If you do a search for “Obama” on this site, you’ll that I have had a lot of good things to say about Barack Obama but, I’ve also levied some criticisms against him, as well.

Over a year ago, I raised a question in a post titled “Obama: Who are you?”, where I pondered what type of person he was when he dis-invited his then-pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from delivering the invocation when Obama announced is candidacy for President.

You see, for me, it was not particularly about religion or the church. My questions were best summed up in this part of my post:

So, upon word from his handlers, Obama has begun distancing himself from the person he calls his spiritual advisor.

In regards to this, I have heard some discuss how, if he wants to be President, Obama needs to do this. However, I know a lot of black folks with whom this won’t sit well. For one, many in the churchgoing crowd will ask what type of man turns his back on his pastor for political reasons? For those not in this group, some will ask, “if he is willing to compromise on this, what else is negotiable?”

When snippets of a couple of Rev. Wright’s sermons were released, Obama showed me that he could distance himself from some of Rev. Wrights comments (which, in context, I couldn’t really find issue with) without throwing Rev. Wright under the bus. I respected that.

Fast-forward a few weeks and Rev. Wright is doing speaking engagements and Barack Obama is campaigning. Rev. Wright continues to speak his mind and, the press being the press, focuses on tabloid issues versus any real issues affecting Americans. So, all yesterday, I hear pundits, both white and black, talking about how terrible it is that Wright is speaking, that he should go off quietly and that, if he won’t, Obama should publicly repudiate Wright.

(As an aside — isn’t it funny that white politicians can have associations with some highly-controversial figures and not be held accountable for their statements/actions? But, I digress.)

Well, Obama folded and publicly repudiated Jeremiah Wright.

The video of this should be up soon on this link but, here’s a passage that I found kind of disturbing:

“People want some help in stabilizing their lives, and securing a better future for themselves and their children. And that’s what we should be talking about,” Obama said. “The fact that Rev. Wright would think that somehow it was approriate to command the stage for three or four consecutive days in the midst of this major debate is something that not only makes me angry but also saddens me.”

Maybe I just gleaned something different from it but, very little has been said about any policy matters for months, now, and Rev. Wright was far from the only “distraction”. Rev. Wright just chose a time to speak that the Obama campaign found politically inopportune. Obama seemed to be saying that Wright is speaking at a time that was bad for his campaign. Next, I expect Obama to announce a complete break from his church in order to attend a church that the white establishment would approve of him going.

Barack Obama might say he is saddened by his pastor but, I think something else is saddening him — he just finished becoming the politician that he told us he wouldn’t. For his sake, I hope he wins the Presidency because, otherwise, he will have abandoned his principles for nothing.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Here’s some fun news for a Monday.

I happened to be browsing the news and, yet again, oil prices are about to hit a record high. It appears that a weekend workers’ strike at a refinery in the UK and military unrest in Nigeria could see prices reach $120 per barrel. So, if you’re like me and already paying over $3.50 per gallon, you can expect to pay a few more cents at the pump this week.

But, wait, it gets better.

OPEC President Chakib Khelil is saying that he sees oil prices reaching as has as $200 per barrel. Now, get this — he is saying that it is not due to a lack of supply. Instead, Khelil says, it is due to the weakening of the dollar.

As you know, the value of currency is not static. Because it is a commodity, it is subject to rise or fall in value based on the same rules of supply and demand as any other commodity. But, to go a little deeper, it’s value is also determined by what’s backing it. Up until the early 70’s, we had the gold standard, which meant that we had some collateral backing up all the paper money we were printing. Now, we have the standard called the “full faith and credit” standard. In other words, it’s like America saying, “trust me…I’m good for it!”

Usually, this would work but, George W. Bush was never our president before. Now, to avoid having rich people pay a fair share of taxes but, still be able to “afford” a costly war, we borrow money.

Just to relate this to an average person, say you keep getting more and more credit cards, then maxing them out. You might even pay them all them minimum on time but, your credit rating will eventually take a hit because of the potential liability you become to those who hold your debt.

So, very soon, we could be fondly reminiscing of the time when gas “only” cost $3/gallon.

