I wrote a blog piece on John McCain and it's been picked up by Huffington Post and  was published Friday, which is why it's not here.  Please go to their site, read and leave a comment:

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/e-joyce-moore/mccain-supportive-of-wome_b_113503.html

If you want to take the time to do so, share the piece with your colleagues.  I am interested in the impact on watercooler political discussions, so please come back and let me know.

Anyone remember Randal Pinkett? Randal Pinkett was an exceptional, highly talented and extremely well educated candidate who won on the Apprentice reality show two years ago. There were two things that made this particular season’s show a stand out. First, Pinkett was an African American. Second, the week-long controversy that resulted from his response to Trump’s public request that he share his win with the woman who was the runner up. I wrote about this at the time and my perspective on it is still posted  here in the archives. The bottom line was that Randal absolutely made the right decision when he refused to hire the runner up. It was a good business decision. Trump himself said that many high level corporate heads had called him to say that Randal had indeed made the right decision. Why? Both were competing for the one position. To bring the person who didn’t win back into the picture as your peer would only continue the competition. That would be bad for the business because the focus is on the continued competition and not the job at hand.

 

Here we are today with history being made with Senator Barack Obama winning the Democratic primary and ultimately he will win the general election. His choice for vice president is an important one, as will be his decisions on his cabinet appointments. With Bob Johnson, and other supporters of Hillary Clinton, making overtures to Democratic members of Congress, in hopes of her becoming the choice for vice president, it is imperative that we all step back and take a second look.  Senator Obama and his advisors should not give in to any real or implied pressures concerning Senator Clinton. She is absolutely the wrong choice. Even before the end of the primaries, when she playfully suggested that Obama would make a good vice-president, I did not believe that she would make a good vice president, nor did I believe that she would even consider it.

 

Surprisingly enough, she has been overtly and covertly attempting to position herself and it's not just because she needs some help settling her primary debts. But here’s the thing: she is not a good fit fora secondary role. She is a very strong-minded woman who was certain that she would be the presumptive nominee and has had a very hard time letting go of her dream, even when it was clear she had lost. The person who showed up in the last two weeks of her campaign defined for me who she really is.

 

I am a firm believer that true success in business, government, requires a leader who surrounds him or herself with people who are more talented, intelligent, strategic, even more experienced than he or she is and, most importantly, are on the same page as she or he is as the leader. Their only agenda is to work as a team, becoming successful in their own right by working as a team, adding depth and value through the skill sets, experience and talents they were chosen for, and following the vision of the leader. In a role as important as Presidency of the United States, one does not have the time or should take the time and energy to have to continually manage someone who really just wants your job. Hillary Clinton would never be happy in a second position, and has the ultimate potential of derailing Obama’s presidency with constant instigation of controversy.The baggage of entitlement that the Clinton's bring with them is an issue that overshadows any benefit she brings to the party.  She is better suited for and deserving of a cabinet position where she could devote her energies to the success of a specific vision she has always wanted to develop.

 

There is the socio-psychological aspect of what happens when a person of color is selected for a position. As Randal said himself : It would be the same as if I had won a gold medal in the Olympics and I was then required to share it with the bronze medal winner. He didn’t win because there was a quota to fill; Trump’s executive staff looks exactly as Trump wants it to because he chooses who he wants. Randal won because he consistently exhibited the leadership, talent, experience and strategic savvy required to make him a winner. It was, in fact, not as close a decision, as many have been lead to believe. So, why the “controversy”? What is the real issue that no one wanted to address directly? Larry King, in his interview of Pinkett, made a feeble effort to get to the heart of it, but he missed the mark because he came into the conversation with bias. When the Media approaches a subject with bias, they are simply stating a story according to their opinion and that is not objective journalism. King believed that she should have been hired and simply went through his show trying to convince Randal and Trump that Randal was wrong. While Trump may have genuinely, albeit naively, felt that race was not a factor, it, in fact, was on so many levels. In the executive world, genuinely capable, highly intelligent African American executives and managers can share one anecdotal story after another -- After all , one is told, you won’t mind taking one for the team? Or…you and I know that you are the better choice, but I need to reward Joe or Sally Sue because … -- about how they have been asked to share, diminish, even relinquish their awards, rewards, promotions, acknowledgements so that the other person, usually white, would feel better about not getting what they believe they were entitled to. Thus, Clinton supporters will likely dive into a fresh dish of anger when the decision about who should be vice president is made and if it’s not Clinton. It won’t matter to them that Obama made his choice based upon who is best for the position, not based upon making her – or anyone else – feel better about not getting what they believe they were entitled to. I am still interested in having a competent woman as vice president, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius for example. Someone who has the ability to work well with Congress and with the president – neither of which I believe Senator Clinton would be effective or – at the end of the day – happy with doing. (I would even like to see Donna Brazile as White House press secretary, but I am perhaps dreaming a little too much?)

