As the Democratic nomination process for president comes to a close, the debate about the fairness of the Democratic process and the direction America is going will no doubt intensify. Questions surrounding the preparedness of America for a women or Black to hold its highest office abounds.
Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama should be commneded for the historic significance of their candidacies. That a women and an African-American in the literal sence made it to become the final two contenders out of a field of eight, highly qualified, mostly white males is a tribute in and of itself. One of the final contenders stands a 50/50 chance of becoming President of the United States of America; the highest elected office in the land and the most powerful leader in the free world. While the tone of the debate, at times, drifted South towards the racial divide that has plagued the Democratic process for generations, the outcome will be historic and written about for years to come.
No one could have written a more perfect script. A fearless, tenacious candidate in Hillary Clinton and a steady-as-she-goes, humble and thankful Barak Obama. Both should be applauded for their courage, sacrifice and commitment to the Democratic process. America is a better nation because of the 2008 Democratic nominating process.
Voter rolls have swelled, young people are believing again in the Democratic process and particpating in unprecedented numbers and women and African-Americans have a level of pride not to be discounted.
No matter the outcome of the 2008 Presidential general election, be assured that our Democracy is stronger and the debate about America's future richer because of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Bitter Battle to the End
Round 12 in a 15 round knock out, drag out battle for the Democratic nomination for President has turned Barack Obama into a punching bag for inferring that when an economic downturn occurs, voters in Pennsylvania turn to guns and religious initiatives in an effort to cope. In fact, history tells us that in an attempt to change the political conversation, conservative opponents are apt to look into their grab bag for abortion issues, affirmative action legislation and, God forbid, welfare reform. Wedge issues are used to divide white and black, latino and black, poor and destitute, east and west, north and south, light skin and dark skin, and Baptist and Catholic.
The battle for the White House has never been easy and Barack Obama should know this. His opponent is not just the Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, but former President Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Republican John McCain and, lastly, the entire Republican Party including President Bush. So at the very least, Barack Obama has five immediate opponents to keep him busy. The battle over how bitter the Pennsylvania voter is and whether the word "bitter" should have been used is relative. This debate was begun in an effort to change the conversation from how much Hillary Clinton exaggerated her assertion that she had to run from sniper fire while on a visit to Bosnia or whether she would even be awake at 3am to pick up the phone in the White House especially after Bill Clinton stated she misspoke because she was tired, and getting older and it was 11pm. Should the America people be bitter at the Clintons for the truck load of money, more than $109 million to be exact, they have pocketed since vacating the White House or how many more truck loads could be made if they were to reign in the White House again.
This bitter battle to the end, while being promoted as good for America, in fact could create for the Democratic Party what the Clintons were able to accomplish in 1994, a Republican Revolutionary nightmare!
Sound off and let America know how you feel. Whether the economy has you bitter, frustrated, angry or numb, make sure in November your voice is heard.
The battle for the White House has never been easy and Barack Obama should know this. His opponent is not just the Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton, but former President Bill Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Republican John McCain and, lastly, the entire Republican Party including President Bush. So at the very least, Barack Obama has five immediate opponents to keep him busy. The battle over how bitter the Pennsylvania voter is and whether the word "bitter" should have been used is relative. This debate was begun in an effort to change the conversation from how much Hillary Clinton exaggerated her assertion that she had to run from sniper fire while on a visit to Bosnia or whether she would even be awake at 3am to pick up the phone in the White House especially after Bill Clinton stated she misspoke because she was tired, and getting older and it was 11pm. Should the America people be bitter at the Clintons for the truck load of money, more than $109 million to be exact, they have pocketed since vacating the White House or how many more truck loads could be made if they were to reign in the White House again.
This bitter battle to the end, while being promoted as good for America, in fact could create for the Democratic Party what the Clintons were able to accomplish in 1994, a Republican Revolutionary nightmare!
Sound off and let America know how you feel. Whether the economy has you bitter, frustrated, angry or numb, make sure in November your voice is heard.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Treasury Plan on Regulation Leaves Consumers in the Dark
The current mortgage melt down has Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. reacting in ways that on the one hand would be viewed by the White House as proactive, and by most in the financial and consumer communites as a little too late. Yesterday the Secretary laid out an ambitious plan to overhaul the regulatory apparatus that oversees the nation's financial system. A plan that could be viewed as dead on arrival in a presidential year comsidering tha it is being introduced by a Republican Administration that may be taken over by a Democratic Administration that is in no mood of repeating the Bush Administration mistakes.
