Unfiltered Opinion

If This Is True - Maybe Blacks Should Be Wary Of Obama

Marc Ambinder, an associate editor for The Atlantic has a blog that I enjoy reading on a daily basis.  I don't agree with everything that he writes, but I respect his opinion.  Yesterday, he posted a short entry on his blog entitled "The Edifice Crumbles?" and he the proceeded to post the following thoughts of an Obama supporter,

"It may be cynical, but I've started to think that Wright sees Obama as, in a way, a threat to his ministry. It would be difficult for him to preach that the government systematically destroys the lives of black people if a black man is sitting in the White House."

Ambinder then writes, "I know that many people inside Obama's campaign share this belief."

If what Ambinder says is true then many blacks will be offended and disappointed that members of Obama's campaign have subscribed to this tired theory on race in this country.  First of all, it does not surprise me that there are people in Obama's campaign that believe Wright views Obama's success as a threat to his ministry.  I would like to know the identification of those people.  I would be disappointed, but not surprised if the Obama campaign members who believe this were black. 

This unproven belief of some people in Obama's campaign is based on nothing.  These are the same people who will argue that racism is not that prevalent in today's society because a biracial male is on the brink of becoming the Democratic nominee for president.

There are many whites and some blacks who harbor similar thoughts about the media appointed black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.  They believe that Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan and others do not want racism to go away because its demise would make them irrelevant.  I am not a fan of some of their methods and commentaries, but a person would have to be a fool to believe these men want people of color to continue to be discriminated against so they can continue to be relevant in the publics eye.  Now if there is a way to make them irrelevant, please let me know.

I do not believe Wright or any other black "leader" is threatened by Obama's success.  I am sure there are some people who are jealous of the attention Obama gets and the "easy road" he has traveled to get to this point. I do not believe that Obama has traveled an easier road to his success.  I believe Obama has traveled on a road that many members of the "black leadership" are not familiar with.  Nevertheless, there does seem to be a disconnect between the civil rights leaders who cut their teeth on the politics of 30-40 years ago and the new vanguard of black "leaders". 

The bottom line is this - Wright was revered on the South Side of Chicago before Obama came along and he will be revered when Obama is long gone.  Are there people who wish Wright had kept his mouth shut until Obama was elected president?  Yes.  However, the South Side community in which Trinity United Church of Christ resides is not going to turn their back on Wright.  I know they want Obama to sit in the Oval Office, but I guarantee you that they will never trust Obama over Wright.  Trust me when I say that Wright's ministry and his legacy is secure with the people that he represents and that is all that matters to Wright.

Obama Is Walking A Fine Line With Some Black People

I remember it wasn't that long ago when most black people wondered aloud if Obama was black enough.  Some blacks did not trust him because of his biracial background.  He did not have the similar life experience that the majority of blacks have as a result of living in the United States.  Blacks who doubted Obama pointed to the fact that he was the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother.  He also attended and graduated from some of the best schools in the country.  Therefore, some blacks questioned his authenticity on his knowledge of being black in America.

Now approximately 90 percent of the voting black community supports Obama and his quest for the presidency.  Even though he is biracial, Obama has allowed everyone (black, white, media, etc.) to say that he could be the first African-American president of the United States.  For the record, I respect Obama's decision to identify with his African heritage, but I am of the opinion that Obama would be the first biracial President who happens to identify as a black male.  I only say this because I believe when people say Obama is African-American, they totally disregard his white mother and her family.  Obama is the man he is because of his white mother and her parents who basically raised him as a young man in a white household.

When Obama won the Iowa Primary, most black people were stunned that a predominantly white state would vote for someone of color.  The Iowa victory and his strong showing in New Hampshire gave some blacks the courage they needed to support Obama.  For example, Jesse Jackson won 77 percent of the black vote in 1984 and 92 percent of the black vote in 1988.  Currently, Obama is getting numbers close to what Jackson got in 1988.

Despite the support he gets from the majority of black voters, Obama has to be careful of his perception in all segments of the black community.  There are already rumblings from some members of Indiana's black communities that Obama and Hillary Clinton are basically ignoring them while concentrating on courting the blue collar white voters.

