton’s Herculean challenge. After the SNL skit the media discussed Hillary Clinton’s comeback. By the way, Tina Fey, one of the writers of SNL, is a Hillary Clinton supporter, but no one from the media took the time to point that little fact out. An objective numerical analysis of the delegate count prior to Tuesday’s primaries demonstrated that Hillary Clinton needed to win all four states by a very wide margin in order to have a chance of earning her party’s nomination via the electoral process. The truth is that she did not come close to achieving any of those objectives in any of the four states, but it did not matter because the media shifted its coverage from the delegate count to the portrayal of Hillary Clinton as an underdog. After the SNL skit the media curiously adopted the Clinton spin line that a win is a win. I guess timing is everything.

Hillary Clinton is a long shot to win the Democratic nomination via the primary process, but she will never quit. Hillary and Bill Clinton know it but they also realize that they, like their pal John McCain, have nothing to lose by fighting to the last man because Hillary Clinton is a little long in the tooth (she will be 61 this year) to risk having to wait eight years for another shot at the White House. They know that a lot of things can happen in eight years like another woman running for President that actually had to work her way up through the ranks or the American people may start to get over their love affair with Bill Clinton and the memory of the 1990s.

Regardless of what the Clintons try to peddle to the American people, Hillary Clinton is not about to give up unless she is forced to walk away. To the extent that she was on the “ropes” before Tuesday’s primary, she is still on the “ropes.” That means that it is an incorrect analogy to compare her to a boxer that has gotten up off of the mat to keep fighting. She is more like a wounded animal that is cornered that will fight to the death. That also means that the Clintons probably do not care about playing with the future viability of the Democratic Party because of their lust for the White House. Yet, I doubt that this story angle is likely to be explored.

The Clintons will continue to move the goal posts as long it is convenient for them and as long as the media allows them to do it. They will continue with that tactic regardless of the fact that their tactics will either allow them to steal the game or eventually ruin the field.

Tainted Lense

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

--Friedrich Nietzsche--

“In a heated argument we are apt to lose sight of the truth.”

--Publilius Syrus--

“Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute.”

--Josh Billings--

The Clintons are playing the victim card once again. Yesterday, Hillary Clinton complained about being chosen to answer the questions from the moderator first, and the bias in the media that is skewed toward Barack Obama, and then she went on to overtly use the gender card to stump for votes. I have to admit that some members of the media do appear to favor Senator Obama over Senator Clinton, while other members of the media seem to slightly favor Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, but that is not the point. The reality is that Senator Clinton has very little to complain about since upon a close and reasonable review of her candidacy, she has received more than a few passes by the media. I will review two very big ones.

Senator Clinton has run on the platform of experience. She has declared herself to be the candidate that is the most prepared to be the President of the United States, even though there is nothing in her background to suggest that allegation is true. Think about it. There are three people that have a realistic chance at being elected to the Office of the President of the United States and none of them have any executive experience. All three of the candidates are senators and only have legislative experience. Yet, the media has not debunked her unsubstantiated assertion that she is the candidate that is “ready to be President on day one.”

Senator Clinton wants to have her cake and eat it too. She has subtly made the argument that she is the most experienced, most prepared, and therefore the most qualified candidate. This assertion can only come from her time as the First Lady because she is just a senator that has finished only one year of her second term. Since Senator Clinton was not a member of her husband’s cabinet or staff, it is unclear what her role was in his administration. The only responsibility that we know that she had during his administration was her failed attempt at health care reform. Does this means that she is ultimately asserting that she knows how to be the President because she was married to the President and has seen a President in action? We may never know because no member of the media has yet to force her to explain the basis of her assertion. The media has instead chosen to accept her assertion at face value without challenging it.

Watching something and doing something are two different things. I am a second generation White Sox, Bears, and Bulls fan. I have watched thousands of White Sox games, including the last two no-hitters that were thrown by a White Sox pitcher. I have also watched hundreds of Bears games and thousands of Bulls games. Does that mean that I am ready to pick up my baseball glove, baseball, and spikes and take the mound and throw a no-hitter against a major league team or even a minor league baseball team? Does that mean that I should be in spring training right now trying to crack the White Sox starting rotation? Does that mean that I should start getting ready for the Bears training camp in a few months to try to make their roster? Does that mean that I should give John Paxson a call and look for my short term contract with the Bulls? No!!! The reality is that the next President, regardless who is elected, will not have the luxury of calling the bullpen to bring in the closer when the game is on the line. Watching is not doing. Whoever is elected will have to learn on the job regardless of what she/he may assert.