The bottom line is that choosing Hillary Clinton as vice president for any reasons other than talent and capability is simply more of the same in politics. As a candidate for change, Senator Obama has the power to truly be the different politician that we need and make a different and wiser decision.

I guess every one has to get their fifteen minutes from somewhere during this very visible presidential campaign. Apparently James Dobson is looking for his. Let me introduce you, in case you never heard of this man or his organization: James Dobson, a religious power and head of the conservative religious group, Focus on the Family that is headquartered in Colorado. He and Tom Minnery, senior vice president of this group, accuse Senator Barack Obama of “ distorting” the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution, in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group, Call to Renewal http://www.calltorenewal.com/ . Obama mentions Dobson in this speech and Al Sharpton as well.

Dobson’s criticism was aired on his organization’s radio show, Tuesday, June 24, 2008, and of course, the organization provided The Asso ciated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment. Dobson, who is a minister, criticizes examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy - chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application." "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said. Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.

The problem is Dobson is wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament indicating that Jesus removed any of the commandments, any of the Holy Days identified in Leviticus 23, or for that matter, any of the dietary health laws that are identified in the New Testament. Yes, I am going there, hope you will follow. Yes, I read the Bible, even did a thirteen page research article on Is Church Your Religion ? And, Yes, I am going to give you something to take a look at as proof that he’s wrong:

Jesus Christ said in John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments. And His commandments did not die with Him: John 14:19-21 After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." Christ added a new commandment to re-emphasize His expectations, although it is also a verse in the Old Testament: Leviticus 19:18.

The purpose of Jesus Christ’s becoming a human for a short period, was to give humanity another chance at eternal life through His physical death and to teach the teachers of his doctrines. Christ did not come to give us a free pass to do whatever we want to do and just pray, or do penance, to negate whatever we’ve done. Christ never said to throw out the baby with the bathwater. His sacrifice was the supreme sacrifice and thus the physical sacrifices were eliminated. His objective was to take humanity to a new level in making the physical keeping of His Law a spiritual matter, on another level not required in the Old Testament. Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord; I do not change … The health laws never changed: pigs are still intended to be the natural garbage disposals, which is why they eat their own waste, just as shrimp, catfish, lobsters, all shellfish are bottom feeders that keep the oceans and lakes clean, even when they are “farm raised”, they as other animals and sea creatures, have a specific purpose and, according to the Bible, being eaten by humans is not one of them. There are some whose religious beliefs tell them that Romans 14 eliminates the health laws of the Old Testament, when, in fact, the reference to unclean meats simply refers to meat offered to idols as sacrifices: see I Corinthians 8: 4-13 where it is put into context. Now I just explained to you what I believe. You, as an individual, have the right to refute or pushback on my beliefs (but if you bring it, come with support for your point of view), find it interesting but not applicable to your beliefs or just ignore it and move on. In other words, beleve it or not. Here is the interesting thing: Churches and religions alike, Christians of all faiths, humans in general, have had the amazing propensity since Adam and Eve, to take God’s words – be they verbal or in writing – and find a way to use them to justify whatever it is they want to do or not do. This has been the case since the beginning of time, even during the time when Jesus Himself was on the earth.  Note his view concerning the commandments and mankind: Matthew 15: 5 - 9 But you say 'Whoever tells his father or his mother, "Whatever support you might have received from me has been given to God,"  does not have to honor his father.' Because of your tradition, then, you have disregarded the authority of God's word.You hypocrites! How well did Isaiah prophesy of you when he said,'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.  And just as corporate media, political parties and so-called religious entities are doing today – Jesus Christ’s and his apostles words are taken out of context and touted as being a truth that should be accepted without contest, simply because a person has control of the microphone. Distortion of the Bible by Barack Obama? I don’t think so. And if this is the way he understands the Bible, how is it a distortion? In this country, we still have the right to understand Christianity the way we understand it. What we don’t have the right to do is tell someone else that what they believe is distorted or not true because it doesn’t look like what we believe. Proverbs 21:2 All a man's ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs the heart .

