Unconventional Politics--by Anita S. Lane

Michael Jackson--A lot like you and me?

2009-07-07T01:12:00.006-04:00

Michael Jackson.

Legendary entertainer.

The King of Pop.

Iconic Superstar.

We all knew him, but few seemed to understand him.

Since his sudden death on June 25, 2009, a lot has been said about Michael Jackson. And that's to be expected. After all, he lived four decades in the public eye.

I've watched the news coverage, and I've heard a lot of people say a lot of things. However, what I've not heard is what I'm about to say in this piece. Stay with me...

Thank God for Joe
Seriously? Allow me to explain. As difficult, demanding and abusive as Mr. Joe Jackson may have been, he was the one who recognized greatness in his five sons and developed it. Joe Jackson gets all the blame but none of the credit for giving the world the gift of music and dance that we would come to enjoy in the person of Michael Jackson.

Call it "exploitation" or "maximizing one's gifts." Whatever you call it, he wasn't the only person to do it. Forgive the comparison for a moment--but think about the fathers of Tiger Woods and Venus and Serena Williams. The clear difference is, Joe was much less skilled in positive nurturing techniques. He could have learned a lot from the likes of Earl Woods and Richard Williams.

Forgiveness is only step #1
In spite of Joe Jackson's inability to show unconditional love to his son, in time, Michael Jackson forgave his father. However, the media and the general public seem much less willing.

Michael Jackson has publically stated that he made amends with his father. But that should have been only the first of many steps to wholeness for Jackson. It's unclear whether or not he got much beyond step one in his healing process. The next and most critical step for Jackson would have been to decide to go from being a victim to victor. I believe his life demonstrates that he made that decision and accomplished that goal in his professional life. However, it's much less clear as to whether or not he was able to maintain a similar achievement in his personal life.

Accepting Responsibility is setp #2
After forgiving his father, Jackson should have decided to take full responsibility for his life and his actions from that moment forward, and determine to never play the blame game again. However, that was not a skill Jackson appeared to have mastered. In addition to initially casting blame upon his father and his difficult childhood, Michael often blamed the media for his difficult life. No doubt though that the media did make life difficult.

Normal is relative
At the same time, is it possible that Jackson could have simply promised himself that he would lead as normal of a life possible--no matter what? Perhaps, but the reality is, the life Jackson led was normal to him. He'd been dodging cameras and the media since age nine. Michael Jackson was often berated for choosing not to live a more normal life, but our "normal" was never normal for him. Remember the adage? "Walk a mile in another man's shoes..."

Jackson Sought Help
Acclaimed writer, physician and spiritual leader Deepak Chopra states that after Jackson's 2005 child molestation trial Jackson consulted him for spiritual guidance. He even went and spent a week with Chopra in his home. Clearly Michael Jackson was spiritually and emotionally drained from the ordeal of the trial.

However, during his time with Chopra he asked Chopra to write him a prescription pain killers. He complained of pain in his back and elsewhere. Chopra knew that much of the pain was stress-related and told him there were other ways to cope with his physical and emotional pain. Michael, unfortunately, was unwilling--perhaps because he felt incapable--to try a different approach--a more holistic approach that didn't include the use of prescription narcotics.

I Corinthians 10:13 says, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; He will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, He will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." At the same time, it's incumbent upon each one of us to learn how God wants us to bear the burdens of life. There is a positive, healthy way to cope with the challenges of life, and then there are less healthy ways of dealing with them.

I believe the true tragedy of the life of Michael Jackson--not unlike the tragedy of many-- is that between his childhood years and the time of his death, it appears as though Jackson never fully learned how to successfully cope with the challenges of life in a healthy manner.

Michael Jackson the overcomer
Like anyone else, Jackson experienced seasons of both defeat and triumph during the course of his life. I recently read a quote by author Dr. Wayne Dyer that says that we must learn in any difficulty to say, "Thank you God for the experiences I've lived through." He didn't say "gone" through. We're not thanking God for going through all of the horrific things we may have experienced in life, but we are thanking God that we lived through them--that we came out on the other side.