Last night Senator Clinton essentially said that if she was elected President it would represent a “real challenge to the way things have been done, and who gets to do them, and what the rules are.” The reality is that she was correct in her assessment. Women have been and continue to be discriminated against in this country and throughout the world. Every time a country places the reigns of leadership into the hands of a leader that is also a woman it changes things, but the same is true for African-Americans (The numbers tell the story. The ratio of female governors to African-American governors is 8 to 1. The ratio of female senators to African-American senators is 16 to 1.) If Senator Obama had made that same statement he would have been drilled by the media to explain what he meant by it. He would have been criticized for injecting race into the debate. He would have been marginalized as the candidate that is only appealing to the African-American vote. And it may have jeopardized his chances of winning the nomination. There appears to be no such negative consequences for Senator Clinton. There was no and has been no such criticism toward Senator Clinton. The media gave her another important pass.

It seems that the media passes have not all been addressed to Senator Obama.

Enough of the Same Old Tricks!!!

Plagiarism - the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

“People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and courageously. This is how character is built.”

--Eleanor Roosevelt--
“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.”

--Nikita Khrushchev--

Here we go again. Once again the Clintons have attacked Barack Obama with nonsense. Earlier in the presidential primary race, when Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee, the Clinton Campaign attacked Obama by pointing out that he wrote a paper in grade school (I think he was in either kindergarten or first grade) where he proclaimed he wanted to be the President of the United States. Now the Clinton Campaign is trying to say that Barack Obama has committed plagiarism because he used a similar answer that the Governor of Massachusetts did to the same charge of being only about words instead of actions. It is the same old game. Attack politics. Win at all costs.

I do not blame the Clinton Campaign for being frustrated. I do not blame the Clinton Campaign for being anxious. I do not blame the Clinton Campaign for feeling as if they have been blindsided by the phenomena that is Barack Obama. I do, however, blame the Clinton Campaign in how they have dealt with those feelings.

First Hillary tried to counter Barack Obama’s appeal with a claim of greater experience. Hillary Clinton claims to be the candidate that is “ready to be President on the First day.” She claims to have the most experience although she has only seven years of elected experience, whereas Obama has about twelve years. That is okay, because that is just a politician giving their spin. But, there is a point when spin stops and nasty, destructive, petty political tricks begin that are not designed to advance our society’s understanding of issues that are important. They are instead designed for one purpose and that is to get a politician elected. We in this country have been down that road before and I hate to say it but we will find ourselves down that road again. I, like a lot of Americans, would like a vacation from the trampled road of cynical, bickering, partisan politics that is good for dividing the country and bad at helping the country.

The reality is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama do not have much experience in public office and neither has any executive experience. As a matter of fact, none of the likely nominees for either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party have executive experience so this election is not about experience. It is about where the candidate stands on the issues. Yet, Clinton and Obama have way more in common on the issues than they differ on the issues, therefore the Democratic Party nomination process is not as much about issues as opposed to daring to do something different. That is a huge advantage for Barack Obama and that is the reason for the silly little attacks by the Clintons. That is also one of the reasons I can not and do not support the Clintons.

The American people are tired of the same old political tricks where a few politicians get the majority of the country stirred up and angry at each other while they go about amassing fame, fortune, and power. Each and every politician is elected to do the business of the American people regardless of whether the person is a member of the United States Congress, a state assembly, a city Council, or the President of the United States. The politics of division do not bear the fruit of results to the rest of “us” folks that are not elected. That must change. That is why Barack Obama has been so well received.

In order to achieve great things you must first dream, then conceive, and finally believe that great things are possible. Challenging America to raise the level of debate from petty bickering, name calling, and divisiveness to an honest pursuit of solutions for America from differing points of view is not being naïve it is being a risk taker. Anytime a person, especially a public person, takes a step out onto a new road, he or she needs courage more than they need a map.

