Gracefully bow out? In your American Dreams

The New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton during the New York primary, but is slowly coming to its senses in regards to Senator Clinton's campaign strategies. Check out the following excerpt of the editorial posted by its board entitled, "The Low Road to Victory."

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned."

Read the rest of the article here: The Low Road to Victory

Oh and if you're curious about Clinton's 9/11 ad check it out below:


Need I say more? Let me know what's on your Righteous Minds.

10 Things You Need To Know About McCain

You know there is something you don't like about McCain (besides the fact that he is a Republican). Well the next time someone comes to you saying they support McCain, hit em with the facts. Below are 10 things you need to know about McCain as compiled by the folks at Moveon.org!

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.
   
4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.
6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.
7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

Hot Topic: Controversial ABC Democratic Debate

As a result of the biased ABC Democratic Debate earlier this week, Moveon.org has created a video and petition to stop the media from taking control of the course of the election by only focusing on controversy instead of the issues. If you missed the debate, I suggest you watch it. In the meantime, below is a video the folks at Moveon.org created that pretty much sums it up:



Here's the link to the petition: Shame on ABC: Enough Distractions!" Sign it and get involved!

New Gallup Poll Showing Obama Leading more than ever!

According to the latest Gallup poll, Obama is leading Clinton by the largest margin ever. For more pollster news check-out gallup.com

Eliticism? Please...

So as you all know, Barack made a mistake and made some comments that he wishes he could take back. Barack may or may not truly care about people who are not as wealthy as him, who are at the other end of the totem pole, but at least there isn't substantial evidence that he truly feels that way.

Hillary Clinton had an opportunity to pounce on Obama's elitist remark and initially did so. But when she began to abuse this opportunity it became evident. Most importantly, she made it a point to chow down some pizza, chug some brews, and throw back some shots. Sounds like she is getting to sure of herself. This race is far from over, Hillary. Additionally, she should be the one who is considered elite and out of touch with the regular citizen because she was noted as saying that lobbyist are the true voice of the people.

McCain doesn't have much to say either. He is Republican. His record shows that he votes in favor of policies that help those in the upper half of the economic classes. The only reason he cares about these rural factory workers is because he wants to send them overseas to help in the war that "might last 100 more years." McCain is part of the party that had a large part of bringing the country into a upcoming recession and has no room to talk about how Obama doesn't care about these small town citizens.

The race is far from over people. Barack constantly gets attacked while Hillary loses campaign members left and right and has her former paster go to jail for touching children while McCain still can't get total support from his own party and is possibly in a sex scandal himself. Let Barack chug beers and take shots or commit adultery and his race is over.

Obama is essentially running against two Republicans using Rovean tactics except one is running as a democrat and she wears a skirt. He need not give up because these people will begin to make mistakes or their true colors will come out. Let them mess up their own chances Barack. Don't stoop to their levels.

Hillary: The Movie

Check out this video called Hillary: The Movie.

Obama's speech about much more than race

To say I was moved would the the understatement of my lifetime. This speech was by far the most honest and relevant testimonial on the state of race relations I've had the opportunity to witness. This is by far the most important speech delivered on this country's soil in more than forty years. Rest assured, win or lose, your children will watch, read, and relive this moment. This speech will be memorized and recited in classrooms along side the Declaration of Independence, King's "I Have a Dream", Maya Angelou's "Phenomenal Woman", Act 3--Scene 2 of Julius Caesar, Old Major's address to his fellow farm animals in Orwell's masterpiece, and any other major speech that has embeded itself in the American psyche. But enough of my brown-nosing...what are your thoughts?

Thank you for Someone with some common sense

Hello Righteous Minds fans,

Please watch the video clip below in its entirety. The fam here at Righteous Minds always wants our readerbase to be well informed. The following depicts the horrendous freefall in ethics that the Hillary Clinton campaign has taken. Please read the post below this for a recap of that!



Once you finish watching this let Righteous Minds know your thoughts!

Hillary Clinton's Campaign Strategy: Divide and Conquer

The latest divisive techniques of Hillary Clinton's campaign are at it again. Check out Geraldine Ferraro's response as to why she believes that the only reason why Barack Obama is where he is today is because he is Black.

The latest scandal is one of Hillary's top fundraisers stating "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." In an earlier interview when asked, "Why Obama was the front-runner?" She responded by stating "...because he is black."

First of all, I am sick and tired of Clinton's campaign trying to diminish Obama's credentials. Coming from a working class family, Obama has fought his way to the top. Becoming the first Black president of the Harvard Law Review. That in itself if a testament to the type of person he is. He also was a community organizer, a professor at the U of Chicago, served on the Illinois legislature for seven years, and finally won a seat in the Senate. So do not try to trick me into thinking that he is not ready.