In spite of what he endured -- like the rest of us--Michael Jackson "came out on the other side" of a lot of situations in his life.

For starters, Michael Jackson was emotionally and physically abused by his father, but he lived through it and became the world's greatest entertainer.

Jackson suffered second and third degree burns while filming a Pepsi commercial but he lived through it and went on to create some of his best music in the wake of that tragedy and the physical pain he apparently suffered as a result.

Jackson suffered from vitiligo and transformed from a black man to a white man in front of the entire world--yet he continued to pursue his passion and make music that brought happiness to millions.

Michael continually struggled with low self-esteem, image "issues," cosmetic "malfunctions" and other health challenges, but he lived through it and continued to face the disapproving public--satin mask, wheel chair and all.

Jackson was accused, tried and later acquitted of child molestation, and suffered immense ridicule, persecution and personal humiliation as a result. Through it all, he continued to make industry-transforming music and give generously to improve the lives of children around the world.

Record-breaking Michael
Michael Jackson shattered records in the music industry and was a trailblazer whom other entertainers would emulate. Michael Jackson made MTV history. He basically created the modern music video. Michael Jackson invented "live aid" as we know it in the form of the iconic song, "We are the world." Jackson created the moonwalk. He won the most Grammy Awards ever. His Thriller album sold more albums than any album in history. He was twice inducted in the Rock and Roll hall of fame and gave millions to suffering children around the world--all while bearing the burdens of his own personal demons of insecurity and low self-esteem.

Michael Jackson got up every day and pressed past the voice that said "just give up" and decided instead, to "give" something to someone else.

Michael learned the power of giving
In an interview, Michael Jackson once told a journalist that if it wasn't for the children of the world (whom he was committed to helping), "I would kill myself." As strange as that statement may sound, I can't think of anyone for whom the idea of escaping life via death hasn't been a fleeting thought at some devastating instance in their lives.

Michael Jackson came to discover that giving makes life worth living. And eventually he came to have his own children whom he could love, and in return, receive unconditional love.

Many of Jackson's troubles (much like yours and mine) were self-inflicted. Even still, For the majority of his life, Michael Jackson managed to rise above his troubles (whether external or self-inflicted) and keep pressing forward.

There would come a time, however, when the self-destructive habits Michael chose to maintain, would eventually catch up with him.

A gift who will be missed
Michael Jackson was larger-than-life. He was immensely creative, exceptionally talented, innovative, profoundly passionate about his craft, and likely the greatest entertainer the world will ever know. He was also more like you and me than we probably want to acknowledge.

Those who knew him remember him as a kind, gentle and loving soul. Yet he had flaws, and according to those close to him, he found it very difficult to conquer his self-defeating habits.

Yes, Michael Jackson is "gone too soon" (to quote his 1991 song). But let's be grateful that he was here--and to his credit--he left four decades of music and dance as his legacy...his gift to us.

###

President Obama: Can I Get An Amen?

2009-03-19T17:21:00.007-04:00

Obama just needs a little affirmation.

Ever get in a slump? Ever need a morale lift or a little pep talk? That’s President Obama right now.

Life in the White House can be tough. I’m sure it can get you down. But not Obama; he has a cure for the White House blues.

It’s so very obvious. President Obama is constantly itching to get out of the White House and back on the campaign trail that was so invigorating for him—for all of us. You know—all the crowds, the adoring fans, the verbal affirmation, the hand-shaking, autographs and thunderous applause... In the 21st century, campaigning for the next election begins the month you take office.

Since his election, Obama has not wasted any time getting out in the community—from Ohio to California. And while there are many who are not impressed with his handling of the economic crisis, it’s very clear that he hasn’t lost his touch with much of the populous that elected him.

Obama lives and breathes public affirmation—it’s his inspiration—the wind beneath his wings. His time “among the people” fills him up and gives him the emotional reserves he needs to confront the immense challenges of the presidency.