While the plan promotes a long-term goal of reducing an alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, in the shorter run it may actually do the opposite. One of the blueprint’s few short-term goals is the creation of a mortgage commission that would set new minimum standards for mortgage brokers and otherwise unregulated financial institutions that sell mortgages. The new commission could be formed only by Congress, and some lawmakers predicted it might be adopted this year.
Officials said that, as part of the Paulson plan, President Bush was preparing to issue an executive order soon to expand the membership and reach of an interagency committee called the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The group was created after the stock market plummeted in 1987. The group is also expected to consider ways to broaden the authority of the Federal Reserve to lend money to nonbanks as needs arise.
The Working Group, headed by the Treasury Secretary, consists of the top officials from the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the proposal, it would be enlarged to include the heads of the three other agencies, including one, the Office of Thrift Supervision, that the plan proposes eventually to abolish.
Key lawmakers have signaled that they want to take their time in weighing ideas for broad changes. They are already hearing from state regulators and consumer groups who say that the proposal would do little to curb risky behavior by financial institutions, and from industry groups that say it goes too far.
The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would drastically expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets. And it would allow insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, to choose instead to have a national charter and be supervised by a new federal agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he said Congress should not even consider adopting most of it until after the current housing and credit crisis ended.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
In a speech at the Treasury Department, Mr. Paulson disputed critics who have complained either that the plan was deregulatory or would impose greater regulation.
“Those who want to quickly label the blueprint as advocating ‘more’ or ‘less’ regulation are oversimplifying this critical and inevitable debate,” he said. “The blueprint is about structure and responsibilities — not the regulations each entity would write. The benefit of the structure we outline is the accountability that stems from having one agency responsible for each regulatory objective. Few, if any, will defend our current Balkanized system as optimal.”
But in fact, the fine print of the 218-page plan features both regulatory and deregulatory elements. The creation of a new mortgage origination commission, for instance, was expected to result in higher nationwide standards to encourage mortgage brokers not to promote unsuitable or abusive loans.
On the other hand, other elements of the plan are clearly deregulatory. The plan proposes, for instance, to reduce the enforcement authority of the S.E.C. in a variety of ways and hand that authority instead to industry groups. The plan recommends that investment advisers no longer be directly regulated by the commission, but instead be supervised by an industry regulatory organization.
The plan was sharply criticized by state regulators as being a big gift to the nation’s largest financial institutions.
Consumer groups also criticized it.
“Rolling out this plan in the middle of the current crisis is like telling Hurricane Katrina victims stranded on their rooftops in New Orleans, ‘Don’t worry, if you can hold for a few years, we’ve got a really great plan to restructure the federal emergency response system,’ ” said a statement issued by the Consumer Federation of America.
“This plan,” the group said, “had its genesis in Secretary Paulson’s conviction that overregulation and inefficient regulation were hurting the global competitiveness of U.S. markets. In fact, experience has repeatedly shown that regulatory failure, not overregulation, is the greatest threat to the health of our markets.”
Major elements of the plan face fierce resistance from powerful industry groups that prefer their current regulators.
The American Bankers Association attacked a provision to eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision, although it applauded the proposal to create a new federal charter for insurance.
Dan Mica, president and chief executive of the Credit Union National Association, said he was “astonished and angered” by the plan, which he said would “add up to more choices for Wall Street and less for consumers — and turn credit unions into banks.”
Several features were also criticized by regulators appointed by the Bush administration.
John M. Reich, the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said that the savings and loan industry regulated by his agency remains vibrant in large part because of the effectiveness of regulators. In an e-mail message to agency employees, he said regulatory overhauls similar to the one made by Mr. Paulson have been floated throughout history, and been rejected.
Although none of these proposals became reality, many of you might be wondering whether financial services restructuring is an idea whose time has finally come,” Mr. Reich wrote. “I don’t think so, at least as it pertains to the four federal banking agencies.”