Check out these presidential stats:
Theodore Roosevelt : New York’s governor for two years and William McKinley’s Vice President for a few months before becoming president
Woodrow Wilson: New Jersey’s governor for two years before being elected president.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: The only president to serve for four terms was New York’s governor for four years.

None of them served in the Senate. The experience issue is a non-issue. It is just another tactic from the Clinton campaign book to dupe gullible Americans into not voting for someone who is not only qualified, but has the character and integrity to propel this country to the next level.

Statistically speaking, he is not supposed to be where he is now. Coming from a small-town in Kansas, he fought his way to the top. How dare anyone question whether or not he has the drive or qualifications to be where he is? He has worked hard to fulfill his American Dream. He is no different than any other college student from a low-income family who beats the odds and makes it out on top.

Additionally, is this how far we have come? Is this what the presidential nomination race has turned into? Do candidates have to spread lies, create controversy, and tear apart the very nation they are supposedly trying to bring together? I've followed the race faithfully and I can honestly say that Hillary Clinton's campaign is divisive.

First we had one of her supporter's stating his full name in a speech in South Carolina to associate him with Saddam Hussein and spark fear among gullible Americans. Another questioned whether Obama was a drug dealer because of his honest admittance of drug use while in High School in his own biography. Then we had pictures of him in an African country wearing the garb of that country and people begin to question his faith. Now we have one of her top fundraisers stating that he would not be where he was if he was not Black. How can someone who says she wants to change this country, allow such politics to consume her entire campaign? It's appalling and hypocritical.

I've concluded that Hillary's campaign strategy is to divide and conquer. She does not want to unite Blacks and Latinos; she wants to pit them against each other. She does not want to unite the rich and poor; she wants pit them against each other. She does not want to unite Republicans and Democrats; she wants to pit them against each other. She does not want to unite Blacks and Whites; she wants to pit them against each other.

Hillary Clinton knows that the only way she can win is through divisive means. She wants Blacks to vote for Obama and Latinos to vote for her. She wants the wealthy to vote for Obama and the working class to vote for her. She wants Blacks to vote for Obama and Whites to vote for her. She feeds off of the drama and divisiveness that plagues our country. She feeds off of the drama, the fear-mongering, and controversy because she knows that is how she will win.

She wants the media to focus on the amount of Blacks voting for Obama instead of the amount of Whites voting for her and who will refuse to vote for Obama because he is Black. Blacks are not voting for Hillary based off her race or gender, they are not voting for her because they believe in the policies of Obama and what his campaign stands for.

I could go on, but I really want you all to comment on this. I just had to vent a little (well maybe a lot).

Hot Topic: Obama, Working Class Whites, and Racial Sensitivity

Today in the Washington Post, there is an interesting article about working class whites and their role in the presidential election. Here's a snippet:

Ronald Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who tracks racial trends and is writing a book on Obama, thinks Obama's strong support from blacks made it easier for some whites in Ohio and Texas to vote for Clinton.

"There's some of that," Walters said in an interview. He pointed to exit polls from Ohio, where 62 percent of all whites lack college degrees and many are anxious about their jobs in a weak economy.

"This is a racially sensitive group," he said, referring specifically to whites who earn less than $50,000 a year and did not attend college.

"They are the quintessential Reagan Democrats," he said. "They feel they've been left" and their resentment can have social and racial overtones.

Ohio exit polls support Walters' view. Eighteen percent of white Ohio voters said race was an important factor in their decision, and of that group, three in four voted for Clinton

Check out the rest of the article, here.

No matter which way you slice it, race is playing a role in the election. Many are quick to shed light on Blacks who are voting for Obama, but on the same token there are many whites who will not vote for Obama based off of his skin color. Righteous Minds readers, let us know what you think about this.

Hot Topic: In Election 2008, Don't forget Angry White Men

Let Righteous Minds know your thoughts on this very provocative article

Hot Topic: What if Obama was 0-For-10?

Everyone knew the race to the White House would not be easy, but coming from a landslide win in Iowa many believed Sen. Barack Obama's momentum would continue into New Hampshire. Pictured left is Michelle Obama comforting her husband at New Hampshire rally after his loss. Following that loss, many began to question whether he could make it to the White House and if Iowa was just an illusion. Now Sen. Obama is leading in delegates, states, and his momentum in building. Currently he is 0-For-10, going into Texas and Ohio battlegrounds. But what if the tables were turned?