Obama and his staff know that Obama is at his best in front of a group of people. He wants to hear folks, touch folks and address them directly. He then wants to take those experiences back to Washington D.C. and the White House and influence his policy. He doesn’t want to lose touch. He wants to stay connected to everyday people.

And when it comes to people, Obama is clearly a people magnet. He inspires his followers and disarms his enemies.It’s been said that the White House can be a very lonely and isolated place—but apparently it doesn’t have to be.…

Can I get an Amen?

I Cried in the Voting Booth Today

2008-11-04T23:58:00.003-05:00

I cried in the voting booth today. I wasn’t sad. I wasn’t mad or upset. It’s just that when I stepped into the booth and pulled out my ballot, my eyes scrolled down to see an unlikely name for a presidential candidate.

I carefully aligned my pen as to be certain to avoid any error. Then the tears began to flow. My mind flashed back—and images began to flood my mind—Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as my grandmother—who served in the Korean war, yet could not use the “white only” restroom in her home town of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Throughout our nation’s history, Blacks and whites have been beaten, and many have died—with the hope that one day blacks would have the right vote as well as every other God-given inalienable right. However, I doubt if any of these trailblazers ever fathomed that one day the United States would elect an African American as the 44th President of the United States.

More than a dream, tonight was a miracle. Tonight was testament to the American Dream and the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr.

As my eyes glazed over, I had to keep blinking in order to read the remaining names clearly. I returned to my car and I sat. I sighed. I reflected on what was occurring on this historic day. I wanted to rejoice, but I was overcome with the weight of the significance of this day. I wished my Grandmother—who passed away three years ago—could have witnessed this election. I wished Obama’s grandmother could have remained alive just one more day—to witness her grandson become elected President.

I thought perhaps I was alone in my reaction—until I saw Rev. Jesse Jackson’s emotional response upon the announcement that Senator Barack Obama had become President-Elect Barack Obama at 11:00 pm election night. Rev. Jackson cried like a baby—for a long time. I know that his mind must have raced back to that hotel balcony in Memphis, Tennessee when Martin Luther King Jr., was assassinated at his side. Tonight was for Rev. King.

I know this election was not and could not be about race. This election was about choosing the future direction of this country. At the same time, tonight’s election proved that America has taken another step—perhaps a leap—towards making good on its promise to all Americans.

While my polling booth experience was monumental for me personally, it was only the beginning of a truly remarkable day. I knocked on forty-two doors to help get out the vote on Election Day. The only thing is, the vote was already getting out. In this eastside Detroit neighborhood, individuals of all ages were energized. In a city that is driven by cars (both literally and figuratively) I witnessed families—moms and their young adult daughters, walking to the polls. We had blue skies and record high temperatures. Surely, this day was leaning in Barack Obama’s favor.

Then tonight, all of the pieces came together. The hopes of millions of American voters were realized, and today, Barack Obama accomplished exactly what I thought he would. He ran an incredible campaign and had a strong close.

President-Elect Obama has forever changed how we elect a president. And he will forever change the face of leadership in the United States.

Bravo, Barack! Bravo, America!

Energy...

2008-10-28T19:52:00.009-04:00

This evening I drove by a formerly vacant commercial property on Detroit's east side. Tonight however, it was ablaze with activity. The space had been transformed into an east side headquarters for the Obama campaign.

Inside, you could see young, old, black white, urban and suburban-- busy with phones and laptops in tow, working to make a difference during the last seven days of this historic election. I was headed home with my children, but the campaign office certainly looked like a pretty fun place to be. It was alive with energy.

The scene I described made me proud. Something else that's made me proud is a political rap I saw performed a few weeks ago by students from the Ron Clark Academy in Atlanta. These kids are amazing! The rap is informative and catchy. It's stuck with me!

So, if you need more evidence as to how much this campaign has energized Americans of all ages, here it is.

As CNN's Kyra Phillips said--"I'd vote for any of these incredible young people for president!"

Watch and be proud!