Some business groups hailed the plan. John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which represents chief executives at many of the nation’s largest companies, said the plan “represents a timely response to the current state of our country’s aging regulatory system.”
And T. Timothy Ryan Jr., president of Wall Street’s biggest trade group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said the plan was “thoughtful” and “very wise.”
“Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today’s environment, where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse,” said Mr. Ryan, who earlier in his career was a director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, an agency the Paulson plan proposes to eliminate.
No matter what proposals surface, the consumers should have a place at the table so that we can avoid that which happened with the bankruptcy law written by the banking industry where by the banks have the authority to randomly increase interest rates on credit cards despite a cardholder never being late on monthly payments.
(While the thoughts and editorial is of the writer, most of the information contained here was reproduced from the New York Times ariticle by Stephen Labaton)
While the plan promotes a long-term goal of reducing an alphabet soup of regulatory agencies, in the shorter run it may actually do the opposite. One of the blueprint’s few short-term goals is the creation of a mortgage commission that would set new minimum standards for mortgage brokers and otherwise unregulated financial institutions that sell mortgages. The new commission could be formed only by Congress, and some lawmakers predicted it might be adopted this year.
Officials said that, as part of the Paulson plan, President Bush was preparing to issue an executive order soon to expand the membership and reach of an interagency committee called the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. The group was created after the stock market plummeted in 1987. The group is also expected to consider ways to broaden the authority of the Federal Reserve to lend money to nonbanks as needs arise.
The Working Group, headed by the Treasury Secretary, consists of the top officials from the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under the proposal, it would be enlarged to include the heads of the three other agencies, including one, the Office of Thrift Supervision, that the plan proposes eventually to abolish.
Key lawmakers have signaled that they want to take their time in weighing ideas for broad changes. They are already hearing from state regulators and consumer groups who say that the proposal would do little to curb risky behavior by financial institutions, and from industry groups that say it goes too far.
The plan, produced by a lame-duck Republican administration facing a Democratic Congress, would drastically expand the authority of the Federal Reserve to oversee financial markets. It would consolidate federal agencies that regulate the nation’s securities and commodities futures markets. And it would allow insurance companies, which have long been regulated by the states, to choose instead to have a national charter and be supervised by a new federal agency under the Treasury Department.
Mr. Paulson said on Monday that he did not expect the bulk of the plan to be adopted during the current administration — and he said Congress should not even consider adopting most of it until after the current housing and credit crisis ended.
“Some may view these recommendations as a response to the circumstances of the day,” Mr. Paulson said. “That is not how they are intended.”
In a speech at the Treasury Department, Mr. Paulson disputed critics who have complained either that the plan was deregulatory or would impose greater regulation.
“Those who want to quickly label the blueprint as advocating ‘more’ or ‘less’ regulation are oversimplifying this critical and inevitable debate,” he said. “The blueprint is about structure and responsibilities — not the regulations each entity would write. The benefit of the structure we outline is the accountability that stems from having one agency responsible for each regulatory objective. Few, if any, will defend our current Balkanized system as optimal.”
But in fact, the fine print of the 218-page plan features both regulatory and deregulatory elements. The creation of a new mortgage origination commission, for instance, was expected to result in higher nationwide standards to encourage mortgage brokers not to promote unsuitable or abusive loans.
On the other hand, other elements of the plan are clearly deregulatory. The plan proposes, for instance, to reduce the enforcement authority of the S.E.C. in a variety of ways and hand that authority instead to industry groups. The plan recommends that investment advisers no longer be directly regulated by the commission, but instead be supervised by an industry regulatory organization.
The plan was sharply criticized by state regulators as being a big gift to the nation’s largest financial institutions.
Consumer groups also criticized it.
“Rolling out this plan in the middle of the current crisis is like telling Hurricane Katrina victims stranded on their rooftops in New Orleans, ‘Don’t worry, if you can hold for a few years, we’ve got a really great plan to restructure the federal emergency response system,’ ” said a statement issued by the Consumer Federation of America.
“This plan,” the group said, “had its genesis in Secretary Paulson’s conviction that overregulation and inefficient regulation were hurting the global competitiveness of U.S. markets. In fact, experience has repeatedly shown that regulatory failure, not overregulation, is the greatest threat to the health of our markets.”