Popularity: 9% [?]

At 9am, three NYPD officers will hear their fate in the fatal shooting of Sean Bell in November 2006. Bell died in a hail of 50 bullets after leaving a bachelor party at a strip club.

Police say that Bell and his friend got into an altercation with another group of men outside the club and, believing one of Bell’s friends had a gun, a plainclothes officer followed them and called in for backup.

Bell’s friends say that detectives drew their guns on them but, never identified themselves as police. Fearing that some unknown men were about to fire on them, Bell sped off in his vechicle.

Police say they thought Bell was trying to run them down and began shooting. Now, this runs counter to the earlier version of their story in which officers where saying that they thought there was a person wielding a gun inside the vehicle and began firing on the vehicle.

The verdict is minutes away but, I fear the fix is in on this one. This is a bench trial (no jury) and, given what has happened in cases like that of Amadou Diallo, I have my doubts that there will be any real accountability for these officers.

UPDATE: The three officers have been acquitted on all charges related to the killing of Sean Bell.  There may be some hope for justice, still.  Federal prosecutors have been monitoring this trial to determine if civil rights charges can be brought forward.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Given my previous post, I found this clip particularly appropriate for what I was trying to convey, especially seeing what’s going on in the current presidential race.

Tim Wise has been on the forefront of dealing with the issues of race and racism for quite some time, now. Here’s an excerpt he’s given on white privilege and the roots of racism in America. He clearly breaks down down something that I have shared with my circle of friends for years — race, as an issue, is really a facade used to tell white people that, if you have nothing else, you have white skin privilege and that makes you superior. However, in the end, those conveying that notion are using it to preserve and expand their own power, influence, wealth, etc.

The video is below:

Popularity: 10% [?]

In looking at the candidacy of Barack Obama, I am reminded of something that I once read from author Amos Wilson. In his book, Black-On-Black Violence: The Psychodynamics of Black Self-Annihilation in Service of White Domination, Wilson referred to what being a black man is in America. To paraphrase him, a big part of our experience is that no matter how one might adjust one’s dress, tone or mannerisms, because you are a black man you are always going to be seen as foreign and, possibly, as a threat.

So, it was of little surprise to hear that, in Pennsylvania, the issue of race was glossed over, though it was clear that a significant number of white voters indicated that race was a factor in voting for Clinton. Granted, black turnout for Obama is extremely high, too but, most would agree that this tide did not turn his way until what was construed as race-baiting began in the Clinton camp (a charge I believe true). Prior to that, Sen. Clinton enjoyed an advantage among black voters.

Whatever the reason, a question is now coming forward: How big a role will race play in Obama’s march toward the White House? In the wake of large, majority-white, working-class states, there is a concern that Obama’s race may be factoring into the votes for these states. Okay, let’s step back for a minute. We know that Hillary Clinton will have to deal with sexism and, to a certain extent, McCain will deal with ageism. However, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have advantages — they are white. Sorry to be blunt, but, it’s true. No one will question their patriotism out of hand (for example, how many questions do Clinton or McCain get about lapel flag pins, though I rarely see either wearing one). No one will tell Clinton or McCain who they can or cannot associate with if they want to be serious Presidential candidates (i.e. pastors) or, even more importantly, no one will ask either McCain or Clinton to “reject” or “denounce” people with whom they have no association (i.e. Minister Louis Farrakhan). However, when you’re black, your job becomes one of not only showing whether or not you’re qualified but, also, whether or not you’re “safe”. It’s as if there is some fear that if a black person is in charge, they’d look for retribution or revenge for past injustices.

