Honestly, I wish big money weren’t such a requirement to be President. I think a lot of good people with good ideas get left out because they can’t raise the big bucks. But, at least for now, we are stuck with this system so, how much money one raises is a big deal.

In January, the news was that Barack Obama outraised Hillary Clinton by more than 2-to-1. Her campaign brought in about $14 million while his brought in $36 million, which was record for a primary candidate.

The February numbers are rolling in and Hillary Clinton’s camp released their total — $35 million for the month, which is nothing to sneeze at. However, it appears that Obama’s campaign may be releasing a number that will shatter this amount. Insiders are hinting that they may be talking about a number in the range of $50 million for the month.

This means that the Obama campaign could set yet another new bar for fundraising. Even more interesting is who’s donating to his campaign. A huge number of his donors are donating $100 or less. This means that he can consistently come back to these donors for donations for the remaining primary races as well as the general election, should he be the nominee.

So, if money is an indicator, Obama seems to be the people’s choice.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Okay, if this wasn’t such a big deal, I would laugh. It’s amazing to me how some people’s egos force them to deny reality. We have oil topping $100 per barrel, with no sign of going down, at least significantly (the price of oil has more than tripled in the past 5 years). You have two wars that continue to drain resources from the economy (by some estimates, it’s costing us about $275 million per day). On top of that, you have a housing market where the bottom has fallen out, causing major devastation to many American families.

But, according to George Bush, the economy’s only experiencing a “slowdown”.

So, Bush is out there pushing the whole “economic stimulus package”. You know, the Congress-approved band-aid-on-a-bullet-wound measure to help get the economy on track. We are expected to believe that if some single Americans are given $600 and some married couples are given $1200 (plus, a little extra if you have kids), the economy will be jump-started. This goes to show you just how naive some people are.

The belief that people will go out, spend this money and boost the economy makes a lot of assumptions. First of all, you assume that everyone will be able to treat this as disposable income. You have a lot of people who are behind on their bills and will use this money to catch up on mortgages, utility bills, car payments, etc. I’m sure that it would be welcomed for these families but, this will not help kick start the economy again. Secondly, you have people who have dipped into savings just to keep things afloat so, I suspect that, for a lot of folks, this money will be put into savings. Again, it’s needed but, not going to boost the economy. Finally, you have to realize that, for a economy to flourish, that money needs to circulate among various individuals or businesses in a population. Think about it this way — say you go out an buy a TV with your rebate. Who gets paid? Maybe the corporation that runs the store and a few employees. But, with so little manufacturing going on in the U.S., the money goes offshore to pay suppliers in foreign countries, leaving American workers out of the picture. This means that you end up with fewer middle-class folks who buy the houses, cars, etc. that keep the economy afloat.

I am saying two things:

1) We are dealing with more than a slowdown and
2) We need better ideas than this to get us out of this mess.

Right now, George Bush is much like the kid who cleans up a mess by stuffing everything into a closet, hoping that no one opens it, at least until he’s in the clear. Therefore, I think it’s time to be serious and say that, as a country, we should chalk up the last seven years and the year to come as a loss and gird ourselves to be ready to see just how big this mess is, once the truth is allowed to come out. I have a feeling that, once the next administration starts turning over the rocks, we’ll see just how much truth was hidden from us.

Popularity: 14% [?]

To be honest, I usually skip watching the “State of the Black Union” because, I just don’t see very much substance there. However, I will say that there were some definite highlights this year. Dick Gregory was absolutely on fire and clearly generated a huge buzz with his comments, which ranged from the humorous to the absolutely profound. Al Sharpton also got big props for calling out the Clinton camp and its supporters for its race-baiting during this campaign season. I have a few clips from the speakers below.

Al Sharpton on Clinton Changing Rules and Comments

Michael Dyson on if Barack Obama Becomes President

Dick Gregory on Bill Clinton the “Black President”

Popularity: 17% [?]