Obama is also being watched to see how he handles the Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ controversies.  When Obama denounced Wright yesterday, most people knew he did it for more political reasons than for personal ones.  For Obama to have any chance of making inroads into the white blue-collar vote that Clinton has consistently beat him in he knew he had to strongly denounce Wright.  However, Obama has to be careful how he denounces Wright so as not lose many members of his black voting bloc.  Obama knows that there is a risk that some blacks will think he's just criticizing Wright to appease some white voters.  I believe young black voters are more likely then older black voters to understand why Obama had to give the speech he gave yesterday.   I think older black voters will understand, but will be less likely to forgive him for it.

Obama has to continue to find the balance that allows him to criticize Wright's views while not making it look like he's selling Wright out to white America because he needs their votes. For example, Obama was allegedly criticized by Al Sharpton for trying to "grandstand for white people" by appealing for calm after the controversial verdict in the Sean Bell shooting trial.

Obama is in a delicate situation but he can overcome it by just being himself.  The trouble is I don't know if Obama really knows who he is because I sure don't.  The man is being pulled in all directions by all people on a daily basis.  This is one reason why most people do not run for President of the United States.  I wish him well even though I will not be voting for him in the fall because he's too liberal for my blood.  However, I am willing to overlook the flaws or political leanings of any candidate who would be willing to forgive student loan debts over $50,000.

Trinity Has Done Some Cleaning On The Internet

It seems like the name of Louis Farrakhan will continue to be a part of the presidential campaign until election night.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due.  Barack Obama and his campaign staff have done a great job of handling the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  To his credit, Obama did not cower behind press releases and anonymous statements made by aides.  He came out in front of the American public and gave a speech on race relations that was well received in most corners of the country.  Obama's top adviser, David Axelrod, even got one of the top public relation firms in Chicago to help Trinity United Church of Christ handle the overwhelming crush of media attention it was getting on a daily basis.

Jasculca-Terman and Associates says that their public relations crisis advice is being conducted as pro-bono work on behalf of Trinity.  I am also sure that they advised the church that it would be in their best interests to remove any web site links to material that could be considered controversial.  Now if you go to Trinity's site, their is no available link to their Trumpet Newsmagazine.  In January, I had made mention of the November/December 2007 edition of Trumpet that contained the article about Farrakhan receiving the church's Lifetime Achievement Award.

I don't know who made the decision to remove the magazine from the internet.  It could have been Obama, Axelrod, Jasculca-Terman or the church itself.  It was the right decision to make - I don't care who made it.  Nevertheless, the reason, I am even talking about the magazine again is because during a Pennsylvania campaign stop yesterday, Obama was asked, once again, to address the subject of his church giving the award to Farrakhan according to the Political Radar. However, Obama's response to the question was, in my opinion, a well thought out fabrication.  Obama said,

"This was done by a magazine that was connected to the church. I would have never done it. It was primary focused on the rehabilitation work that they do for ex-offenders in Chicago. That doesn’t excuse it, that just explains it."

I read that article several times and I still cannot remember any mention of rehabilitation work done by the Nation of Islam.  I wish I had kept the pdf version of the article; since it has been removed from the church's site, I could not read it again.  I even tried searching the Internet for it, but I could not find it.  Maybe I'm wrong about the article, but I don't think so.  I would like for someone would have to show me a copy of the old article and show me where the word "rehabilitation" is located in the article. 

My point is that Obama has crafted a good explanation for his church giving the award to Farrakhan and it has tested well thus far.  The Nation of Islam does do good work with ex-convicts and other issues in inner-city neighborhoods.  But in this instance, Obama's explanation is not true.  However, no one will be able to prove it unless they kept their downloaded copy of the Trumpet Newsmagazine.

Who Cares What Day Obama Went To Church?

William Kristol, wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today discussing Obama, his church, and Obama's new generation of supporters.  Kristol is under fire for the following paragraph:

"But Ronald Kessler, a journalist who has written about Wright’s ministry, claims that Obama was in fact in the pews at Trinity last July 22. That’s when Wright blamed the “arrogance” of the “United States of White America” for much of the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks. In any case, given the apparent frequency of such statements in Wright’s preaching and their centrality to his worldview, the pretense that over all these years Obama had no idea that Wright was saying such things is hard to sustain".