The reality is that Dobson has an agenda: his far right conservative organization does not like abortion rights and he doesn’t like Obama…or McCain. Dobson said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Ah yes, the Constitution. The Constitution does give Dobson the right to get on his religious radio show and take a two-year old speech, slice it up so that it’s taken out of context and use the power of the microphone to distort its meaning. And here is where he is wrong again: There is a pervasive power that comes from being a religious leader. People tend to believe whatever you say if you are their minister or their religious leader even if you are wrong. Most don’t have the courage, as the Obamas did, to speak up and then to walk away, no matter how personally painful that separation is. As I have said before in other blogs, I know exactly what they experienced, having been there myself. I think Dobson is deliberately distorting the Bible to fit his own agenda and using his power as a religious leader to get people to think as he does.  It is not only an issue of separation of church and state, because churches are non-profit entities, it’s an ethical issue of misuse of power to serve one’s own agenda. His justification for delving into politics is that the radio program was paid for by a Focus on the Family affiliate whose donations are taxed, Dobson said, so it's legal for that group to get more involved in politics. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/24/ja mes-dobson-accuses-obam_n_108851.htm   So, it’s OK to justify use of one’s religious clout to sway followers in a political matter. To sow discord so that people will follow your lead. To bear false witness against your neighbor by attempting to create a perception of who he is even when it's not reality. How hypocritical. And it’s just plain wrong.

 

 

Media noise
Played by the boys
Planning the next move
All this is new.
And not expected.
How did a man who don't think like us
Won't do like us
Don't look like us
Get past the door.
He wasn't invited to our party.
No need to worry
This is the plan
They're all suspect
So we'll just fan
The fire.
It didn't work.
What's that you hear?
I hear it too.
The roar of a crowd
For someone who
Don't look like you?
Walked through the fire did he?
Don't understand.
They're just emotional
Who knows the man?
Can't find a fault
We can make stick
Nothing important
Let's call him slick
Say he's a muslim(what's wrong with that?)
Say he's a terrorist
Say he's a secret
Say something's amiss.
Say it's his fault
The actions of others
Cast doubt in the minds
Of all our brothers,
And sisters and mothers
And fathers like us.
I don't understand
What's the big fuss?
A gaffe, innuendo,
An outright lie,
If we get caught
Just apologize
Say we misspoke.

Still can't stop him.

New plan in play?
What can it be
Perhaps a bait and switch
We'll see?
Put someone else
Better able than cain
In place so that
We can remain
In power.
It's not about Wright
Or wrong you see
Or gaffes
Or even policies.
It's about the courage
To see the truth
That the color of skin
Is not the proof
Of what makes a leader
What makes him right
Can you get past
His skin, not white?
Cause if you can
And if you do
Then change will come
For me, for you.
And it will be good.

(c) 2008

This blog may be a tad long, but  is worth the read because the second part explains all the confusion and media noise about the Michigan and Florida Democratic delegates  AND a solution to the problem.  The timeline took more than a minute to research, but now I understand what happened to get us to here in the process.

In one of my earlier blogs, I wrote about how my choice, your choice can and should be an individual decision (See Obama Or Clinton: My Choice Doesn't Have To Be Yours).  I did see a post on another site that got me to thinking.  I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

 

