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.