To bring it down a notch, let’s focus on the Democratic party. For my entire life, Democrats have enjoyed the reliable loyalty of black people. Though I lean left, I still consider myself an Independent. (In fact, until this year, I would get issues-only ballots in primaries because I refused to be tied down to a party. I only declared this year in order to vote for Obama.) The reason why my independent streak kicked in was due to Clinton’s behavior in the White House in 1998. You see, I am not condemning the man for his sexual indiscretions. Instead, it was the actions of the Democrats that really bothered me. Nearly all we heard was spin and excuses but, what we should have been hearing was a clamor for President Clinton to simply tell the truth and put it behind him before things got out of hand. Because they did not, we ended up with President Bush and, a short while later, the Senate fell into Republican hands, which gave them a lock on the Executive and Legislative branches. This, in turn, allowed them to appoint the judges that favored their positions and allowed them to put total incompetents into positions overseeing the most major crises our nation has felt (ex. Donald Rumsfeld overseeing the Iraq War, Michael Brown overseeing FEMA after Hurricane Katrina and Alphonso Jackson overseeing HUD in our current mortgage crisis).

Also, let’s not forget that it was also Bill Clinton who brought us NAFTA, which further exacerbated our problems with lopsided trade policies, and brought us further deregulation in telecommunications which is all but killing independent and small media outlets.

But, even after all this, black people continued supporting the Democratic party, though the party continued to move further from our interests.

Today, I think we stand facing of a truth that we’ve been trying to ignore for a long time–the Democratic party and black folks may need to part company. Don’t get me wrong–unlike Republicans, there is at least an acknowledgment on the Democratic side that there are issues of concern that are particular to black people but, that’s not good enough any longer. If, after all our support, white Democrats feel comfortable saying that not wanting to vote for a candidate simply because of skin color is an acceptable criterion to use in voting, we, as black people, need to reevaluate our associations. Trust me, as my vote for John Kerry proves, I can hold my nose to vote for certain Democrats because, in my mind, George Bush’s presidency has been nothing short of a nightmare. But, if what I am reading is true, there are white Democrats out there willing to risk a continuation of Bush policies (via McCain) because they can’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate.

I don’t know what the future will bring. However, at least for this cycle, the Democrats face a major quandary. They obviously need white voters but, are they willing to lose their black constituency because they are willing to cater to the racist elements within their white constituency? If so, they run the risk of alienating a group of voters who have been largely responsible for the electoral successes they’ve enjoyed for the last four decades.

Popularity: 10% [?]

The results of the Pennsylvania primary are rolling in and the networks are calling it for Hillary Clinton. The question is now how tight the race will or will not be. Right now, MSNBC has her up 53% to 47%.

I’ll keep you posted.

Update #1: (10:57pm EDT): MSNBC has Clinton up by 10 (55% to 45%)

Popularity: 11% [?]

Bill Clinton asks, “Who are you going to believe? Me or you lying ears?”

Here’s an exchange he had with an NBC Reporter today:

NBC/NJ: “Sir, what did you mean yesterday when you said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”

CLINTON: “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”

NBC/NJ: “On WHYY radio yesterday”

CLINTON: “No, no, no. That’s not what I said. You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”

NBC/NJ: “Respectfully sir, though, you did say …”

CLINTON: “Have a nice day.” [continues shaking hands with supporters]. I said what I said, you can go and look at the interview. And if you’ll be real honest, you’ll also report what the question was and what the answer was.”

However, Clinton did accuse the Obama camp of just that:

INTERVIEWER (RE: Jackson comment): “Do you think that was a mistake, and would you do that again?”

CLINTON: “No. I think that they played the race card on me. And we now know, from memos from the campaign and everything, that they planned to do it along.

So, why is this a big deal? Well, once you hear the interview in which he said the race card was played on him, it might put things in perspective but, honestly, it’s too late to be a big deal in Pennsylvania but, in other places it could cause problems because:

1. Bill Clinton has been caught playing with race already so, he keeps resurrecting this a big issue for his wife’s campaign.
2. He and Sen. Clinton have talked about how, if a candidate can’t take the heat, that person shouldn’t be in politics. Well, isn’t he crying, now?

At the end of the day, Bill has to deal with his own words. They are below:

Popularity: 14% [?]

Almost a year ago, I posted about the increase in “moral waivers” for military recruits (see here, here and here). What was being seen was that the military was admitting folks in with very sketchy backgrounds, including known KKK members and people with known memberships to infamous street gangs.

Often, I hear people talk about how we should send prisoners over to fight in Iraq but, this is darned close and a lot of military folks are concerned about serving alongside people with such backgrounds.