I was in corporate for many years, before I decided to pursue my passion for writing.   I learned a lot about people and behavior during that period.  So let me tell you about one of my bosses.  Had him for all of three months, but what an education.  He was an extremely handsome man, impeccably dressed, right down to the suspenders he wore over crisp, white shirts.  He had the perfect looking wife in the well-placed photo on his desk.  But something about him was, well I couldn’t figure it out, but there was …something.  I had been there a week, and one of the other managers in the group, very tall African American guy, nice, personable.  I had just come from meeting with my new boss and that little…something was beginning to bug me.  So I asked the other manager what he thought of our boss.  He turned to me and said, “Let me tell you about the conversation he had with me, two days after I got here.  He called me into his office and closed the door.  He then said: You and I are not brothers.  We will not be going to lunch with each other and we will not become friends.  I do not associate with you people, as I have a specific plan to get myself to a certain place in this company.  Do you understand me?”   I can’t stand him.   You need to watch your back.”   You see, my new boss was African American.  And, upon reflection, he was so caught up in racial invisibility that he was willing to dismember his own team in order to maintain the strategy he thought was key to his success.   Racial invisibility is a part of the many effects of corporate culture.  It has in fact, bled over into our societal structure.  We got that new job based upon our qualifications and the usual need to work twice as hard.  But it soon dawns upon us that we are the “only raisin in the rice.”    And as we sit in those conference room meetings, as we sit in the office or cubicle, we hear those jokes told, the comment slip, then as though they suddenly remember you are within earshot , “Oh, man, I didn’t mean anything by that, you know what I mean, that didn’t offend you did it? My bad…”    And as an upwardly mobile person of color, that dreaded day comes when you will have to interview that potential candidate for your team, or that consultant who the company wanted you to interview before they make the final decision.  S/he reminds you of you.  Great ideas, thinks outside of the box, has something to offer.  So you do exactly what your company expects, which is why they had you do the interview: you make sure they don’t get hired.  You tell yourself that they didn’t fit the need, but in reality you believe that one more black person would make your peers realize that you are black too.  One more competent black person would probably cause your boss to start comparing you with each other, versus comparing you with your existing peers.  Then there is the historically-based myth that two or more people of color in an organization represents the potential for collusion, especially if you begin to socialize with each other, even if it’s just on a professional basis.  (Believe me, this still happens in the twenty-first century)

 

So what has this got to do with the upcoming election, with the primaries, with Senator Barack Obama?   Just as the OJ murder trial created a very negative hypersensitivity to race in every part of this country, from the board room to the bedroom, even movie attendance -- one of Denzel Washington’s movies was poorly attended because it came out exactly when the trial was either ending or was in process.   Senator Obama has, just because he is who he is and happens to be a person of color, created a new consciousness of race, but in a different way.   Senator Obama has inadvertently caused the country to look itself in the mirror.  And some don’t like what they see, so they are still trying to shoot the messenger.   Since it has been impossible to find any really tangible evidence that Senator Obama is the same as any other politician, the next step was/is the usual guilt by real or perceived association, which somehow only works if you are a person of color.  Because for us one size fits all, right?  We are all painted with the same broad brush of stereotypical behavior, reasoning, likes, dislikes, etc. as it suits those who are doing the painting.   And those whose careers have been built on their ability to be invisible?  Your boss, your peers, your neighbors, even the security guard at the front desk  are reawakened to the fact that you too are a person of color.  You too, are intelligent and talented.  Wonder what aspirations you have; do you want to be president, CEO?  Are you a closet Democrat?  Where do your loyalties lie?  Are you one of those “emotional Negroes” supporting this Barack Obama?”   You make the decision to back Senator Cinton or John McCain, believing that you are justified in your choice as an individual and that their message and policies resonate with you as an informed voter.  And to be perfectly honest, it takes you out of the spotlight, allowing you reaffirm and assume your position.  So what happens to black men everywhere in this country, should Senator Obama become president?  If people continue to paint us with the same broad brush – and they will – will there be some new, covert strategy to use his presidency as new standard to measure, compare, eliminate people of color and African descent?  To assume that if Senator Obama can make it to the White House, with a background similar to yours, mine, ours, then there is no reason/excuse for you not to succeed?  Or is this just the way we feel, what we think may happen, specifically our men of color?   You see, those I hear from the most, those who are wary of a presidency held by a man of color and African descent, are men.    The election of Senator Obama will be, for each of us, what we choose to make it.  For some it will be an inspiration, for others it will be an opportunity to look in the mirror and see how we are reflected as a person biased against others because of the color of their skin or biased against ourselves because of the color of our skin.  His presidency will not eliminate racism, it may, however, set a different tone for how we treat each other; how each of us – if we are ever to evolve into a better nation of people – learns how to see each person as an individual, not as a cookie cut from the paradigm we have permanently affixed to our truth, nor as an someone we have made invisible under the premise of our own personal comfort level of dismissiveness.   For people of color and African descent, perhaps Senator Obama’s ability to withstand the storm -- in order that we may set sail on the winds of change in a way that will benefit us all -- will be a catalyst for a change our own paradigms from that of sameness and invisibility,  to claiming our unique contributions to business and society as individuals.   Race and gender is always going to matter.  Leveling is inherent to human behavior.  (Don’t know what that is?  See below.)  How we allow those human conditions to affect or infect us, well, who’s in control of that?

