1. His mother woke him up every morning at 4:30 a.m. to go over Barack’s school work and give him English lessons when they lived in Indonesia.  Barack claims to have been very young, around 6 or 7 years old.  He said he complained.  He hated it, but his mom would quickly say, “This is no walk in the park for me either.”  She usually had to go to work once they were done and Barack was off to school.
2. He spoke of being the president of the United States during his days in Indonesia as a young man.
3. Obama, an excellent basketball player, began playing Junior Varsity at Punahau School in Hawaii.
4. He received his B.A. degree in International Relations from Columbia University in 1983.  Okay some of you might have known that one.
5. But, did you know that he was the first African American Editor/President of the Harvard Law Review (the most powerful legal journal in the country).  I didn’t know that.
6. He was an Attorney at Miner, Barnhill & Galland and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
7. Obama would have held a state legislator position longer than anyone who has occupied the White House since Abraham Lincoln, if he becomes president.
8. Obama won two Grammys for Best Spoken Word Album.
9. He is the 5th African American senator in U.S. history.
10. His favorite movies are: “The Godfather (I & II) and Lawrence of Arabia.  Can you believe it?
11. When Obama was young he was called Barry.  Somehow that does not fit him.
12. Obama quit smoking just before campaigning for the Democratic nomination at the request of his wife, Michelle.
13. Barack made Time magazine’s list of 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2005 & 2007.

Barack Obama is an ordinary man that has done extraordinary things.

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?