Now there is an African-American man who is successful. He attended a prestigious institution, chose not to make good money, but make a difference. He got where he is based on merit not a hand out. Quite the opposite of what many think about African-Americans, uh? Now he is running for president. President? Are you serious? A Black man? Why is that even an issue? Why is it a possible problem or threat to America? There have been many Americans who have sold out their country for money. We even have an American right now who has forever changed how the world views America. Guess who?

Contrary to ignorant belief, even if Barack is elected, Blacks will not get away with things as so many may think. The White House will not lose its place in history. Barack will not give Blacks their 40 acres and a mule. Important decisions and policies will not be centered around African-Americans, people of color,etc. One thing Barack has that some people dont is decorum. I must admit some of us as Americans do walk around like we “had it” when we grew up but most of us lived in trailers, attended public schools, and probably have a car note. Elite individuals know that having a car note takes away from their assets. Ohhhh you have a Benz! So what. If you have a car note, that means you really can’t afford it. If you disagree, you need to enlighten yourself about assets and liabilities. The point im trying to make is, no matter who you are and what you can become, America the land of the free is technically the land of the oppressed for some and the land of plenty for others.

The point of the matter is Obama doesnt advertise his status. He sees himself as an accomplished person. There is no need to put an adjective before his name. Why can’t America see him as an accomplished individual who is running for president for all the right reasons and not the wrong? Why should he have to fear for his life in this time of universal sorrow and struggle? Why is he labeled something he isnt? IGNORANCE.

Why must the black man always be called a boy? Why are black women nappy headed hoes? Why are Blacks called white when their mom spoke proper English and all her daughters have acquired higher education, and father prefers that they go to school and he will assist in paying bills? Wearing pearls, a sweater tied around your shoulders, or business suits, that is not being White, that is being preppy. Michelle Obama isnt trying to be a former president’s wife by adopting her style. She is a Harvard and Princeton grad, not to mention a lawyer. Its not a fashion statement, its an accomplishment.

I speak these things to inform you that African-Americans stand out. Not because they do wrong but because they do right. Who really knows about McCain or Obama? Even they really dont know what they will do if they become president. Unfortunately, America will judge their actions based on their race and not their abilities. If anything, African-Americans should be welcomed into society. They overcame slavery, invented most of the things people use, and are the ones who actually make the economy. When you discriminate in all areas of society it eventually catches up with you. Not giving the African-American the job when they are the ones who spend the money, how dumb is that?

We have not taken care of the one thing that has kept our country from truly being a melting pot. No such thing. Why does everyone have a hyphen/dash (whatever) and then the word AMERICAN? If Obama becomes president, are they going to introduce him as the “FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?” Possibly. That in itself is sad yet speaks loudly about the mentality of a nation that continues to draw lines when laws erased them. Embrace your race and others. Don’t practice what you despise. It makes you look similar to those who say, “Im not prejudice.” And that includes some African Americans. Sociologists call it colorism.

Take care and god bless

** Terms are used freely but I take no credit for sociology terms I learned in college.

Key points Mr. McClaughry made during his presentation included the differences in how the nominee for each party was elected 40 years ago versus today-For example, he made the claim that there were more primary elections on “Super Tuesday,” (02/05/08) than there were during the whole year of 1968. In addition to that, Mr. McClaughry pointed out the fact that many of the presidential campaigns start out much early now than they did in 1968.

Additional points he added were the fact that there were no campaign contribution limitations in 1968, while there are fairly strict campaign contribution limitations today. Following his synopsis of the way things were in 1968 versus the way things are now, he went on to state who he thought which candidates had the best chance of winning nominations and their potential vice presidential candidates.

For the Republican Party, Mr. McClaughry seems assured that John McCain will get the nomination despite his apparent dislike for him. Also he was undecided between Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama for the democrats.

This was a very interesting presentation from someone who seemed to have a great deal of knowledge and experience in the field of political campaigns. Though Mr. McClaughry did seemed very biased towards the right-wing Republican Party, he did treat the other side of the spectrum with respect and I think that made him appeal to me more as a speaker.

Though the presentation was informative, I felt Mr. McClaughry dealt too much with the reminiscence of how it used to be. I understand he was trying to draw comparisons to the times, however, I think he failed to convey how different the Country actually is today-Something that would have made his presentation much more effective. All in all I enjoyed the presentation and learned from someone who was in the middle of things 40 years ago.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of an iniquitous election process, many Americans are showing a renewed desire to change a system that has become riddled with corruption. In considering the nomination process from both Republicans and Democrats, the evidence indicates that we have a government that is opposed to free elections. Awakening to this reality is not easy for some patriotic Americans to admit, but it has become increasingly evident and a necessary prerequisite for hope and change.