Eugene Robinson, op-ed columnist for the Washington Post wrote an interesting article about how the Democratic race would look if Sen. Obama was 0-For-10 instead of Sen. Clinton. Below is the first paragraph from the article:

Humor me while we conduct a little thought experiment. Imagine that Barack Obama had lost 10 contests in a row. Imagine that he now trailed Hillary Clinton substantially in the number of Democratic primaries and caucuses won, in total votes cast, in pledged convention delegates, in the overall delegate count, in fundraising and in the ineffable attribute called mojo. Imagine that Obama was struggling, at this late hour, to come up with the right message. What would the conventional wisdom say?

Check out the rest of the article, If Obama went 0-For-10..., and let Righteous Minds know your thoughts.

The Democratic Dilemma

The race is tight. The jabs are slowly returning. The two greatest benefactors of Affirmative Action are facing off against each other for the democratic nomination. It is an incredible feat. Who would have thought this could be maybe no less than thirty years ago, maybe even twenty. Can you imagine how many times politicians and whites from the reconstruction era have turned over in their graves as they watch from their bed full of flames what is occuring on earth. Whatever might become of the democratic nomination, we should all applaud the fact that a black man and white woman ascended to the top of the party. This truly speaks to how progressive our nation might possibly be becoming and we should embrace the fact that we millions of people have been able to put their beliefs and their hearts into two politicians that look nothing like them, one way or the other. Whoever gets the most votes from these delegates should be extremely grateful of the opportunity presented to them, an opportunity to represent the demo....

Excuse me? Are you telling me even IF someone has the most delegate votes they still may fail to represent the democratic party in the upcoming national elections? How? Superdelegates? Unheard of!!! This is outrageous! I don't even know what superdelegates are!!!! (no, really, even after someone explained it to me I'm still curious as to why they have so much power). I thought this was a democratic nation. That constituents count. That WE matter. So why are you telling me even if my boy Barack O-bamma wins, there is still a possibility that Bill-ary might come out of the Democratic National Convention as the democratic nominee. If you don't know me by now, you'd know that I don't like Bill-ary at all because she implements Rovean tactics into her campaign, her husband did nothing for the majority of African Americans during his tenure (contrary to popular belief), and she is a capitalism/corporate groupie. And if she is chosen to represent the democratic party, the same person whose tactics she has adopted, Karl Rove, is the same person who is going to eat her and her campaign alive. I think she'll do more to hurt the nation than John McCain should he be elected.

I digress. The issue at hand is it's clearly obvious that Obama has momentum in his favor right now (as I write this I do not know the results of Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Washington), and that the longer he campaigns in a state, the more votes he gains. This bodes well with such a long time to go before Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Hillary has fired her campaign manager and is trying to attack Barack for plagiarism when she commits the same fraud. All signs point to the possibility that Barack will win the popular vote and the most delegate votes. What is scary, however, is that even if he does get both, there is a chance that the democracy that we live in will be for naught and that these so called super delegates may alter the outcome of what so many people went out and voted for with a simple endorsement for Hillary. And she has already started lobbying them mercilessly.

The democratic party will fall apart should this happen. Not only will democrats lose their faith in a party they thought would support their vote, but it will also weaken the party once they disassociate themselves and the republican party lays down their assault on the Clinton campaign team. These super delegates should hold no more weight than a regular delegate and should not impact and overturn a vote that so many of their constituents went out of their way to cast. It is time to retire old election techniques so as we throw away the power of the super delegates, we should celebrate true democracy and then work on tweaking the electoral college as soon as the former is completed. With that said, view the candidates positions, go out and vote, and wait for the results. If you're for Barack, go out and vote so there won't even be confusion about who the Democratic party wants to elect. He is the best chance for the Democratic Party to remove the GOP from the Oval Office...

Hot Topic: "Whites not ready for Black President"

Gov. Ed Rendell, one of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most visible supporters, said some white Pennsylvanians are likely to vote against her rival Barack Obama because he is black.

Check out the MSNBC article below:

Clinton Ally: Some whites 'not ready' for Obama

And let Righteous Minds know your thoughts.

Hot Topic: Health care Plans

When I traveled to South Carolina before their caucus I was able to canvass the community and talk to many people about the issues that are important to them. The number one issue was health care. The number one reason why people do not have health insurance is because it is too expensive.

Here's Senator Clinton's Health care plan: click here

Here's Senator Obama's Health care plan: click here

Here's also an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that offers a little insight.

Health care is a major issue in the country. Many countries have figured out ways to make health care universal. Senator Clinton wants to mandate universal health care, while Senator Obama wants to first lower costs and then provide universal health care. Issues are important in this election. We have to make ourselves aware of these issues and think critically about what not only sounds well, but will also pass in the legislature and work for the good of the American people. Let the Righteous Minds bloggers know what you think. Sound off.

