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