 

RAMBLINGS THROUGH THE ATTIC OF THOUGHT

 

Leveling.

a term describing

my excuse for diss - missal

of what defines you.

giving me power to

denigrate

obliviate

obliterate

manipulate

and generally make you invisible to the naked eye.

I pretend to see through you...

but I'm not lookin', really.

I'm not tryin' to reach

back for you.

you don't see things

the way I do.

and without sameness

I am weak

I cannot speak

and I was told my voice won't be heard anyway.

I was not informed:

perfection is not required

because it does not exist

in this human realm.

it becomes an oxymoron just by definition.

Much easier to

minimize

criticize

won't realize

that we just might be wrong this time?

no one showed me:

how to stop labeling

that one mixed

this one white

that one wrong

being black as night.

How did we become

defined by what houses us all the same?

since none can choose his race, her color

exactly who is it we should blame?

and in the bliss of my ignore - ance

I never asked if

a sun-baked tan changes who I am.

do dreads,

and nose rings

and my talk

of "bling"

make me an undercover brother or an unoriginal imitation of life?

when I call you " my sista"

is it because we connect

when I call you "my brotha"

am I showing respect?

or part of my hypocritical scam based on need or want?

 

© 2007 From “Ramblings Through the Attic of Thought” 

I saw a portion of  the interview this morning of Senator Barack Obama and Michelle Obama. (You can watch online:  http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24402983/)  What a beautiful interview and to me spoke volumes about who they are as partners, as a team.  But what I found out last night made me recognize who Barack Obama really is and I am filled with a respect that I cannot describe.  Someone sent me a piece of news that has been floating out in cyberspace for at least a month or more,  I thought it was contrived so I researched it and it's true.  I shared it with a person I know who used to be in the media and she told me that the Clintons have been pressuring the media lately and this was probably why.  But that's not what I am writing about.  I am writing to say how much I admire and respect Barack Obama because he has NOT ALLOWED his campaign to focus on the personal or perceptively damaging matters of other candidates.  He has got to know about some of these matters yet even in the firestorm over Minister Wright, he has not swayed from his focus on getting back to the real issues of the nation.  And you know what?  My first inclination was to let folks know what he hasn't discussed but I decided I am going to follow his lead and not talk about them either.  I am even sorry I sent the resources to those I sent it to.  Even if the information does reach daylight, I hope each person reading this remembers that Barack Obama chose not to run his campaign using guilt by association and sees the information for what it is, remembering how it affected him when they used Minister Wright.

I just received a bunch of e-mails discussing Senator Obama and Minister Wright. There is so much to say, but I want to keep this message as simple and clear as possible. America, no matter your ethnic background, you are getting played.  As Blacks, we are so wrapped up in the emotion of a perceived attack on our religion and race that we are paying absolutely no attention to the man behind the curtain, pulling the strings.  As Anglos, we are so wrapped up in the doubt of our original decisions to vote for Senator Obama, because of the consistent bombardment of around-the-clock, looped snippets of the Wright sermon. Senator Obama is being lynched electronically by the media (aka corporate media) and with the usual nonsense from Hillary and John.  No I didn't stutter, I use first names for those whom I have no respect.

Have we forgotten what this presidential campaign is about and who is running?  Minister Wright is not running for president. Senator Obama is.  Yet, once again, we have one African/Anglo American who is being held responsible for the actions and words of other people.   We don’t hold Hillary Clinton’s feet to the same fire for her husband’s words, for her staff’s words or for any other people she has been associated with.  We don’t hear CNN, MSNBC or Fox News looping images of Pastor John Hagee, an influential minister who has endorsed McCain and his anti-Catholic comments, nor do we see McCain’s embracing of this endorsement repeatedly looped, analyzed and discussed.   Isn’t the goal of corporate media to do what neither McCain nor Clinton are able to do: stop his rise to presidency? 