Kristol is being blasted by the media for his mistake.  I think Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic.com said it best when he wrote, "The error is in trusting the source without checking". 

Newsmax has printed a vague and weak retraction of their 2007 story that Obama attended a Trinity service on July 22, 2007.  Newsmax says that the Obama campaign has informed the media that he was in Florida on that day.  However, Newsmax says their writer, Jim Davis, went to "several services" during July and witnessed Obama being at the sermon in dispute.  They are standing by their story.  Therefore, somebody is lying, but I could really care less.

Why?  Because I don't need an undercover reporter to tell me that Obama has witnessed Wright making inflammatory remarks.  Anybody with common sense knows that he has either heard Wright making insensitive remarks or he has heard about them.  The question should be - does it bother you that Obama knew what Wright's views were and why?

This answer will vary among people based on their life experience. Personally, I would not have stayed at a church service where a minister curses and uses racial slurs - I don't care what race the minister or congregation is. I have walked out of churches before because I was not comfortable with what was said and I will continue to do so.  I walked out of those churches based on my life experience.

My grandfather is an African-American minister with the Apostolic faith.  He began and still has two churches in the poor country side of west Tennessee.  My grandfather preached with same fire and energy that Wright and a lot of black ministers preach with.  My grandfather has also been the victim of nasty racist acts just like I am sure Wright has.  My grandfather has also done a lot of good community work just like Wright has done in Chicago. 

However, in all of the sermons I have seen my grandfather preach, I have never seen him use profanity, racial slurs and anti-American rhetoric like Wright did on those video clips.  This is why I have a problem with Wright because my life experience says a minister is not supposed to use that type of language at any time.

Unlike some people, I believe Wright has a right to say and do whatever he wants as long as he is not breaking the law.  My problem is with people who sit and listen to Wright.  It is my right to question the character. judgment, or intelligence of the people sitting in those pews every Sunday.  It is my right to say "how can you listen to that garbage?"  I'm the type of person who cannot be around, anyone, family included, who is negative, whether it be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc..  I don't care what your negative vibe is, but I don't need it in my life.  So I remove these people from my life and steer clear of them.   Life is hard enough already.

Therefore, I don't have a problem with Obama, the private citizen, attending Trinity and listening to Wright.  I am not affected by Obama's judgment as a private person.  He has the right to worship and believe whatever he wants as long as his judgment does not affect me or my family.  However, I do have a problem with Obama, the presidential candidate, attending Trinity.   As the presidential nominee, who could eventually be elected president, now your judgment will have an impact on my life and those I care about. 

I believe anyone, black or white who sits and listens to negative, racist, sexist, anti-American rhetoric whether it is at a Klan rally, Louis Farrakhan speech, or a church service is using bad judgment and has a character flaw that needs to be fixed.  This is my problem with Obama - bad judgment.  It is what I cannot and will not accept from Obama or any other candidate running for an elected office that will represent me.

Barack Obama Is "Playing The Game"

Please take the time to read this interesting article that was written by Boyce Watkins, an African-American professor at Syracuse University.  Watkins is discussing the racial overtones of the campaign and the ramifications of Barack Obama being branded the "black candidate".  I want you to pay particular attention to the part of the article where Watkins starts to discuss his brother's campaign to be student body president.  Watkins goes on to say the following about his brother:

"My brother’s campaign for student body president was a strong one, as he gave one stirring speech after another, met with all sororities and fraternities, produced innovative ideas and inspired tremendous energy from the students. All the while, he spent very little time discussing racial politics and worked deliberately to find common ground with the non-black students on campus. The black students, less than 10% of the student body, knew he was “playing the game”, and felt that he would support them once elected".