What would it mean???

“And even though it seems heaven sent,we ain’t ready to see a black President” -Tupac Shakur, “Changes”

The quote above has exemplified the sentiments of America for as long as this country has existed. For 232 years, the American Presidency has belonged to one distinct fraternity. A fraternity that consisted of men whom shared the same skin color, religion (besides Kennedy), and basic genetic make-up. Up until this year’s heavily contested Democratic Primary, there has never been a minority candidate with a serious opportunity to capture the Presidency. What would it mean to have a black President?

A black man as President would mean that America (although still plagued with racism, prejudice, bigotry, etc.) has grown enough as a nation, to accept the fact that minorities are as competent as whites in America. It would mean that if a black man can be the head of the nation, why not the head of a multi-million dollar corporation. If a black man can hold the most powerful Office in the World, then there should be no Office unattainable. The rudimentary notion of Barack Obama winning the Presidency is NOT that he is a black man, rather the principle that Americans were able to IGNORE the fact that he is a black man, and elect him to the Presidency as the BEST representative. It is not the color of his skin that matters, it is the disregard of the color of his skin which becomes so fundamentally important.

Barack Obama as President would mean that we are that much closer to achieving Dr. King’s “Dream” of equality. It would be a step towards removing the invisible ceiling that limits minority advancement in America, and a breaking of the red-tape which binds minority progress. A black President is not just an achievement for African-Americans, it is an achievement for America as a whole. A step towards enlightenment and a display of respect for one’s countrymen regardless of race. It illustrates an attempt by Americans to honor people of ALL backgrounds, by considering them as viable candidates and listening to what these candidates have to say, without prejudging them.

The fact that Barack Obama has been able to achieve as much as he has is utterly remarkable. No one is asking America to choose Obama to breakdown stereotypes and ill contrived beliefs about minorities; that becomes merely a consequence of choosing the best candidate for the job. Listen to the message, then ask yourself; If I were color blind, who would I choose?

Are your political views "private"?

I was listening to the radio on my way to class last week and the radio personalities stuck up a discussion that made my "righteous mind" begin to wonder...

The DJs were discussing the on-going primary elections, and in the midst of outlining issues stated by each candidate in their respective campaigns, stumbled upon the issue of whether it is appropriate to discuss or share one's political affiliations and views. Specifically, one DJ declined to state an opinion with regard to the social issues addressed by the candidates because she said, among other things, that she feels such beliefs are private.

Now, I can see how, as a radio personality, expressing one's political affiliations on-air may be somewhat inappropriate, but too many people feel the same way... and I think that's a problem. Our generation--that is young adults--don't discuss the important political issues enough!

I believe this way of thinking is based on the idea that each individual should have the opportunity to come to their own conclusions about important social issues that prevade politics without being unduely influenced by the opinions of their peers or superiors. And that is a premise that I agree with. But I also believe that we need to discuss important social issues in order to be better informed and make BETTER POLITICAL DECISIONS.


Plus, people usually talk about things that are important to them. I think the lack of dialogue among our generation with regard to social and political issues has rendered such issues unimportant to too many of us. While we have turned out in record numbers to support candidates in the current presidential campaign, this turn out has been the exception instead of the rule. The lack of conversation about affordable health care, the economy, sufficient education and educational facilities, and international relations leaves a large portion of our peers uninformed and oblivious to the fact that OTHER PEOPLE ARE DECIDING OUR FUTURE.

Beliefs about political issues may be personal--and by that, I mean held close to one's heart and reflective of one's life experiences and perspectives--but they shouldn't be private--and by that I mean concealed from others. Of course, there are appropriate (and inappropriate) venues to discuss such beliefs, and maybe such beliefs shouldn't be discussed with EVERYONE you know. But at the same time, if we remain silent, issues that are important for the success of our generation will continue to be over-looked by our peers.

So, with that said, I hope everyone reading this will take some time to figure out what issues are important to them and where they stand with regard to those issues and the current presidential campaign. But I ask that you don't stop there--ask some of your friends what they think? Strike up a dialogue. Generate an opinion, then do something with it. It's no longer ok for us to remain apathetic. And keeping your opinions on these important issues to yourself is only breeding apathy.

Think about it like this--during the next presidency many of us who are in college will graduate and come into the "real world", start families and have SERIOUS income taxes, and need health care (among other important issues). If we start discussing these issues amongst ourselves now, we are more likely to make an informed decision about who to vote for, and thus more likely to have our needs met.

Obama to George W.: Thank You for poor governing!

