I commend Barack Obama for trying to run a “post-racial” campaign, one in which he wants to people to see his ability and not his color. However, I also find this both naive and troubling. First of all, I have yet to meet a truly “color-blind” person. Now, I have met people who don’t choose friends, associates, employees, business partners, etc. based on color and look at the characters, qualifications and capabilities of the the people with whom they choose to enter into relationships. However, people see color. It’s a very visible characteristic and, therefore, not easily ignored.

Unfortunately,in America, we have many inferences made about people based on skin color. If you happen to be black, you are often assumed to be less qualified, less educated, morally-deficient and of lower intelligence than your white counterparts. Often, to be black, is to be placed outside of the mainstream while simultaneously being criticized for not abandoning your identification with other black people and adopting more “mainstream” values.

Obviously, America has never definitively addressed the issue of race. This is why some issue flares up every few years that futher stirs the troubled waters of race. In our communities and workplaces, we (kind of) debate the current issue for a week or so (or longer if it’s O.J. Simpson), talk about the need for a national dialogue on race and wait for it all to blow over. We all do it, black people not excluded.

This is why I find it no surprise that quite a few Obama campaign supporter are seeing, firsthand, how deep some racial hostilities run.

In addition to some not-so-subtle statements made to them by voters about why they would not vote for a black candidate, others are dealing with vandalism and bomb threats to campaign offices.

We can always hope for and push for a post-racial society. I want it for my son and will strive to make it so. However, we are not there, now, and trying to ignore the issue certainly won’t get us there.

Popularity: 3% [?]

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% [?]

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% [?]

From the “what-took-you-so-long?” dept:

Hillary Clinton’s top campaign strategist has resigned. We’ll actually, it appears that he was shown the door. Now, if I were Barack Obama, specifically, I would have a field day with this one. In a moment, I think you’ll understand why.

Often, Obama rails against the influence of lobbyists in Washington. Well, lo and behold, his opponent’s chief strategist, as it turns out, is also the chief executive of the Burson-Marstellar lobbying firm. In this capacity, he met with the Colombia ambassador to the U.S. on Monday. The Colombian government has been using the services of his firm for several months in efforts to get a trade deal pushed through Congress.

The problem? Hillary Clinton is opposed to this trade deal.

So, follow me here — Clinton is against the agreement but, the chief strategist of her campaign is a lobbyist whose firm is on the other side of the issue and Penn didn’t even have the good sense to, at least, not be personally involved in the deal.

For his part, Penn called his involvement in this meeting, “an error in judgement.”

Who knows why the campaign dragged its feet for a few days before letting him go but, make no mistake, this is a very bad thing to happen as the Pennsylvania and North Carolina vote looms. I still don’t expect this affect Clinton much in the polls in Pennsylvania but, in later contests this is going to be a problem. You can’t set yourself up as a champion of the little guy when you have a fat-cat lobbyist running your campaign and, for all you know, using his association with you, either explicitly or implied, to show these clients that he has an inside track into what could be the next Presidential administration.

Finally, in a bit irony, not only is Penn on the outs with the Clinton campaign but, also, his lobbying firm was fired by the Colombian government. It appears that the Colombians were offended that Penn would refer to his dealings with them as an “error in judgement.”

Well, I’ll be interested to see just how all this plays out.

Popularity: 9% [?]

It looks like this is going to be a running narrative for Clinton. First, there is the infamous story about the sniper fire. Then, there’s the big dispute about whether or not she, as first lady, helped broker peace in Ireland. Next, after claiming how she was so greatly against NAFTA, the Clinton White House documents were released showing how she was heavily involved in getting it pushed through, even strategizing on how to battle labor and human rights groups who would object to this agreement.

Now, another story is coming out and, though some may not consider this as big but, when put together with the others, might raise some more questions.

First of all, let me be clear — I am all for universal healthcare. I think it’s necessary and long overdue in this country. However, there are plenty of horror stories about people dying from lack of appropriate care. So, if Clinton has been spreading an untrue tale along these lines, she should be ashamed.

What am I talking about, you ask?

On the campaign trail, Sen. Clinton has been telling a story about an Ohio woman who lost her baby and, ultimately, her own life after being denied health care and not being able to come up with the $100 fee.