It seems so.

Yesterday, an hour before a rally that drew more than 17,000 people, the Secret Service apparently sent down an order to stop screening people for weapons.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department’s homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order — apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service — was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena’s vacant seats before Obama came on.

“Sure,” said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a “friendly crowd.”

Okay, you have a person who could potentially be president and you stop screening people who come to see him? This means that a person could have brought a gun or bomb into this place unchecked.

If I were Obama, I’d be very concerned about the people who were supposed to be protecting me.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Okay, I’m reloaded! After taking a needed break, I am back at it and I am heated.

We already saw a golf commentator get in trouble for a lynching joke in regards to Tiger woods. We have seen a huge rise in the number of noose incidents around the country and even George W. Bush spoke out against lynching references when he said the following:

“As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive…They are wrong. And they have no place in America today.”

So, when someone makes a reference to symbolically lynching someone, particularly a black woman, we can’t let that slide. A few days ago, there was a flap over a statement made by Michelle Obama when she was speaking in Rhode Island. She stated, “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.” She later clarified her statement:

“What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process…For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out — and that’s the source of pride that I was talking about.”

Regardless of how you might feel about what she said, I can tell you this, the way Bill O’Reilly responded to it is not at all acceptable. On his radio show, O’Reilly chimed in by saying the following:

“And I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.”

Okay, there are really two key words here. The first is, of course, the use of the word “lynching” in regards to a black person. I am not sure of why this is even part of his vocabulary. But, there’s another disturbing word here. That word is “unless”. So, we are at the point of saying that we need to “lynch” people because her opinion or view of America is different from that of others? Personally, I can relate to Michelle Obama’s statements but, even if I couldn’t, my first thought would not be to lynch her, symbolically or otherwise.

Needless to say, I am tired of people playing with that word. Lynching was a method of torture and public execution, even over the most petty of transgressions (even for merely whistling at a white woman). Moreover, it was an act of terrorism (yes, terrorism was carried out by some whites in this country long before we even cared about a threat from the Middle East) meant to show blacks that if they dared to step out of “their place”, which included trying to do things even as mundane as voting or competing in business with whites, they could suffer the same fate. So, when the question of “lynching” a black person is raised, red flags should go up.

Personally, I believe that the Westwood One Radio Network, which gives O’Reilly a platform for his radio program, or Fox News, which allows him to host a show on their network or, better yet, O’Reilly’s advertisers should be concerned with having their names associated with someone who clearly has a history of making stupid racial comments (see here, here and here).

Now that I’ve ranted, you can hear his words for yourself (thanks to Media Matters for the clip):

 

 O'Reilly speaks of "lynching" Michelle Obama: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Popularity: 18% [?]

How can you tell when Hillary Clinton’s supporters believe their candidate’s in trouble? When the race-baiting starts, of course.

The latest of these supporters is Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell. Rendell offered the following insight on the politics of race in Pennsylvania: “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

Then, he goes on:

“I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was — well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking — but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so…And that (attitude) exists. But on the other hand, that is counterbalanced by Obama’s ability to bring new voters into the electoral pool.”

Okay, he compared the Obama campaign to the campaign of Lynn Swann? As far as I know, this was Swann’s first attempt at elected office anywhere. Obama was, at least, a stage legislator and is now a U.S. Senator. Furthermore, Obama is currently beating out Hillary Clinton with the white male vote so, it’s not like he can’t attract white voters.

But, this is not my beef with Rendell. Rendell seems to be saying that because there are some white people who won’t vote for a black candidate, his candidate, because she is a white person, is more electable.

At this point, I believe that Obama has shown that he has a broad enough appeal to garner votes from all constituencies — some more than others — but, still, he has broad appeal. I think the Clinton surrogates, and by extension, Hillary Clinton, need to quit playing these games before they either end up costing her the nomination or winning her the nomination but turning off so much of the base that it ends up costing her the presidency.