Anita

Blogger’s Blues

2008-10-15T20:00:00.004-04:00

As we approach the final presidential debate of the 2008 election season, I’m beginning to feel the Blogger’s Blues. Really. I hate to see it all end.

I’ve never been into sports but I believe I can better empathize with my husband—who loves a good football game. He doesn’t want to tape it and watch it later. He wants to see it first-hand, in real time. Each game is its own unique, exciting event. No two games are the same, and the dynamics within each game make it interesting and compelling to watch. It’s his sport.

Well, politics is my sport. I like to watch it in real time and enjoy watching each and every debate, interview and campaign speech. I enjoy blogging and writing commentary a few times a week, and twittering live during debates.

Now what will I do with all that “free” time between 11:00 pm and 2:00 a.m.?

While there’s been a price to pay for all this blogging—mostly sleep deprivation—I’ve benefited too. I’ve been able to keep my writing skills fresh. I’ve kept up to date on the issues and I’ve learned how to develop and present a position quickly—before new news is old news.

Most of all, I’ve joined the millions of other bloggers in various online communities, and I’ve met a great group women within the Political Voices of Women Community blog. http://politicalvoicesofwomen.ning.com/

I’m reassured that I am not alone in my passion for following politics. So I know I won’t be the only individual suffering from Blogger’s Blues when election 2008 comes to an end on November 4th (or 5th depending on when we get the results).

Yes, I’m sure there will be news and politics to cover after the Presidential election. Yet there’s nothing like a really good movie that you just don’t want to come to an end. Maybe I’ll write a song…A blues song…

In the meantime, I will continue to write, blog, Twit, watch streaming campaign events live on CNN.com, read my New York Times political email alerts, and catch up on the political news of the day from each news channel’s video stream. Yes, I have a lot to keep me busy until that fateful day.

One day soon I’ll sing. But I’m not singing the Blogger’s Blues just yet.

McCain and Palin: “We’re angry!”

2008-10-14T23:20:00.002-04:00

Have you heard the latest phrase from the McCain-Palin stomp speech? It consists of two very powerful words. “I’m angry.” To place the statement in context, Palin has said, “There is anger about the dealings of insider lobbyists, anger about the greed of Wall Street, and there’s anger about the arrogance of the Washington elite, and there is anger about voter fraud.” McCain has himself said, "You're angry and I'm angry too."

However, the issue I have with the “angry” statement is this: What are all these angry people supposed to do with their anger? The election is not until November 4th. Until then, are folks to let their anger simmer until it boils over into something ugly? God forbid they actually lose the election—then what are they to do with their anger? Are they to do as some extremists in the McCain-Palin crowd have suggests when they shouted “Off with his head,” Kill him! Get him!?”

McCain may want to say that he is utterly appalled, and state that he totally rejects Congressman John Lewis’ reference to John Wallace, in his condemnation of McCain’s campaign rally etiquette. However, the fact is, if McCain refuses to fiercely and immediately— on-the-spot—denounce such statements that come from the crowd at his campaign rallies, he is inadvertently condoning them.

I believe that that Congressman John Lewis—in his statement that “McCain and Palin were sowing seeds of hatred and division”— was simply saying that to allow such unbridled anger and hatred to bubble up and fester is dangerous, and has the potential—if unchecked—to lead to violent acts on the part of some. The campaign has a responsibility to not incite it, allow it or condone it.

Instead of pulling back on the rhetoric that solicited very troubling outbursts at their rallies last week, McCain and Palin decided to step-up the intensity this week by launching a new “You’re angry and I’m angry too” campaign slogan. It’s an interesting approach, but is it the right approach?

I believe that how individuals conduct their campaign is an indication of how they’ll conduct their presidency. Since its inception, the tone and tenor of the Obama campaign has consistently been one of hope and inclusion—focusing on what unites us, not divides us. Yes, the Obama campaign is pushing back against the McCain attacks with attacks of their own. However, within the last few weeks, the entire tone and tenor of the McCain campaign has grown increasingly cynical and mean-spirited—even inciting the “angry mob” effect at its rallies.