Major elements of the plan face fierce resistance from powerful industry groups that prefer their current regulators.
The American Bankers Association attacked a provision to eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision, although it applauded the proposal to create a new federal charter for insurance.
Dan Mica, president and chief executive of the Credit Union National Association, said he was “astonished and angered” by the plan, which he said would “add up to more choices for Wall Street and less for consumers — and turn credit unions into banks.”
Several features were also criticized by regulators appointed by the Bush administration.
John M. Reich, the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, said that the savings and loan industry regulated by his agency remains vibrant in large part because of the effectiveness of regulators. In an e-mail message to agency employees, he said regulatory overhauls similar to the one made by Mr. Paulson have been floated throughout history, and been rejected.
Although none of these proposals became reality, many of you might be wondering whether financial services restructuring is an idea whose time has finally come,” Mr. Reich wrote. “I don’t think so, at least as it pertains to the four federal banking agencies.”
Some business groups hailed the plan. John J. Castellani, president of the Business Roundtable, which represents chief executives at many of the nation’s largest companies, said the plan “represents a timely response to the current state of our country’s aging regulatory system.”
And T. Timothy Ryan Jr., president of Wall Street’s biggest trade group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, said the plan was “thoughtful” and “very wise.”
“Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today’s environment, where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse,” said Mr. Ryan, who earlier in his career was a director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, an agency the Paulson plan proposes to eliminate.
No matter what proposals surface, the consumers should have a place at the table so that we can avoid that which happened with the bankruptcy law written by the banking industry where by the banks have the authority to randomly increase interest rates on credit cards despite a cardholder never being late on monthly payments.
(While the thoughts and editorial is of the writer, most of the information contained here was reproduced from the New York Times ariticle by Stephen Labaton)
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Surrogate Follies
As the Democratic nomination process moves into the 3rd quarter, the voters are beginning to show signs of fatigue brought on by the endless out spoken surrogates and their tendencies to have to withdraw from either campaign after suffering from "foot-in-mouth" disease. On the Obama side, Clinton has been accused of being a "monster" while the Clinton surrogates have indicated Obama has some perceived privilege because of his black skin. Despite there being enough examples on either side to cause one to second guess voting, enough already!
The state of the American economy demands that the campaigns focus on solutions to the problems dominating the America landscape, not how many surrogates have to exit stage left. Who has the better policy response to the housing crisis? How will working families be able to send their children to college, maintain the household and invest in their future with the rising cost of transportation, health care, child care and the like?
Obama and Clinton listen up. Tell the American people why you should lead this country and where you plan to lead us. Put a fork in the surrogates and endorsers and show the American voter your blue print for a better tomorrow. Don't let the problems of America get lost in the back ground noise of the surrogates who in the end take their role too personally to even see the impact of their follies.
The state of the American economy demands that the campaigns focus on solutions to the problems dominating the America landscape, not how many surrogates have to exit stage left. Who has the better policy response to the housing crisis? How will working families be able to send their children to college, maintain the household and invest in their future with the rising cost of transportation, health care, child care and the like?
Obama and Clinton listen up. Tell the American people why you should lead this country and where you plan to lead us. Put a fork in the surrogates and endorsers and show the American voter your blue print for a better tomorrow. Don't let the problems of America get lost in the back ground noise of the surrogates who in the end take their role too personally to even see the impact of their follies.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Money on Fire, Dems Burn Dollars Like Wildfire
The two remaining Democratic contenders for the nomination of the party have raised an earth shattering $280 million as of January 31, 2008 and counting. Of that $280 million, nearly $230 million has been spent. $280 million. Wow! Never mind how many college educations that can buy, or how many gallons of gas, or how many foreclosed homes, or how many, well you get the point. This amount does not include the nearly $55 million Obama raised in February nor the $35 million raised by Clinton. The time has come to stop spending all of these dollars and begin to make some sense.
Unless a meteor hits the earth, it is a forgone conclusion that barring any year 2000 Florida election antics, Barack Obama will be the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton gracefully exits the race, the amount of money burned to win the Democratic nomination will soon exceed the national debt. What a travesty especially when Americans are losing there homes quicker than Bush lost his compassionate conservative elk. The Democratic leadership needs to step up to the plate and bring closure to this process before the amount of dollars burned begin to have real consequences. Despite the fall of the dollar, there is no need to disrespect it this way.