Surviving the Republican’s gauntlet of prefabricated contests more commonly known as “the CNN debates” comes Senator John McCain. One should not be too surprised that the Bush-endorsed candidate slithered ahead of his adversaries with help from CNN, the Time-Warner TBS -AOL owned station that had donated more than 1.6 million to the campaign of George W. Bush Jr.

In consideration of McCain’s recent compromise on torture and his flip-flops on the Iraq War, the Christian right, and gay marriage, CNN still kept their brass knuckles in their pockets, as did most of the other news commentators from the major networks. Despite McCain’s vast record of contradictions, the media continues to simply characterize him as a great American, because of his military service. Any semblance of objective and critical reporting on this election process is a rarity. The hands-off approach to George W. Bush’s past during his bid for the presidency is all too reminiscent.

In addition to CNN’s dubious contribution to the nomination process, we have cable network’s MSNBC. The “MS” in MSNBC refers to Microsoft, the same company that donated 2.4 million to get George W. Bush elected. And the largest single company, General Electric, has media-related holdings that include television networks NBC and CNBC among several others and they also donated over a million to George W. Bush Jr. Of the greatest jeopardy to the scrutiny of presidential candidates comes from General Electric, a top 10 defense contractor, who is a major competitor in the manufacture of aircraft engines and a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. Nominating and electing McCain will assure them that their profits will continue from the war in Iraq. A promise to stay in Iraq for 100 years or 10,000 years is like giving drugs to a junkie; and John McCain knows it.

On the other side of the aisle, we have the Democrats with their superdelegates , who profess to be the elected officials designated to help the nomination process. They claim it is their right to help choose the nominee, because they were also elected and can fairly represent the voters. With all this so-called representation, do we even need a race? After the gate is opened and after the horses cross the finish line, there will be no need for a photo finish if it’s close. The superdelegates can choose the horse for which they were betting on to win in the first place. Is this what one could honestly call free elections ?

The Clintons, who have established greater support among this group of superdelegates, praise them for their commitment to representing the Democrat’s best interests. Should anyone be surprised? Do private phone calls to superdelegates from former President Clinton or from Barack Obama have a place in a fair nomination? Most of us think not.

Except for the popular vote, the Democratic presidential nomination contest is almost dead even between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Though Senator Obama has moved ahead in recent days, neither can likely secure the needed 2,025 delegates required to win the nomination from the pledged delegates that they were awarded in the primaries. The failure of a system that elected George W. Bush without the popular vote in 2000 is not any better than the Democrat’s nomination process. Why should voters rely on Washington insiders to decide for them, especially when a majority of voters have selected one candidate and made their voice heard? It is up to the Democratic Party to abide by the will of its voters above all else.

Like it or not, the key to victory this year rests with the so-called superdelegates, the 796 party officials – members of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic members of the House and Senate, and others given this special status under the party rules. Superdelegates are supposedly free agents, able to change their endorsements or commitments at any time. With this kind of power, it is understandable that they are the targets of influence for many politically motivated individuals, groups, and corporations. This is a dangerous and questionable precedent for nominating a presidential candidate. In fairness to the voters and supporters of either candidate, this practice should be abolished at once.

Should the nomination of the next Democrat candidate for the highest office in the land, the Presidency, be decided in back rooms? Will the influence of “K” Street lobbyists affect the votes of superdelegates? Will promises and deals made between the superdelegates and outside parties determine the outcome? Has the Democratic Party invited the influence of special interests to insure the next President will bow to corporate influence? Will the superdelegates keep out Barak Obama, who promises to legislate against special interest groups that affect government policies? Can a Washington outsider win enough support of these superdelegates? Perhaps, we will soon see the answers to all these questions.

With the recent upsurge of enthusiasm among Democrats, more young voters than ever have taken up their duties as citizens to join in the election process. To allow these new participants to fall back into apathy and cynicism would be a tragic mistake caused by the politics of insiders. Nonetheless, the superdelegates have spurred rumblings of disenchantment among the ranks of most voting Democrats across the nation.

Many Americans have already seen some of their favored candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, fall from the scene after the media stamped their campaigns “ untenable ,” even before excluding them from participating in the debates. Notwithstanding the media bias, the pitfalls of an antiquated Electoral College, and untrustworthy voting machines, Americans are once again starting to challenge the establishment. The influence of pollsters and pundits are fading from the scene.

Attack ads and unfounded character assassinations do not impress Americans as they once did. For the first time in several decades, there are healthy signs of rebellion against a system that has been failing to represent the will of its people. Will the election of 2008 bring a new beginning of hope for free elections or will it be the last nail in democracy’s coffin?