Maybe McCain hopes history won’t repeat itself in his case—or perhaps he just doesn’t know— but historical precedence demonstrates that the “angry” candidate doesn’t win.

Six months ago, Obama referred to some small town Americans as “bitter.” As a result, he was lambasted, labeled an elitist and suffered a dip in the polls as a result. Now, McCain and Sarah Palin are stirring up their crowds by proudly proclaiming “You’re angry and I’m angry too.”

Hey, I understand. We all get angry. Judeo-Christian teaching instructs us to “be angry but sin not.” So fine—McCain, Palin and their audiences have every right to be angry—that’s fine. It’s the “sin not” part of the equation that worries me.

"Human Error?" New Yorkers Forced to Vote for Osama for President

2008-10-14T02:29:00.003-04:00

This is truly and outrage!

The following Associated Press article ran in the Detroit Free Press on October 10, 2008. My comments follow.

BALLOT GAFFE: Is it Obama or Osama?

Who is running for president? In an upstate New York county, hundreds of voters have been sent absentee ballots in which they could vote for "Barack Osama."The absentee ballots sent to voters in Rensselaer County identified the two presidential candidates as "Barack Osama" and "John McCain."

In the United States, the best-known individual named Osama is Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaeda terror group.The county elections office faxed a statement in which the two commissioners, Democrat Edward McDonough and Republican Larry Bugbee, said they regret the error but never acknowledge what the error was.

"It's human error, it's very unfortunate, it's an embarrassment to our office, obviously," McDonough said.

###
Compiled from the Associated Press

MY RESPONSE
Let me say it up front: Yes, Rensselaer County is a Republican led county. However, there were supposedly three proofreaders and no one caught the error before the absentee ballot went out to over 300 residents.

Certainly, no one expects stupid errors on a simple ballot with names we’ve all become extremely familiar with. I suspect the person who typed the ballot assumed right—that no one would be paying close enough attention to notice until it was too late.

What could incite an American—let alone a New Yorker—more than being asked to vote for Osama? By the way, the letter “s” is no where near the letter “b” on the keyboard. The “s” is typed with the middle finger of the left hand and the “b” with the index finger.A more accurate “typo” would have been “Onama”, “Ovama” or “Ogama.” Nah… those don’t have the same effect—and they certainly would have been caught.

Osama: Willful or ignorant?
I believe there are three options:
1) Either the individual who typed the ballot was typing with one finger and truly made a mistake;
2) It was a Freudian slip of the finger by a mindless, out-of-touch individual who actually believes the negative emails circulating that refer to Obama as Osama; or
3) The individual purposefully committed election fraud by attempting to reduce the number of votes cast for Obama due to the incendiary reference to Osama Bin Laden.

What about the election commissioners who didn’t catch the error? They probably didn’t see it. How often are simple, routine actions thoroughly analyzed? It’s not excusable, but very likely that proofing an absentee ballot is something that is delegated or neglected entirely.

I’m typically very optimistic and always ready to give others the benefit of the doubt—but this incident is extremely suspicious to me. Why, well, because I don’t believe in coincidence—and Osama—well, it’s just not your typical typo.

What do you think?

Bailout Bombshell: An Opportunity to Get it Right

2008-09-29T22:32:00.005-04:00

Today, in a rare moment of representative democracy, the U.S. House of Representatives listened to voters and failed to pass the $700 billion bailout bill. While it may have been a bombshell to many, the fact is, it was American Democracy at work.

Legislators across the nation were bombarded with emails and calls from constituents saying, “Do not pass this bill.” According to the Rasmussen Consumer Index, fifty percent of Americans oppose the plan, and 63% of Americans worry that the government will do too much.

Today, legislators listened, and they responded. But this is in no way the end.

The way I see it, the decision to stall the vote until Thursday is an opportunity to get it right.Ever been in a crisis? If so, you’ve heard those you trust—whether a clergy member, financial planner or therapist—tell you, “Never make major decisions in the midst of a crisis.” And we’re all familiar with the term, “haste makes waste.”