Usually, when the leader of an organization leaves his post, he writes two letters and a short note for the new incumbent. The short note instructs the new leader to open the first letter when the first major crisis occurs and to open the second letter only in case of a major emergency AFTER opening the first letter.

Eventually, the new leader will inevitably have a crisis and will heed the advice of the note and open the first letter. It will instruct them in some fashion of the following: "Blame everything on me and fix it as best you can." They'll gratefully accept the offer and do as instructed. Should another major crisis occur, the incumbent will open their predecessor's second letter that will likely say: "Start writing two letters."

In January next year, I think it possible that George W. will write only one letter to Obama and it will say "You're Welcome."

Think about this and digest it slowly: If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will have George W. Bush to thank for it.

For most parties, the Bush administration has left a nasty taste in our mouths. He started his run in a cruel and unforgiving way--he stole an election. Nearly 51 million Americans (and many from the other side) recognized immediately that for this man and those closest to him, winning was everything and morality was out of the window. Fast forward seven years and we all know the history. It's not his politics as much as his smugness that turns us off. We want better from our leaders. We want our presidents to create a culture of acceptance and unity despite our differences. I submit that Obama's success has been born from Bush's failure as a leader. Had he not been who he was, Obama's message would likely be falling on deaf ears.

In many ways, Obama's reflection on the Reagan administration is apropos. Reagan's message was very similar when facing Carter. We've fallen on hard times (stuggling economy and high gas prices--go figure), the security of our nation is at risk (brewing conflicts in the Middle East--go figure), but WE can recover and become a better nation (my friends this, my friends that...). It was a culture of ineptitude that bred the potential for Reagan's success and it's a culture of corruption and non-cooperative politics that has opened the door for Obama.

Obama's argument is largely cultural, but also one of style. When I hear the buzzwords of change and optimism, I'm hearing "Don't vote for me because I want to do it differently than Hillary. Vote for me because I want to do it with grace and a smile." Not just being right, but doing it the right way. That's a major shift in political ideologies and, I hope, one for which Americans of all races, genders, and creeds are finally prepared to accept.

Despite the tragedy that has been the Bush administration and the despair many have felt over the past seven years, I find some solace (and can appreciate the Creator's sense of irony) in knowing that the man whom Kanye West once said did not care about Black people will be replaced by our nation's first president of African descent. I find it further ironic that he will have beaten the "first Black president's" wife to do so...

Double Standard

What baffles me the most about this election is the fact that Sen. Barack Obama represents a person of color running for the presidency, yet he cannot speak about issues that effect people of color for fear of scorn from the majority saying he's pulling the race card.

How is it pulling the race card when there are a disproportionate number of Blacks in prison, the achievement gap in education drastically hinders the future of Black and Latino youth, and other issues such as access to health care that negatively effect these communities?

How is it that speaking the truth is considered pulling the race card when it is far from it? Speaking up about this issues is not pulling the race card, it is threatening to the power structure in place in this country.

Think about it. When one says we need to get rid of the prison industrial complex, we are also saying we want Black men to be given an opportunity to attend places of higher learning, have the opportunity to raise their children and see them everyday, and become Black businessmen. When we say we want the achievement gap eliminated, we are saying we want more Blacks and Latinos in college, building enterprises, and creating wealth in their communities. All of those things and more, shatter the status quo of this nation. It shakes up the power structure.

Race is a sensitive issue in this country, and oftentimes blacks have to deal with the "race card" stigma when bringing up issues that negatively impact their communities.

On the flipside, Sen. Hillary Clinton is running to be the first woman president and is allowed to speak freely about issues that effect women and people of color. Barack doesn't even have to even bring up the issue and he's crucified. (ie. what happened last week with Hillary bringing up MLK and Lyndon Johnson) Talk about a double standard.

She's the one who has the token Black guy, the founder of BET, talking down on Sen. Obama. She's the one who said that Lyndon Johnson did more for Civil Rights than Martin Luther King, Jr.

Let me digress onto that comment. By saying that Lyndon Johnson changed more than Martin Luther King is to say that the President has more power than the people. Martin Luther King, Jr. represented a social movement for equality. The Civil Rights movement was made up of people who put so much pressure on the government that the government had to listen.

The government is supposed to be run by the people. By saying that the President had more influence over Civil Rights than the people says a lot about Sen. Hillary Clinton's ideology--an ideology that I do not agree with and cannot support. Government is by the people and for the people. As President you represent the people, it's not all about you.

Okay, so now that I'm off that soap box, I just want to say that this is supposed to be an election of change. Yet, Sen. Barack Obama, is not allowed to speak on issues that represent the change he can be. The biggest change will be when this country will be able to effectively talk about its most sensitive subject: race.