I have alluded to this "game" before when I talked about how Obama handled the questions regarding Farrakhan. Black people know that Obama is eventually going to have to verbally cast aside racists like Farrakhan and his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright. They know he is going to have to denounce their views and renounce his relationships with them in a very public manner.  However, they also know that in his heart, Obama will not mean any of the things he is saying about Farrakhan and Wright.  Obama is "playing the game" and doing what he has to do to get elected president and that is all that matters to the majority of black people.

Obama Should Not Be A Member Of This Church

Fox News has released taped recording of sermons delivered at Barack Obama's church by recently retired minister, Jeremiah Wright, Jr.  It will be interesting to see how his lunatic ravings made at the Trinity United Church of Christwill be interpreted by the IRS.  There are people who believe that  the church should lose its tax exempt status because of the content of some of the sermons that have been delivered there.  I don't think Trinity will lose its tax exemption, but that's not my main concern.  Watch the following video and you will see what really should concern everyone.

The problem I have is the words that have been spoken by Wright on a regular basis.  His conduct is unbecoming of a minister.  Maybe, I'm too old fashioned, but I didn't think ministers were supposed to give sermons that were fueled by racist, hateful, language laced with profanity.

Do you need more evidence that the man is a nut?  I found this video on YouTube.  It's from another sermon Wright gave to his congregation which includes the Obama's.  You can hear the sermon in the background of the video.

It still surprises me that an intelligent married couple like the Obama's would be members of this church.  In fairness to Obama, his campaign did release the following statement: 

"Senator Obama has said repeatedly that personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they’re offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.  “Senator Obama does not think of the pastor of his church in political terms. Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Senator Obama deeply disagrees.”

I have a problem with this cop out statement and it goes back to what I have been saying all along.  There is a double standard in this campaign for Obama, Clinton and McCain.  If Clinton and McCain were members of a church like Trinity and their spiritual mentor made comments like this, the media would be clamoring for them to resign from the campaign or to strongly denounce the church.

I have family members who are racist and that I deeply disagree with on many other issues.  I do not have anything to do with them.  On the other hand, maybe I should not be so hard on Obama.  Why should he disassociate himself from his friend?  Why should he care about what his mentor says when the majority of the American public doesn't care either?  This is what the mainstream media wants the public to believe.  The Obama campaign and the media have partnered to create a climate where people cannot even say anything bad about him or his campaign without being called racist. 

The bottom line is this - Barack and Michelle Obama have been members of Trinity for years.  They have sat and listened to these hateful sermons.   People do not continue to go to a church to listen to a minister they do not agree with.  I also don't want to hear the "crazy uncle" excuse.  If any other candidate went to a church where the minister believes that the U.S. government introduced the AIDS virus onto its own citizens they would be packing up their campaign office.  Obama's continued relationship with Wright has validated his racist anti-American rants. Michelle Malkin summed it up well, when she said, "Now we know where Michelle Obama's resentment of America comes from."

Did Obama Waffle On The Farrakhan Question?

I don't think so, but some commentators think Obama could have been stronger with his denunciation of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan.  I am of the opinion that Farrakhan and the majority of blacks do not care what Obama says about Farrakhan.  They know Obama has to do what he has to do to get elected president.  Obama should take advantage of this free pass and keep using it to his advantage. He is going to have to keep denouncing Farrakhan to attract the white independent and Republican voters he will need to get elected president.

The Farrakhan Issue - This Is Just The Beginning

During the debate tonight, moderator Tim Russert, questioned Barack Obama about the issue of Louis Farrakhan supporting his candidacy.  Farrakhan is the leader of the controversial black separatist group, the Nation of Islam. To his credit, Obama deftly handled the line of questioning even though it was clear he was not comfortable doing so.

Obama said he rejected Farrakhan's anti-semitic views, but I wish he had gone further and said he rejected the rest of the views of the Nation of Islam leader.  Here is a clip of the exchange:

I also thought Obama did a good job talking about the role of Jewish people in the civil rights movement.  Obama scored points with me by bringing this issue up and talking about how strained the relationship has become.  The strained relationship has lot to do with the well documented remarks of Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and others.  Obama says he wants to repair the relationship between Black and Jewish people.  I sincerely hope he can accomplish this.

Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Jackson - They May Just Pull This Off

If I am proven to be wrong about something, I will not hesitate to admit it.  This is why I want to congratulate Barack Obama and the supporters of his campaign. Obama is on the verge of being elected the Democratic nominee for president.  When Obama secure the nomination, it will be an historic moment.  I always knew I would see the day when a minority would have the opportunity to get elected to the highest office in the land.  I just didn't think it would be Obama because of his politics and his background.

I have always said that for a minority, in particular a Black person, to have a chance to be elected to a political office that is not in a predominantly Black area, a certain strategy has to be in place.  For the Black candidate to win, he or she has to have crossover appeal.  They have to be able to attract White voters.  This is no secret, especially in the Black community.  This strategy was alluded to by the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, in a March 2007 Nightline interview. 

For a Black person to be successful in a national election, certain controversial voices must be silenced or removed from the national spotlight.  Did you really think it was a coincidence that people like Farrakhan, Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have not been as outspoken in public as they have been in the past?  This was strategy - they knew they would hurt Obama's campaign if their faces were along side Obama's on television.  It is no secret that the majority of White people have a negative opinion of Farrakhan, Jackson, and Sharpton - and for good reason if you look at some of their history.

It is obvious that Obama and his campaign staff are confident that they will eventually win the nomination because the controversial people are starting to talk more in the press.  For example, Farrakhan all but endorsed Obama's presidency during his speech on Sunday.  By the way, I find it amusing that Farrakhan said the following: 

“A black man with a white mother became a savior to us. A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall.”

This is the same man who is the head of a religion that opposes interracial marriage and believes that Black people should have their own territory in which to live.

Obama has played his candidacy beautifully.  His campaign had Clinton so scared to speak out against him, she didn't know what to do.  Clinton and her staff were scared to be labeled racists and mean. Now the same thing is happening to the Republicans.  If eventual Republican nominee John McCain campaigns scared against Obama in the general election, he will lose and the Iraq war will not be the reason.

This is why I want to congratulate Obama and his supporters.  Obama has crafted his message so well and manipulated the media to a point that a majority of White people do not even want to hear about his past associations with some one like Farrakhan.  If a person tries to question Obama on any thing controversial, the person is quickly labeled a racist or some other nasty name. 

This is the easy way out for Obama supporters.  I am not telling people not to vote for Obama.  I am just asking that people take a hard look at his background and associations without being blinded by his rhetoric of principled change.

John Edwards - He Should Have Said He Was Biracial

The race for the Democratic nomination is an interesting case study to me.  The candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have their strengths and weaknesses.  Both candidates have their ardent supporters, but I cannot count myself among them.  Clinton's campaign staff and advisor's should never be allowed to work on another campaign.  They have run one of the worst campaigns in recent memory.  For her to be on the verge of losing to Obama is ridiculous. 

Speaking of Obama, he seems like a nice guy who is a great speaker.  I just do not trust him.  I'm a pretty good judge of character, but there is something about Obama that I do not trust.  Is it his much talked about membership at his church and its relationship with the Nation of Islam?  Is it his empty rhetoric?  Is it his voting record?  My answer to these questions is - maybe, but I just don't know.  I know who Clinton is and is not.  I know where her skeletons are and what they look like.  Can you say the same thing about Obama?  I don't know who this guy is, but I have a feeling I will know more when he wins the nomination and I'm not going to like what I hear.

Every time I see Clinton and Obama, I think of Al Gore and President Bush during their presidential race. I thought that Gore would be the better President, but he was never depicted in a positive manner by the media. Gore didn't help with his exaggerated statements or missteps.  Then on the other side, you had Bush who carried the mantle of "change".  What ever mistakes he made, the majority of people saw it as "human error" or an innocent mistake any one could have made.  People accused Gore's campaign of running a negative campaign against Bush.  All Bush had to do was smile and keep playing it safe with his campaign speeches.  You remember the speeches that talked about his ability to work across the aisles with the other party to get things done?  How about the speeches that talked about his ability to bring change to Washington?  Sounds eerily familiar doesn't it?  The same game plan that worked for Bush is now working for Obama.