Three days away (back home closer to their constituents) just may do our congressional leaders some good. It will allow each of them a chance to step away, clear their head.The bottom line is, everyone in congress is admitting that the current bailout bill is a “bad” bill they don’t want to pass but feel they must. But, what’s so wrong with having the courage to say, “This bill is bad, but I believe we can do better…and we must.”

This congress has an opportunity to not settle for the lesser of two evil bills (Paulson’s and now the enhanced version). Congress has an unprecedented opportunity to say, “We are committed to the American people. We are elected to be the best possible stewards of taxpayer dollars. We will not sell the taxpayer short. We can do better and we will.”

Come back on Thursday— huddle, compromise, study, research, ask tough questions, demand answers, write, re-write, and compromise some more— and then come back with a plan that you can vote for with dignity. Popular legislative sentiment is that to “do nothing” is unacceptable. No. To do “just anything” lacking any real confidence in its merits or assurances of its success, is unacceptable.

Congress, please, for the sake of the American people, go back to the drawing board

Let it Burn! An Emotional Rant by An American Mom

2008-09-25T23:00:00.006-04:00

Estimates reveal that the proposed $700 billion bailout plan will cost $2,333 for each person in America. For my family that means $13,998. Hec, I’ve got my own debt to pay down.

As it turns out, I’m not alone. Many Americans (about 1/3) are not inclined to support this bailout. Another third will consider voting for the bill only if it’s done right—and I fully understand.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and President Bush assert that if we don’t approve the bailout, and I paraphrase, “all hell will break loose.” And if it does? …

What I and most Americans want to know is whether this plan will serve as a temporary bandaid that just postpones the inevitable, or will it incorporate systemic policy changes that will help prevent a similar crisis in the future?

No New Crisis
Truthfully, many of us in America are pretty fed up and are willing to just let the whole thing burn. Most of us have already been burned. Middle and working class American families have been in a crisis for a while. Between rising gas, food and energy prices, depreciating housing values, layoffs and few raises to offset the cost of living increases, ordinary Americans have been looking for our own bailout plan, and it just doesn’t seem to exist.

Now, the treasury and the President wants each American to dig a little deeper into our own bleak pockets and cough up $2,333 per person to rescue Wall Street—effectively increasing our record high national debt by almost an additional trillion dollars.

Treasury Secretary, I’m sorry to inform you, but we cannot afford a bailout of this magnitude. We simply don’t have it. There has to be another way. Keep thinking...

Debtor Nation
Increasing our current $10 trillion debt by another $700 billion just cannot be sound financial policy. Is it fair that a few folks on Wall Street could so detrimentally impact the masses? No. Should someone be held accountable? Sure, but the bottom line is, if we Americans are willing to take our chances and decide we aren’t willing to bailout Wall Street, then let it be our decision—you know, “we the people?...”

But what if Wall Street crumbles? Well, we’ll just have to take it and make some good ol' American apple crumble. Americans know how to bounce back. We always do. If our paper house burns down. Little-by-little, we’ll just build it back up again. That’s old-school. That’s the American way. There simply are no short fixes and get-right-quick schemes when it comes to finances.

Sorry, King Paulson.

The MAC is Back For Big Surprise—Round Two!

2008-09-25T08:00:00.003-04:00

Just four weeks after McCain’s first big surprise—Governor Sarah Palin—the Mac is back with his second big surprise. John McCain will “suspend” his presidential campaign and return to Washington, D.C. to work on the bailout plan for Wall street.

Let’s be honest, we Americans love our coffee jolt and our mega-caffeinated energy drinks. We even love extreme home makeovers and over-the-top realty shows. We’re so over stimulated that it takes a big, sudden move to jolt us away from our Blackberries (not the edible kind) and get our attention. Somehow, I think John McCain is fully aware of our weakness—and he’s using it to his full advantage.