Popularity: 18% [?]

There’s a lot being made in the news about Colin Powell’s recent statements in which he’s hinting that, this November, the long-time Republican may cross party lines and vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. He specifically offers a lot of praise for Barack Obama and says that he is looking for a candidate “to be leading a party that is fully in sync with the candidate and a party that will also reflect America’s goodness and America’s vision.”

I guess Colin wants a pat on the back?

This is just part of the long narrative of Colin Powell, post-Bush White House, in which he is now willing to speak up when it no longer counts. He helped lie us into war, helped further destroy Haiti (yes, he had inside knowledge that a coup was coming to topple the democratically-elected Aristide) and traded his good reputation and name for shame by allowing himself to be pimped by Bush Co.

So, to me, who Colin Powell will vote for matters to me as much as for whom Paris Hilton would vote. It’s all fluff.

Colin Powell, your ship has sailed. At least have the dignity to go off quietly.

Popularity: 15% [?]

It seems pretty obvious to me that Alphonso Jackson has no problems playing in the dirt and giving poor folks the shaft. With that being said, this time, he might have really stepped in it. Jackson is accused of retaliating against the mayor of Philadelphia for not hooking up Jackson’s friend, former songwriter Kenny Gamble, with a $2 million property. Gamble owns a real estate firm.

So, the city of Philadelphia is suing HUD over this alleged retaliation. Here’s how the story reads:

Housing Secretary Alphonso Jackson demanded that the Philadelphia Housing Authority transfer a $2 million public property to a developer at a substantial discount, then retaliated against the housing authority when it refused to do so, a recent court filing alleges.

The authority’s director, Carl Greene, contends in a court affidavit that Jackson called Philadelphia’s mayor in 2006 to demand the transfer to the developer, Kenny Gamble, a former soul-music songwriter who is a business friend of Jackson’s. Jackson’s aides followed up with “menacing” threats about the property and other housing programs in at least a dozen letters and phone calls over an 11-month period, Greene said in an interview.

Greene and his colleagues have alleged in the court filing that Philadelphia is now paying a severe price for disobeying a Bush Cabinet official. The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently vowed to strip the city’s housing authority of its ability to spend some federal funds, a move that the authority said could raise rents for most of its 84,000 low-income tenants and force the layoffs of 250 people.

The housing authority responded by filing a civil suit in December against HUD and Jackson, in which Greene claimed that the actions by Jackson’s department are “retaliatory” and that the Bush administration has exaggerated the troubles it cited as grounds for stripping the funds. Greene said the developer failed to deliver on contracts, leading the housing agency to conclude that the transfer would be improper.

Okay, so, I know that scandal and Bush administration are no different that saying “peanut butter and jelly” but, nonetheless, this appears to be another case of scandal tied to this crew. Is it January 2009, yet?

Popularity: 20% [?]

If you’re an attorney, being called a “Supreme” would only be a compliment if it was in reference to a seat on the Supreme Court. So, when it was used recently by a county judge in Hagerstown, MD to describe public defenders there, it was no compliment.

Recently, Washington County Circuit Judge W. Kennedy Boone was officially reprimanded for his incredible lack of professionalism and discretion when he referred to three black female public defenders as the “Supremes” and instructed the defendant in the case to get “an experienced male attorney.”

In a letter from the Maryland Commission on Judicial Disabilities, Boone’s actions were labeled as “undignified and disparaging.”. Though Boone has offered to recuse himself from their future cases, each of the attorneys in question has appeared before his court since the remarks were made last April.

Popularity: 24% [?]

Montel Williams recently castigated the hosts of ‘Fox and Friends’ for spending time on their show to discuss the death of acting “icon” (yes, one of them said that) Heath Ledger but, not being able to accurately give the number of troops killed in Iraq last month or the name of a soldier who most recently died in the war. Could this be part of the reason that Fox opted not to renew his contract?

Popularity: 25% [?]