I then wondered how did John Edwards lose to these two people.  He seemed like a good candidate.  Edwards was definitely the only candidate who wanted to find a way to lift up the people in our country who have been economically and socially left behind.  How did he lose?  Then it hit me - Edwards got caught in the perfect political storm. The biggest reason Edwards lost the race was for something he had no control over - he was a White male. 

Edwards was caught in the middle of a party and its constituents trying to make history by electing the first woman or minority to be president.  The media refused to give him the same attention it gave to Clinton and Obama.  Edwards got more attention the day he left the campaign trail than any other time he was running for office. He may have been the best overall candidate, but with the media and donors all but ignoring him, the only people who heard his message was his loyal band of supporters.  I know he and his wife will continue their public service.  Unfortunately for Edwards, 2008 was the wrong year to be a White male running for the Democratic nomination.

Is Obama In Bed With The Nation of Islam?

I have alway believed that people should question and research every thing - especially if it sounds too good to be true.  This is why I read articles from liberal, conservative, moderate and independent columnists.  I believe the truth always lies some where in the middle of what is written. While doing research on-line, I came across a blog written by conservative political commentator, Debbie Schlussel.  She seems like your average conservative activist.  Schlussel wrote an interesting column on her site alleging that Obama has strong ties to the Nation of Islam.  If what she has written is even remotely true, I can guarantee that Obama will never see the inside of the White House unless he is on a guided tour.  Obama's campaign site has a page that addresses claims that are not true, but as of today, this issue has not be addressed.

If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, he knows the Republican activists, unlike their Democratic counterparts are going to demand answers.  If this story is true, I can't wait to see how it eventually plays out, especially among Obama's white supporters.

Clinton Should Quit The Race

Senator Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President.  I am not saying this because I believe Senator Barack Obama is the better candidate.  I believe Clinton should stop running for the nomination if she is going to continue to run a campaign that is afraid to address the problems with Obama's candidacy. 

Obama's campaign, its supporters and the media have put Clinton on the defensive.  They have her and husband, afraid to say any thing bad about Obama.  The Clinton's seem like they are afraid of being labeled racists.  It is not racist to state the facts for what they are if it is the truth.  What is the Clinton campaign afraid of? 

I will be the first to admit that I am not a campaign strategist and I do not know what is being discussed in the various campaign war rooms.  However, I do know this - Clinton will not get the vote of the majority of Blacks as long as Obama is still in the race.  Therefore, she should stop campaigning as if she does not want to offend Black voters.  Every one knows that the majority of Black's vote for the Democratic party without fail. They are fully vested in the myth that the Democratic Party is the best option for them.  In doing so, Blacks have put themselves in a box.  This is why Clinton should stop worrying about offending them and attack Obama's candidacy like she has done in her past races against White candidates. 

I know the majority of Obama's supporters, Black and White, are sensitive to his candidacy and any criticism of it.  They get mad if you ask him about his church and their giving a Lifetime Achievement Award Louis Farrakan, leader of the Nation of Islam.  Obama supporters also get mad if you say that he has not offered any specific details on how he is going to implement any of the policies he has mentioned in speeches.  Many Obama supporters believe that any one who opposes Obama is racist because that is the only reason a person could have not to support his campaign.

Clinton cannot be worried about offending the Black supporters of Obama.  If she were to win the nomination, they would either vote for her or sit at home.  The majority of Blacks are not going to vote for the Republican nominee. 

Therefore, my message to Clinton is this - play to win.  If you are not going to compete to the best of your ability and be true to yourself, do yourself a favor and drop out of the race.   

The "Obama Rules"

I have always been an independent voter.  I have never voted for a candidate because he was a member of a certain party.  I also have never gone into a polling place and voted a straight ticket for either party.  I have always believed in voting for the individual candidate and his platform.  Maybe it is the way my mind works, but I have never been inspired by a politician.  Every candidate in every election says the same thing.  Some candidates have better oratory skills and project themselves better to an audience, but the script is basically the same.  This is why I find Senator Obama's campaign and the popularity of his candidacy very amusing.