Change is not politics, it is policy. It is the policy of changing the way we approach the problems in this country. This election boils down to one question. Will we continue to barrel down the same old beat up and muddy road of partisan, deadlock, bitter politics or will we take a chance of raising our society above petty conflicts to new heights where more solutions can be achieved? That is the question. And whatever the answer maybe, it definitely is not the same old political tricks of making a mountain from a mole hill.

The Inconvenient Truth

“Money can't buy happiness, but neither can poverty.”

--Leo Rosten--

“Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.”

--Ralph Waldo Emerson--

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

--Arthur Schopenhauer--

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it.”

--Seth Godin--

I have written several articles about Barack Obama. Now I think it is about time I wrote an article about an issue that none of the candidates in either party will discuss. It is illegal immigration. Yeah. I know that every candidate has discussed their stance on illegal immigration. This article is not about whether to lock up people that come here illegally. This article is not about punishment. It is about prevent. It is about the only prevention that has a chance of working. Prevent must begin and end with employers.

The American people have been bamboozled into looking mainly at the people coming into our country illegally, while ignoring why they come here. Debate regarding illegal immigration has centered on the unrealistic supply oriented, punish the immigrant, and build a wall theory. Yet, very few people have talked about the basic reality that people come here for jobs so if there are no or few jobs for illegal labor then the reason to come over here illegally goes away. Once the reason goes away so does the vast majority of the problem. But I doubt anyone is truly going to explore this fact because that would mean going against big business, small business, and moneyed interests.

Illegal immigration is outsourcing within the country. While politicians, including a bunch in our community, are ignoring this reality black folks as well as other Americans from every community are losing opportunities. It is not just about race, ethnicity, or culture. It is about money. Cheaper labor means higher profits. A penny saved means a penny earned. The money saved could be from cheaper wages or from lower labor standards that allow employers to work their employees hardier, longer, and with little or no benefits. The only difference between outsourcing and the use of illegal immigration is where the employer uses the employee. And the biggest benefit of using illegal immigrant labor is that they can not complain about low wages or labor standards because they will risk being fired, arrested, or even deported.

Ordinarily I would not have a problem with any employer looking for the cheapest, most efficient, most convenient employee that he/she can find. That is what anyone should have a right to do in a free market economy. However, when employers use illegal immigrant labor they are not just using a cheaper labor force. In most cases, they are importing poor people to exploit for an extra nickel while forcing everyone else to share the expense of that person being in the country. What am I talking about?

Many of the illegal immigrants come from countries that have a lower standard of living that may be why they come here for opportunity. However, when they initially come here they are not getting high paying jobs so they may start out poor, which means they require resources that are provided to the poor that are paid for by tax dollars. I know many of you that are reading this article must think I am some ultra conservative right wing anti-poor anti-immigrant nut that hates the poor. No. I am not. It is a reality that poor people need help from the government that is funded by tax dollars. This help may manifest itself through a drain on public schools or a drain on emergency room services in hospitals or other local services.

I do not have a problem with poor people and I do not have a problem with big, little, or no business. I have a problem with employers that make money off of poor illegal immigrants and expect the rest of us to share in their expense while they do not share the profits from the exploitation. Therefore the only real way to stop illegal immigration is to stop focusing on putting illegal immigrants in jail and start targeting employers. Any fines that an employer must pay must be greater than the profits that they have made off of their illegal immigrant labor. We should not only fine employers but we should put them in jail if necessary. The minute that there are little to no jobs for illegal immigrants in this country the issue of illegal immigration disappears.

By the way, if during this article you have read this article as an attack on the Hispanic community I would ask you to examine yourself, because I never mentioned any particular community in this article, until now. Furthermore, as a lawyer I have worked on several illegal entry cases that included people from Eastern Europe, India, Western Africa, and Mexico. Illegal immigration does not have a Hispanic face on it. Please do not buy into the propaganda. I do not blame people for leaving a place where there is less opportunity to go to a place where there is more opportunity. That is what my parents did when they migrated from the south to Chicago. I have a problem with employers that use people looking for an opportunity and expect the rest of us to pay for it.