I call on all reasonable Americans to call your congressional leaders, governors and other super delegates and express your outrage with this crash and burn process. It is time to unite the party, save the dollar and the country!
Unless a meteor hits the earth, it is a forgone conclusion that barring any year 2000 Florida election antics, Barack Obama will be the nominee. Unless Hillary Clinton gracefully exits the race, the amount of money burned to win the Democratic nomination will soon exceed the national debt. What a travesty especially when Americans are losing there homes quicker than Bush lost his compassionate conservative elk. The Democratic leadership needs to step up to the plate and bring closure to this process before the amount of dollars burned begin to have real consequences. Despite the fall of the dollar, there is no need to disrespect it this way.
I call on all reasonable Americans to call your congressional leaders, governors and other super delegates and express your outrage with this crash and burn process. It is time to unite the party, save the dollar and the country!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Housing Market Needs A New Deal
When America has been in an economic crisis or wanted to open access to greater home ownership and educational opportunities, the government has responded with quasi-governmental entities like Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac and Sallie Mae, government entities that while making a profit, aid the American consumer.
The current foreclosure environment has created a crisis that has yet to run its course, affecting numerous consumer parties, including both the indebted homeowner and his/her neighbor, whose home equity and overall community value is at risk as well. As opposed to (or in addition to) providing Americans with money to go out and spend, as the Bush policy proposes, the next President should consider proposing the creation of an entity that would buy foreclosed property in the distressed communities across the country. This agency would sell the property to first time home buyers and the working poor at market or, under some circumstances, near market rate. Importantly for all involved, including those already owning homes in the area, the prices in the community would be stabilized and the America dream would still be attainable for many. In addition, local county zoning boards would limit building permits for new home construction until the inventory has been absorbed.
A public private partnership between HUD, Fannie Mae and the new entity would greatly assist in a much needed housing market recovery.
The current foreclosure environment has created a crisis that has yet to run its course, affecting numerous consumer parties, including both the indebted homeowner and his/her neighbor, whose home equity and overall community value is at risk as well. As opposed to (or in addition to) providing Americans with money to go out and spend, as the Bush policy proposes, the next President should consider proposing the creation of an entity that would buy foreclosed property in the distressed communities across the country. This agency would sell the property to first time home buyers and the working poor at market or, under some circumstances, near market rate. Importantly for all involved, including those already owning homes in the area, the prices in the community would be stabilized and the America dream would still be attainable for many. In addition, local county zoning boards would limit building permits for new home construction until the inventory has been absorbed.
A public private partnership between HUD, Fannie Mae and the new entity would greatly assist in a much needed housing market recovery.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Mark Bloomberg For Vice President
As the Democratic contest to select the nominee becomes clear, the time has come to focus on more important business at hand like who will be the dance partner going into the general election fight. The selection for number two on the ticket is an important process especially when you consider that none of the probable victors has any experience at running a large corporation. Considering the bad economic news recently pouring out of our television monitors, it would be prudent that the vice presidential candidate comes with a resume of accomplishment in the business sector.
Mike Bloomberg is an American businessman, philanthropist, and the Mayor of New York City who gained his wealth as the founder of financial news and data company Bloomberg L.P. Although a lifelong Democrat, he ran on the Republican ballot and was elected mayor in 2001, then reelected to a second term in2005. With a net worth approaching nearly $12 billion according to Forbes and other sources, Mark Bloomberg can teach us all a little about business. He has a level of integrity that is admirable to say the least. He takes a salary of $1 annual as Mayor of New York City, he refuses to stay in the mansion maintained for the Mayor and instead resides in his own home on the Upper East Side and was designated as the seventh largest individual contributor to philanthropy in 2007, pleding over the past four years more than $700 million to charity.
No matter the outcome of the 2008 November contest, the next White House occupant will have to be disciplined in the matters of money.