Now, the hospital in question is disputing her story. If what they say is true, the Clinton camp really got the story twisted. According to the hospital, this is the real deal:

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System.

Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, said candidates would frequently retell stories relayed to them, vetting them when possible. “In this case, we did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Mr. Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that.”

The sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman, had played host to Mrs. Clinton in his home before the Ohio primary. Deputy Holman said in a telephone interview that a conversation about health care led him to relate the story of Ms. Bachtel. He never mentioned the name of the hospital that supposedly turned her away because he did not know it, he said.

Deputy Holman knew Ms. Bachtel’s story only secondhand, having learned it from close relatives of the woman. Ms. Bachtel’s relatives did not return phone calls Friday.

Now, you would think that with all the highly-paid people on her staff and the fact that Sen. Clinton is no dummy herself, somebody would have actually verified this story before continuing to spread it.

Hell, if you want a real story that highlights this need, I’ll gladly offer you the story of Deamonte Driver, a boy who ultimately died of a brain infection that started from an abcessed tooth. His mother couldn’t afford the $80 to get it fixed and couldn’t find an oral surgeon who would accept Medicaid.

Or, she could have talked about the story of 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, who died just six hours after her insurance company, Cigna, was shamed into agreeing to pay for her liver transplant. This company had denied her claim 9 days earlier, even though her physicians said that she was clearly a candidate for this transplant. Oh, now I remember why Clinton wouldn’t talk about her — her campaign blasted John Edwards for talking about Nataline’s case back in January.

What did they say? Campaign spokesperson Jay Carson stated, “the references in Senator Clinton’s speeches are about people she has actually helped and changes she has actually made, not stories she’s pulled from the newspaper and included in her stump.”

Oh, wait a minute…Clinton only talks about people she’s helped, not from stories she’s gotten secondhand?

I wonder if these words will come back to haunt them? Oh, wait, they just did.

Popularity: 7% [?]

In this picture, you see Hillary Clinton,in 1996, along with her daughter Chelsea, hugging a child in Bosnia. Now, as you can see, it seems like a pretty ordinary trip for the then-First Lady.

However, according to Clinton, this was the trip that Ms. Clinton referred in these terms:

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Okay, I won’t be snippy and ask how everyone would be hanging around on a tarmack, out in the open, with children about if there all this sniper fire going on. I also won’t ask about why news accounts from that day make no mention of the First Lady being under fire in Bosnia. I won’t even ask how she was outed on this by none other than the comedian Sinbad, who accompanied her on this trip.

You see, this is part of the so-called “experience” that Clinton has over Obama. However, these “embellishments” (let’s be real and say that she’s just not telling the truth) are raising some questions about just what real experience she holds over Obama, at least in regards to foreign policy experience.

Now, one can’t diminish the role of a First Lady but, we also have to be real. Being First Lady meant that Hillary Clinton had no security clearance so, she wasn’t privy to the information that goes into shaping our foreign policy. She was there to be a ceremonial leader. Now, this is not to say that she did not travel extensively and that she did not meet with foreign dignitaries. She did. However, to say that somehow makes her a shaper of foreign policy is ridiculous. This is like saying that Laura Bush and Barbara Bush, before her, where key shapers of our foreign policy. Again, this role is important but, not in which policy decisions get made.

So, what experience does this leave her? Well, this does give her some life experience that is greater than Obama’s, she has a two-year lead on Obama in terms of U.S. Senate experience and, obviously, she is very politically-savvy. However, by no means, does this mean that the experience gap is as wide as she would like us to believe.

Now, that this had come to the surface, Clinton is hoping to nonchalantly dismiss this as a her having merely “misspoken”. Her spokesperson pointed to the following passage in her book to indicate that this was merely a misstatement:

“Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find,”

However, the problem is not that she was being honest then but, that she is being dishonest now. Had her recent telling of this story been allowed to stand, you might have been left with certain notions like:

1. Hillary Clinton was bravely risking her life on a diplomatic mission to Bosnia and
2. Bill Clinton must have not minded sending his wife and daughter into certain danger.

Okay, that last statement was my being facetious but, this kind of goes to the point of this story not really holding up.

By itself, this is not a deal-breaker but, it does lead me, and others, to ponder just what experience Hillary Clinton is really touting.

Popularity: 14% [?]