The last time the Mac jolted America out of its political humdrum—and serious lack of excitement within his own party—it worked. McCain has been enjoying unprecedented enthusiasm, participation and crowds since adding Palin to the ticket. “Yeah…that’s the ticket!”

Now that Governor Sarah Palin’s novelty has begun to wear off (and some would say wear thin), and McCain’s poll numbers are slipping, I suspect that the Mac began to ponder just what he needed to do “shake things up” again.

Yes, we’re in an economic crisis—but it just so happens to coincide with McCain’s political crisis. He’s in what might be the tightest and toughest presidential race in history—and he’s committed to winning.

The setup could not be more perfect. McCain gets to take the bold political/leadership position and say, “I’m suspending my campaign…” knowing full well that even if he postpones the debate, halts his ads and returns to Washington, the campaign—virtually carried out by swooning media attention—will run on. McCain may say he wants to step away from partisan politics—but being just 45 days away from the presidential election—even that statement is a political one.

The reality is, neither of the Senators sits on the Senate Banking Committee that has been holding hearings on the bailout. The most either could do is help corral votes. And honestly, Obama isn’t needed nearly as much as McCain is needed on the Republican side, to help sure up votes for some sort of bailout plan.Furthermore, if McCain is going to get involved in the bailout negotiations, he wants his “friend” Obama to join him so that Obama can share responsibility for the outcome of the bailout too. Thus, he challenged Obama to “suspend” his campaign as well.

But when McCain couldn’t get Obama to stop his campaign, he threw the ball to THE Big Mac—President George W. Bush, who then requested to see both campaigners on the Hill—kind of like the boss who summons two bickering employees to his office to put an end to petty squabbles.

Certainly, McCain could have easily traveled to Washington to rally his leaders and have an impact on the bailout negotiations without officially and publicly “suspending” his campaign. He could have just done what he needed to do. But McCain wanted to do more than make a move; he wanted to make a point.

The fact is, his point will likely pay off in the form of brownie points for good political strategy— a move that some are describing as a stunt, or political one-upmanship.

Whatever you call it, he’s done it again. McCain proves he’s not afraid to make bold moves that surprise everyone, cause some to cry “politics,” and causes others to applaud him for “doing the right thing.” The truth is Americans may be more interested in solving this immediate crisis than watching a presidential debate on television. At the same time, who’s to say the candidates cannot do both?

Senator Obama proposed that the two put out a joint statement (which they did put forth). But Senator McCain upped that move with an all-out political cease-fire in an attempt to take back the “Leadership” mantel that he threw off when he selected Governor Sarah Palina as his running mate.

Not a bad idea. Maybe Obama should have thought of it first. If he had, he would certainly be accused of not being a capable leader who can juggle more than one ball at a time. He’d be accused of trying to claim the spotlight as the junior “celebrity” Senator coming unnecessarily to the rescue. He’d most definitely be accused of trying to avoid having to go one-on-one with John McCain at a debate on foreign policy. Oh yes, if this had been Obama’s idea, he surely would be getting beat up for pulling such a self-aggrandizing stunt.

But this wasn’t Obama’s idea. It was McCain’s—the senior politician. And McCain on the other hand, is being cast as the true patriot who puts “country first”—the veteran super hero who flies into Washington D.C. to rescue America, and ALL the world, from sudden peril.

Whether on the big screen or network cable news, this is good stuff—and if you’re a political junky—you’ve gotta love it. Some have likened McCain’s move to a “Hail Mary.” But in Washington, D.C. it’s called “politics.” And McCain is one masterful politician.

"Our Economy is Fundamentally Strong"--John McCain

2008-09-15T23:30:00.002-04:00

September 15, 2008 is already being dubbed “Nightmare on Wall Street.” On this day, the 158 year old Lehman Brothers went bankrupt—the biggest bankruptcy in our nation’s history. Bank of America bailed out 94 year old stalwart, Merrill Lynch by purchasing it.