If you ask people why they are voting for Obama, the first thing that comes out of their mouth is "change" or he's a fresh face.  In every election, whether it be for the local school board, mayor, governor, or congressional, the candidates say they are for change.  What makes Obama's claim to be the candidate of change any different than other candidates over the years?

There is no doubt in my mind that the media has helped shape and sell Obama's presidential bid to the voters.  I'm not saying they are working together, but I do believe the majority of the media has got caught up in the hype machine.  No one is asking him the tough questions regarding his voting record and his platform.  No one is asking him about his church and its relationship with the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan.  When Obama is shown on the news channels, the viewer at home gets to see concert sized crowds and some voters near tears after hearing him give a speech. 

Unfortunately for Obama, I do not vote for inspiration.  If he is the Democratic nominee, he better be prepared to answer the questions that undecided voters like me have.  The "Obama Rules" of non-confrontation do not apply with me.  If you want to sit in the highest office of the land than you have to address the tough issues.  I do not want to hear the same old tired song and dance act that I hear from candidates during each election.  Contrary to popular opinion, Obama is no different than Clinton, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.  He sells the same B.S.; he just presents it better.

In Fairness To Obama

In light of my comments regarding Senator Barack Obama, his church, Trinity United Church of Christ and its issuance of an award to Louis Farrakhan, I was told of a "fact check" page on Obama's campaign web site.  The site addresses inaccurate statements and emails that have been increasingly appearing over time.  I may not agree with all of the explanations, but I think people should at least read them and form their own opinions.

Why Is Obama Getting A Free Pass?

What do you think the national media would do if there was a presidential candidate who attended a church that describes itself as "unashamedly White" with a "non-negotiable commitment to Europe".  The church goes on to say it has a White worship service and ministries that address the White community.  The magazine of the church also gave an award to the leader of a White separatist organization because of his influence in the White community.  If the above scenario was true, the media would be all over this story until it had run its course.

Well, it is true and the candidate is Senator Barack Obama.  He is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ located in Chicago, Illinois.  The church says it is "unashamedly Black" and it has a "Black worship service and ministries which address the Black community". 

The church's magazine, Trumpet News Magazine, also gave its Lifetime Achievement Award to the Minister Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the controversial Nation of Islam.  The church gave him the award because he "truly epitomized greatness".

Please note the following:

1) I do not have a problem with Obama being a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.  He has the freedom to worship where ever he feels comfortable and there is nothing wrong with that

2) Trinity United Church of Christ has every right to establish and believe in their tenets of belief and worship.  It is not against the law to have a "unashamedly Black congregation" just as it is okay to have a "unashamedly White congregation".  I believe it's tacky and wrong, but it is not against the law.

3) The church has every right to give their award to Farrakhan if that is what they want to do.  I respect their right to choose their honorees, but I do not have to agree with their selections.

What I have a problem with is the national media coverage of this issue.  If Obama was White, this issue would have been a front page story.  Obama would have been forced to disassociate himself with his church and make a public denouncement of Farrakhan and his beliefs.  Obama would have had to do more than issue a press release addressing the issue.  It seems that the majority of the mainstream press does not want to press Obama on certain subjects because they do not want to be seen as racist. 

It is not racist to ask Obama tough questions on racial issues or ideology.  I don't care what some civil rights activists would have you believe.  What is wrong with asking him questions regarding where he attends church?  Republican candidate Mitt Romney is almost questioned daily regarding his being a Mormon.  For example, I would like to know why is Obama's church asking its members to boycott Wal-Mart and Sam's Club?  I would like to know the answer to that question?  Maybe there is a reason I should not shop at those stores.

I just want to see unbiased press coverage of the candidates.  Every day, I read about Senator Hillary Clinton's negative issues, which are well documented.  However, I want to know about Obama's problems also.  I will say this much - Obama and his campaign staff are running a smooth campaign.  They have done a good job controlling when he is the "Black candidate" and the "American candidate".  Obama does not want a debate about race during the primary campaign because he does not want to scare off some of his racially sensitive White supporters.  However, it's okay if he brings up the subject of race to recruit the Black vote, but no one else can do it.  These are the "Obama Rules".