Rage Against the Machine

Revolution is not a onetime event.
--Audre Lorde--

Self-reliance is the only road to true freedom, and being one's own person is its ultimate reward.
--Patricia Sampson--

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office.
--H. L. Mencken --

The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
--William H. Borah--

The revolution is being televised, but no one has taken notice of the true implications! Senator Obama has blazed this unprecedented trail with a theme of change. Maybe he should also include a theme of wake up, because the race between him and Senator Clinton has shined a light for all that are interested to see on one of the problems that our community has faced for the past two decades. It is not racism. It is not an assault on civil rights. It is the stifling of good candidates by machine politics.

Bill Clinton’s remarks in response to the question of why were he and his wife “teaming up” on Senator Obama were insulting. Instead of dealing with the flawed premise that he and his wife had “teamed up” on Senator Obama he chose to dismiss any potential victory by Senator Obama in South Carolina as just a product of black folks voting for a black man. That is insulting, especially since this former President, who had been dubbed the nation’s “first Black President,” had no problems basking in the unwavering support from the black community during his roughest times. Now we are just a bunch of racist, unthinking, monolithic people that can not see beyond color. Wow! Okay, that may be a stretch but there are still some uncomfortable implications in Bill Clinton’s remarks.

If that is not enough, it gets better. Some black folks are coming to Bill Clinton’s aid. And if you have not already guessed, it is the usual list of characters – black preachers and politicians.

I am not the type of person that thinks that all black folks should think alike or that every statement made by a public official should be interpreted the same by all black folks. I think that there may be black folks that were not insulted by Bill Clinton’s remarks. However, it is hard to see how anyone that either heard or read the remarks within the context of the question that had been posed to Bill Clinton would not be a little troubled by the implications.
Bill Clinton did not need to insult an entire community in order to defend his wife or his actions in the primary. All he needed to do was to respond to flawed premise of the question by pointing out that it is not unusual for spouses to be involved in high profile political campaigns. This is particularly true when the spouse happens to be a former President. It is hard to believe that someone as intelligent as Bill Clinton did not know how to truly defend his wife. It seems to me that he took the opportunity to paint Obama as an anomaly and a product of the black vote. I do not think that those comments were misinterpreted or accidental. I think those comments were made in a deliberate attempt to redefine Senator Obama and marginalize him. Yet, now that Bill Clinton has been called on his remarks here comes “the machine to the rescue.”

The machine playbook may have been written and perfected by the old Democratic Party, but it has been used liberally by both parties. The old playbook works in all communities. It works in all sectors of this country. And it has worked without fail within our community for the past forty years to help elect unqualified, uncaring, and unresponsive candidates whose sole priority were to serve the machine.

This playbook has been discussed in books and articles like the American Pharaoh or the articles written in the Chicago Reporter regarding how grants to African-American churches by the city of Chicago have increased as support have increased from those churches. It is an old but successful formula. Get the local politicians and preachers on your side in the African-American community and you can count on the African-American vote regardless of what the candidate’s stances are on the issues. In the case of Bill Clinton’s remarks, they can count on black preachers and politicians giving him a pass for remarks that they would have roasted a republican or non-machine politician. Does that sound familiar?

Look at how the Clintons courted the African-American vote in South Carolina. They leaned on the African-American politicians and they courted the African-American clergy. It is amazing that it did not work, even against as bright, energizing, and qualified a candidate as Barack Obama. For the first time in several generations, the people in the African-American community as well as other communities have disregarded the gatekeepers of the vote and decided for themselves. That is the revolution. Hopefully it will continue through Super Tuesday.

Senator Obama may win his party’s nomination or he may not. That is not the issue. The issue is that we the people in the African-American community and the rest of America need to choose our public officials according to the content of their character instead of who has endorsed them in order to finally break the machine. Once that is done then what started as a trickle of one good candidate may develop into a flood of new, qualified, and responsive candidates in our community and throughout the country. Bring on the revolution!!!

Racism is Not an Issue: It is a Problem!

“Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them.”

--Paul Valery--

“Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.”

--Ambrose Bierce--

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

--Ernest Benn--

If I was on Senator Obama’s staff I would tell Senator Obama that he has been presented with a unique opportunity to demonstrate the difference between him and Senator Clinton. I would tell him that he has been presented with an opportunity to demonstrate the difference between the old way of campaigning and the new way. I would tell him that he has an opportunity to demonstrate in concrete terms what change really looks like by dealing with race in the only way that will finally make any real difference in the African-American community. He should embrace the topic of race like any other problem by talking about issues that are the result of race – or to be more accurate racism.