 

Watching all of this from the sidelines, I have reached the conclusion that the media has found a way to use psychology on the average American.  If you continually bombard the airwaves with sound bytes taken out of context, then the listening/viewing audience begins to absorb it, and  begin to believe whatever is said as being the truth – after all, aren’t those who are behind the microphone supposed to be telling us the truth? -- not understanding that those with the power of the microphone have an actual agenda. Yes, an agenda here in the land of the free.  That agenda is creating doubt by inference and inference of association. 

 

Minister Wright finally got his fifteen minutes of fame yesterday, when a Clinton supporter arranged to have him speak to the National Press Club.  After rambling on for a time, there was a staged Q and A where Wright basically threw Senator Obama under the bus.  Do I think this was planned?  Of course.  The bigger question is, why do we care about these antics?  Minister Wright does not define Senator Obama; they are two separate people with very different views and agendas.  But as long as we allow the media to continue painting us with the same broad stereotypical brush, this nonsense will continue.

 

The strategy of the media, as well as the Clinton and McCain campaigns is to place the usual stereotypical doubts in the minds of Americans, specifically Anglo American men, who are for Senator Obama for the same reasons I am; they actually listened to what he is saying about the issues.  And this is a new, uncharted waters for Anglo America -- looking past skin color and perceptions to get to a new truth, because change is crucial to this country's future.  We are on the precipice and we have to get this right, because this country cannot take another four years of more of the same.  But if you can make Anglo America uncomfortable enough about its decision making, then you can convince them to do what's comfortable, instead of what's right. 

 

But hold on a minute.  Are you really going to make your decisions about Barack Obama based upon repeated innuendos or will you take the time to look deeper? The only matters the media can raise as concerns are two relationships:  one with the minister who helped him become a Christian, who is retired and sees Senator Obama as part of “them” because he is running for president, even though Senator Obama was loyal enough to not throw him under the bus and the other – Ayers – who lives somewhere in his neighborhood, was on the same board therefore in the same conference room at one time and was a member of the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was eight years old.  Let’s see, have I missed anything? Oh, let’s not forget his use of the word bitter. I believe that in one of Senator Obama's subsequent comments about the statement he made, he himself said that he was not perfect and that the intent of his words were not mirrored in the perception.  I think that anyone who knows his background understands that he truly is not who Senators Clinton  and McCain are attempting to portray from that one soundbyte.  And it is a matter of context.  Whoopi Goldberg, understanding that, read his speech aloud on the View so that everyone could hear the comment in context -- and to me, it was neither offensive nor inaccurate.  But when people become desperate, they begin to grab for anything that the media can spin into controversy.  Unfortunately the media is more than willing to comply.  I, for one, would be more impressed if Senator Clinton would get back to the actual issues, rather than splitting hairs over semantics.  This candidacy is not about race: most of his supporters here in Indiana are Anglo and it's not about gender: many of those supporters are male.  It is about choosing the candidate who has shown the heart, the spirit, the integrity and the intelligence to have any hope of delivering on their promises.  Considering the reality that many of the corporations who own the media  are some of the major lobbyists who will be severely hampered by Senator Obama's  presidency, perhaps we should approach all that we hear with a :"let the buyer beware" mentality and stop the knee jerk reactions to everything we read, see and hear  And is this all they have?  Really?  You are weighing this nonsense against Senator Obama’s ability to create real change?  We aren’t in high school looking to choose the class president, we are selecting the right candidate to be president of our country.

 

As I mentioned before in other writings, I saw a short clip on CNN's Rick on the Road, where Bob Johnson, former owner of BET, was giving a long, detailed "translation" of Geraldine Ferraro's comment that got her removed from the Clinton campaign.   First as a woman, I question why Bob's services where required to explain what she meant by her words, Ferraro is an intelligent woman who can speak for herself and if she wanted to do so she would have appeared in front of any given camera to do so.  She meant exactly what she said.