Mike Bloomberg is an American businessman, philanthropist, and the Mayor of New York City who gained his wealth as the founder of financial news and data company Bloomberg L.P. Although a lifelong Democrat, he ran on the Republican ballot and was elected mayor in 2001, then reelected to a second term in2005. With a net worth approaching nearly $12 billion according to Forbes and other sources, Mark Bloomberg can teach us all a little about business. He has a level of integrity that is admirable to say the least. He takes a salary of $1 annual as Mayor of New York City, he refuses to stay in the mansion maintained for the Mayor and instead resides in his own home on the Upper East Side and was designated as the seventh largest individual contributor to philanthropy in 2007, pleding over the past four years more than $700 million to charity.
No matter the outcome of the 2008 November contest, the next White House occupant will have to be disciplined in the matters of money.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Richardson to the Rescue, A Valuable Endorsement
In a surprise move New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson gave the Obama campaign probably the most important endorsement of this years political season. Richardson, former United Nations Ambassador and Energy Department Secretary under the Clinton Administration, proclaimed to the Latino community in spanish that Obama will "respect" the Latino community. A powerful endorsement from a man with great foreign policy experience and experience the Obama campaign can draw from when crafting energy policy in the White House.
Richardson's support could not have come at a more needed time for a campaign that has been thrown off stride and was in need of some good news. Forget coffee, this is a Boost that either campaign would have welcomed.
Richardson's support could not have come at a more needed time for a campaign that has been thrown off stride and was in need of some good news. Forget coffee, this is a Boost that either campaign would have welcomed.
A Chicken in Every Pot
In an effort to turn around a limping economy, the Bush Administration has decided to give single tax payers who earn less than $75,000 annually a tax rebate of $600 and couples earning less than $150,000 a tax rebate of $1200. In the mean time, the "Federal Reserve" has agreed to take on $30 billion of illiquid assets belonging to the once highly coveted investment bank Bear Sterns. This response, while possibly having a short term positive impact on the economy, according to published reports is viewed by many economist more as a bandage that won't stop the slide of the dollar nor the slow march to recession.
Do you believe the lack of a comprehensive economic strategy by the Bush Administration will inevitably lead America into recession?
Do you believe the lack of a comprehensive economic strategy by the Bush Administration will inevitably lead America into recession?
Let Freedom Ring
As America marks the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq, instead of criticizing the war policy of the Bush administration, one has been lead to ponder how grateful we should be for those who have fought so gallantly for our freedom. We are a truly blessed people to have so many brave men and women willing to defend our freedom and liberty. To make the ultimate sacrifice of life so that democracy and freedom rings from every village and every hamlet in America, we the people are forever indebted and humbled.
To all those families and soldiers who have given so much, Happy Easter!
To all those families and soldiers who have given so much, Happy Easter!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
In Order to Form a More Perfect Union
After a week of television rewind after rewind of presidential contender Senator Barak Obama's spiritual leader's archived speeches, which were deemed divisive by many, Senator Obama stepped to the microphone and gave what many believe was one of the most artful speeches ever on "race". At the core of his speech was the idea that if America is to achieve that which is at the core of the preamble of the constitution "to form a more perfect union", Americans of all cultures will have to examine their fears of one another and have a frank conversation about race and America's soiled history as it relates to Black Americans.
Do you believe America is ready to have this conversation and will Obama's head-on speech about race silence those who believed he should have thrown his spiritual leader "under the bus" and completely disavow him?
Do you believe America is ready to have this conversation and will Obama's head-on speech about race silence those who believed he should have thrown his spiritual leader "under the bus" and completely disavow him?
Monday, March 17, 2008
"He Said, She Said"
During this era of political correctness, the remaining Democratic contenders for the nomination Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton seem to be constantly caught-up in a firestorm of who can say what, how far they can go with what they say and if they go too far, how soon do they either apologies for their remarks or go to the guillotine by resigning from their position of influence.
Whether it be the words of Obama's minister the Honorable Jeremiah Wright or Clinton support Geraldine Ferraro, words seem to be front and center in this years election.
Do you believe it is much ado about nothing or should the candidates be held accountable for the words of their supporters?
Whether it be the words of Obama's minister the Honorable Jeremiah Wright or Clinton support Geraldine Ferraro, words seem to be front and center in this years election.
Do you believe it is much ado about nothing or should the candidates be held accountable for the words of their supporters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