It is about time somebody said (well wrote) the truth. Race is not an issue. It is a problem. I know what most of you Black Folks out there must be saying to yourselves. “What?!!!” “Have you lost your mind?!!!” No. I have not. Let me explain.

There is a big difference between an issue and a problem. The words are used interchangeably but they are very different. Issues are direct, smaller, and identifiable. Problems are amorphous, large, and difficult to get a handle on. Race is not a problem. Racism is the real problem. Police brutality is an issue. Job discrimination based on race is an issue. Predatory lending that targets African-Americans for sub-prime loans is an issue. Protecting Affirmative Action programs that help African-American small businesses to get started or have an opportunity to break into markets where they have been historically shut out is an issue. Those are just a few examples of issues that can be addressed, by various means, by the government.

In the past, politicians acted as if whatever office they are running for is the panacea of any and all ills that the community that they are pandering for votes face everyday. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Our community does not need any more fairytale promises. We need solutions. In regards to the problem of racism, however, the government can make a difference, but the one thing that government will never be able to do is to force people to change what they feel in their hearts. That task should be left to the churches, temples, mosques, and reason. However, the government can force people to change how they treat “us.” And that is the sum total of any issue that is directly linked to the problem of racism.

That is why Senator Obama should not allow himself to be baited into talking about the problem of racism. He should instead take the opportunity to change the standard of debate in politics as it pertains to our community. He should raise the bar of rhetoric that can finally lead to action by discussing race through issues. This is the only way that race, like any other problem, should ever be discussed in politics. This is way that race has yet to be discussed in a presidential campaign.

Talking about issues will also allow him to shine a light on an inconvenient truth that our community should have addressed over twenty years ago. Our community has been way too dependent on preachers and politicians for leadership. And much of our alleged leadership has sold “us” out for money, fame, and access to political office or power. Many of the preachers and politicians in our community are more loyal to the Democratic Party or to building wealth for themselves through the electoral process than they are to our community. See the article written by William Jelani Cobb on January 13, 2008 for the discussion about the old guard versus the new guard in the African-American community.

Our leaderships' priorities are obvious. It is about them. It is about their careers. It is about providing for their families. However, it is not about addressing issues in our community. I am not making this up. Look at the endorsements of Hillary Clinton by African-American politicians, celebrities, and prominent business people. None of them that I have read about endorsed Hillary Clinton because of her stance on the Iraq War as compared to Barack Obama’s or her stance on Affirmative Action as compared to Barack Obama’s or her legitimate civil rights achievements as compared to Barack Obama’s. No. It is all about paying back an old debt, a misguided sense of loyalty, or a desire to have access to power.

A debate that is centered on issues will remove the myths that our alleged leaders are looking out for “our” best interests instead of looking out for their own. I would tell Senator Obama to continue with his Campaign of Change by changing the standard of debate in our community from image to substance. I would beseech him to continue to talk about issues, even if it includes race.

Fortune Favors the Bold

“Fortune favors the brave.”

--Virgil--

“When you meet your antagonist, do everything in a mild and agreeable manner. Let your courage be as keen, but at the same time as polished, as your sword.”

--Richard Brinsley Sheridan--

“It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.”

--Mark Twain--

Most of the media has seized upon the recent bickering between the Clinton and Obama campaigns to help generate ratings. The truth is that the recent bickering is tailor made for increased interest by the public because it seemed to involve hot buttons topics like race and gender. However, in my opinion, the media has not taken the time to really analyze the true reasons behind the attack that started the recent barbs that have been flying back and forth between the Clinton and Obama camps. Before I go any further I feel obliged to restate that I am a Barack Obama supporter so although I believe I have been objective in my analysis, it is more than possible that there is some bias in it. Judge the message first before turning to the messenger.

The attacks between the two camps are not about race. The attacks are not about gender. They are about votes. The recent attacks are about an inconvenient reality that the Clinton camp has in regards to the battle for votes with Barack Obama.