 

Second, as an African American woman in Indiana, who prides herself on knowing who and why she supports who she supports, I take issue with Bob's condescending, misguided belief that any African American who supports Senator Obama is doing so for emotional reasons, not logical ones..., and Bob does not now nor has he ever spoken for me.  But then, he is consistent in his actions and comments that have never been in touch with African America reality.  While the media loves to toss about the theory that African America doesn't know what it's doing and loves it even more when a Bob Johnson comes along to reinforce that paradigm,   The media seems to have selective amnesia: Didn't Jesse Jackson run as a Democratic nominee a few years ago?  He was successful enough to have the DNC look for a way to successfully train wreck that bid just in case it became a viable reality (see Super Delegates), yet, he was not who I was interested in, because he was not bringing what I believed our country needed to the table.   

 

I am weary of folks who continue to define my choices as emotional, invalid, unfounded, misinformed, just because I am a person of color and African descent.  You people do not speak for me.  I am an intelligent black woman who is known for looking behind the curtain to find out what's really going on, so when you dismiss my choices as looking for some "Great Black Hope" be prepared for some pushback.   For the record, to anyone who is not African American, it is insulting, condescending, dismissive and totally inaccurate to buy into the media-driven assertions that people of color and African descent run around blindly supporting anyone of color and African descent just because they are of color and African descent.  Senator Obama is equally of Anglo and African descent, so technically, the very premise in and of itself is inaccurate.  Additionally, no one with ownership of the microphone speaks for me, just because they are of color and African descent. 

 

Because this is a free country, the Tavis Smileys, Bob Johnsons, et al, have the absolute right to voice their beliefs and points of view, but they do not have the right to diminish, trivialize and/ or dismiss mine.  As for Tavis, since he was brought up in the Bob Johnson diatribe, knowing that he is known off the mike for believing his own hype  -- don't get me wrong, he has had some points of view I have agreed with in the past, just not this one -- I still believe that when you make comments, which is how you keep the sponsors that you have  (can anyone say Walmart?  Can anyone say $4 M spent on lobbying in 2007?) -- you have to be adult enough, professional enough to take the heat.   Unlike Elisabeth on the View, who said that she could change her mind and vote for Senator Obama (check her out on the Obama visits The View taping, I am certain it's somewhere on the Internet.) Tavis cannot afford to flip flop, his credibility would be damaged, his sponsor would not be happy.  You see, none of us know who people vote for once they get behind the little curtain. 

 

Any individuals reading this ask yourself this question: are you going to allow the corporate media noise influence your decisions or are you going to take a long hard look at the real issues at hand and make your decision based on the candidate who genuinely wants to create real change in our government. This isn’t about race, it’s about right.  Because if you do what you always done, you will get what you’ve gotten for the last eight years.  I am not going to be marginalized, are you?  Speak up for yourself – use your power -- with your vote.

 

First-hand sources:

Barack Obama interview: http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/video

 

Fox interview:  http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=1fd1c0cf-5c80-4d75-996f-bd53b2461ae0&sMPlaylistID  

 

Minister Wright’s full sermon: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/03/listen-and-read-to-the-whole-g.html.

 

McCain’s Interview on ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4689908

 

I  saw a short clip on CNN's Rick on the Road, where Bob Johnson, former owner of BET, was giving a long, detailed "translation" of Geraldine Ferraro's comment that got her removed from the Clinton campaign. 

First as a woman, I question why Bob's services where required to explain what she meant by her words;  Ferraro is an intelligent woman who can speak for herself and if she wanted to do so she would have appeared in front of any given camera.  Second, as an African American woman who prides herself on knowing who and why she supports who she supports, I take issue with Bob's  condescending, misguided belief that any African American who supports Senator Obama is doing so for emotional reasons, not logical ones...,and Bob does not now nor has he ever spoken for me.  But then, he is consistent in his actions and comments that have never been in touch with African America reality.  While the media loves to toss about the theory that African America doesn't know what it's doing and they love it even more when a Bob Johnson comes along to reinforce that paradigm,   The media seems to have selective amnesia: Didn't Jesse Jackson run as a Democratic nominee a few years ago?  He was successful enough to have the DNC look for a way to successfully train wreck that bid just in case it became a viable reality ( see Super Delegates), yet, he was not who I was interested in, because he was not bringing what I believed our country needed to the table.    And did everyone forget the display by the two Republicans on CNN, back when it was rumored that Colin Powell might consider running as a Republican candidate, who showed themselves for what they represent? (If anyone could dig up that clip, I am certain every Republicans would cringe if it were looped over and over again on every media station.)