Now, it appears that, because more bodies were needed for the “surge”, an even greater increase of these waivers has occurred. In fact, the Army doubled the number of these waivers and the Marines increased their waivers by some 70%.

So, how bad does it get. Just read the following:

According to the new data, the Army and Marines have allowed recruits who have been convicted of assault with a dangerous weapn, burglary, drug abuse, sexual assault; in a few instances recruits were cleared to join after convinctions on terrorism or bomb-threat related charges.

“I understand that there can be valid reasons for personnel waivers and recognize the importance of providing opportunities to individuals who have served their sentences and rehabilitated themselves,” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the Oversight Committee’s chairman, wrote in a letter (.pdf) to an undersecretary of defense. “At the same time, concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness.”

The military only provided data on felony waivers from 2006 and 2007, saying information from prior years or about personnel waivers granted for misdemeanor convictions had been lost due to poor record keeping, according to Waxman’s letter. The committee chairman requested more internal documents about the protocol for granting waivers, whether the increase had to do with meeting tougher recruitment goals and any studies of the effectiveness of recruited felons the military might have produced.

Something tells me that these “lost records” might have some very disturbing truths to them. When the military is starting to do this to meet recruiting goals, doesn’t anyone else see that something is not working?

Popularity: 10% [?]

When you have a fire do you:

a) try to extinguish it?

b) watch it burn from a safe distance?

c) pour gasoline on it?

If you’re Condoleezza Rice, you’d probably choose “c”.

On a recent trip to Baghdad’s “Green Zone”, Rice decided to ramp up the rhetoric against radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and, by extension, his militia by, more or less, calling him a coward.

Really, how does this help?

“I know he’s sitting in Iran,” Rice said dismissively, when asked about al-Sadr’s latest threat to lift a self-imposed cease-fire with government and U.S. forces. “I guess it’s all-out war for anybody but him,” Rice said. “I guess that’s the message; his followers can go too their deaths and he’s in Iran.”

So, you have the American Secretary of State calling out a militia leader in Iraq, basically challenging his manhood.  Also, and I apologize if this sounds sexist but, the fact that she is a woman challenging Muslim men is also not to be overlooked (this is just my observation).

Regardless of the gender aspect, it is clear that she and the Bush administration have called out al-Sadr and this can’t be good news for those who could be caught in the crossfire (both figuratively and literally).

In fact, VoteVets has expressed such a concern:

Again, we have yet another member of the Bush administration who–in a ham-handed effort to help our “allies”–is actually placing our own troops in more danger.  I don’t think there’s any question that this echoes George W. Bush’s provocative invitation for terrorists around the world to descend on Iraq when he declared, “Bring’em on” in July 2003.  And we all know how that worked out.

But it’s not just about Rice’s dismissive, provocative tone, either.  It’s also this continuing, obnoxious Bush-brand of hypocrisy that the whole world sees: If Sadr had said the same thing of Rice–that she’s a Washington, D.C. bureaucrat who sends others to fight her own battles–the Bush administration would freak out.  And that fact isn’t lost on Iraqis.

As Rice is one who will not have to stay and fight the Mahdi Army side-by-side with our troops, I suggest that she keep her mouth shut if she’s not going to say anything helpful.  Because statements like these are certainly not.

This is a group representing Iraq and Afghanistan vets expressing these concerns, not just me.  At the end of the day, people’s lives are at stake.  You would think that the country’s leading diplomat would be…well…more “diplomatic” in her use of words.

Popularity: 10% [?]

An Indiana staffing firm has just agreed to a substantial settlement to settle discrimination claims.

The Renhill staffing company will pay $585,000 in an age, race and retaliation discrimination suit. According to the suit, brought forth by the EEOC, “Renhill’s Fort Wayne office and a former office in Decatur violated federal law by failing to refer African-American applicants and applicants ages 40 and older for work assignments.” Furthermore, the EEOC claimed that employees of the firm were retaliated against when they complained about these practices.

In addition to the financial settlement, Renhill will be under a consent decree for the next three years, so that monitors can ensure that the company’s discriminatory practices are not continuing.

Popularity: 76% [?]