Senator Clinton can not call Senator Obama out directly on his opposition to the Iraq War without exposing her own dirt. How so? I will explain. Much of the current bickering started with Bill Clinton’s mischaracterization of Senator Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War. The Clinton’s argue that Senator Obama has been inconsistent in his opposition to the Iraq War by not openly criticizing the 2004 Democratic Nominees during the presidential race, and that he voted for funding for the war after our young men and women were already deployed into harms way. It is a specious argument, but that is not the point. The point is that if the Clintons really wanted to criticize Senator Obama they could have asserted that it took no political courage for him to have opposed the Iraq War since he was a state senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood on the Southside of Chicago, where there was a huge opposition to the war. However, even that argument is debatable since Senator Obama still took a great risk because he was getting ready to run for the United States Senate at the time so if the war would have gone well, that could have killed his U.S. Senate aspirations before they got started.

The Clintons are very shrewd politicians that know how to pick and choose the best arguments for their campaigns. It is a reason why they did not go the political courage route. Choosing that argument presented the greatest risk of having it smack right back in Senator Clinton’s face because her vote for the war in 2002 was not so much an issue of lack of judgment as much as it was an issue of lack of political courage. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was not smart enough to know the inherit risks of overthrowing a regime. What did Colin Powell say? “You break it. You buy it.” Her vote was not about Iraq. It was not about weapons of mass destruction. It was about the 2008 presidential election. It was about not having the courage to say no to a very popular President and political party that was labeling anyone that opposed them as either weak or traitors. It was about courage or the lack there of.

Now the Clintons are attempting to have their cake and eat it to. Senator Clinton claims thirty-five years of experience, although she has only eight years of elected experience. She is also in a position where she can not come out directly and claim credit for the successes of her husband’s administration because then she would also have to take the failures as well as the embarrassments. During her interview on Meet the Press this Sunday, Senator Clinton referenced political battles that she was involved in while her Husband was in office, but when asked about the embarrassing issues regarding the last minute pardons that her husband issued, she quickly claimed no prior knowledge of that. That took a lot of audacity to claim the good while trying to ignore the bad all with a straight face. She could have used some of that audacity in 2002.

VP Dilemma

"Be careful that victories do not carry the seed of future defeats."

--Ralph W. Sockman--

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."

--Theodore Roosevelt--

"What is defeat? Nothing but education; nothing but the first step to something better."

--Wendell Phillips--

"You can take from every experience what it has to offer you. And you cannot be defeated if you just keep taking one breath followed by another."

--Oprah Winfrey--

It ain't over until the fat lady sings and she is not even clearing her throat. Barack Obama's campaign made a mistake when they allowed the thrill of victory to raise the expectations of a community, a state, and a nation to transform him from a challenger into a frontrunner. Now, we who are the supporters of Obama feel defeat in what should only be seen as a victory. That is not spin. It is fact. Obama is taking on a candidate with the resources and organization of a former two term president. He is in a fight with a juggernaut. The bottom line is that after the first caucus and primary where only a few delegates have been cast the veneer of invulnerability has been stripped from Hillary Clinton, the real frontrunner, which means Obama is in it to win it. But that is not why I am writing this article.

Bloomberg in New York may be the biggest Hillary fan on the planet right now because if she wins narrowly over Obama then things could get interesting. If the Clinton's lose, then there is no problem, but if they win there could be a problem if Obama continues to stay close. The Clinton's may have a problem in victory because there could be a backlash in the African-American community if the community feels that once again an African-American has been pushed aside. Barack Obama will not play the race card.  That is not who he is and how he conducts himself, but it may not matter.  He may not be able to stop the train of anger and mistrust once it is on the track and gathers steam. 

I am not just making this up. This was the prevailing sentiment of many of the callers on an African-American talk show in Chicago right after the results of the New Hampshire Primary was revealed. Even if this sentiment is only in Chicago, that could mean the difference between victory and defeat in Illinois. It is unlikely that any democrat can roll into the White House without winning Illinois. There was a lot of anger and mistrust. Does that mean that the anger and mistrust will continue if Obama loses? Who knows, but at least I can say I was the first to mention it.

However, I do not think it will be an issue because I think Obama still has a great chance to get the nomination. The difference between victory and defeat for Obama will be how well he is able to circumvent the Clinton machine and appeal directly to the voters. I think New Hampshire was a wake up call for Obama. Now the work begins.