AIG, the nation’s largest insurance company lost over half its stock value in just one day. And to top it off, Washington Mutual, the nation’s largest Savings-and-Loan, witnessed its stock drop 27%, and its credit rating down-grade to “junk” status.

In spite of such troubling news, Republican presidential nominee John McCain—on the very morning of September 15, 2008—reiterated a statement he’s been saying throughout the campaign, and that is, the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” This time, however, he admitted that we are in difficult times, and he attempted to clarify what he meant by “fundamentals.”

McCain defined “fundamentals” as the “American worker and their innovation, their entrepreneurship, [and] small business.” But then he went on to say, "the fundamentals of our economy are at risk.” Well, he may have upped the antee in his language from “strong” to “at risk,” but most of us did that a long, long time ago.

News flash! We’re not just “at-risk” anymore, McCain. And that’s not doom and gloom talking. I’m one hopelessly optimistic woman (who’s also studied economics). We’re teetering on the brink of economic collapse.

Don’t believe we’re that close to the edge? Let’s review a few fundamental factors:

The United States is 10 trillion dollars in debt—the largest in U.S. history.
The U.S. is experiencing the biggest foreclosure crisis in 30 years—maybe even since the Great Depression.
Household (consumer) debt is at a record high.
The U.S. has record high trade deficits.
Just one week ago on September 8, 2008, the U.S. government bailed out the nation’s largest mortgage lenders—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
In spite of soaring oil prices, members of OPEC say they won’t cut oil prices because they lack confidence in America’s ability to deal with it’s current economic crisis.
The plummeting U.S. dollar has decreased the value of U.S. assets.
American companies and foreign governments lack confidence in American markets. Thus, companies lay off, lenders loan less, and foreign governments buy up our Assets.

Trouble on the Horizon
Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan stated in an interview on Sunday that the current crisis is the worst of his career. He stated that "There's no question that this is in the process of outstripping anything I've seen, and it still is not resolved and it still has a way to go."
If we still have “a way to go,” do we really want to expand the George Bush tax cuts?

Even Alan Greenspan—a friend of John McCain—doesn’t think that expanding the tax cuts are such a good idea. In an interview with Bloomberg television, Greenspan stated that the United States cannot afford the 3.3 trillion dollars in tax cuts that McCain is proposing, unless the tax cuts are matched by cuts in government spending. And we ALL know our biggest spending culprit is the Iraq war…

Now, just because we’re teetering on the brink of collapse doesn’t mean we will. And if we do, we’ll certainly rebound—in some form or another—but I think it’s imperative that we recognize our current situation for what it truly is.

It may be that all this talk about economics is just getting to be a bit much for John McCain—the self proclaimed novice on such matters. Personally, I think John McCain is conflicted on the issue of the economy. But he cannot have his cake and eat it too.

McCain’s record shows that he’s anti-regulation and would prefer for the market to correct itself. John McCain himself has stated that, “fundamentally, I’m a deregulator.” And while McCain has begun to address the economy more often in his campaign speeches, it really just sounds as though he’s reciting the talking points of his speech writers. Somehow I’m just not sure if he really gets it.

John McCain must resolve—once and for all—whether he believes our economy is fundamentally strong or fundamentally “at risk.” Right now, he just comes across as fundamentally clueless.

Passing Up on Down Syndrome: In Search of Perfect People

2008-09-10T10:21:00.009-04:00

*News Flash*
The latest research shows that the number of babies born with Down Syndrome is declining. What could possibly be the reason for this decline? Is it scientific advancement? Is it something different in parents or the environment? To what should we attribute this phenomenon?

We can attribute this phenomenon to the words, “No thanks, I’ll pass.” Or put more bluntly, abortion…and our society’s Perfect People Patrol mentality. Don’t stop here because I mentioned the “A” word. The rest is worth reading…

According to hospital studies, about 90% of women in the U.S. whose babies are diagnosed with Down Syndrome, terminate their pregnancies. (PubMed.gov) And while only pregnant women 35 and older have traditionally been tested to determine if their unborn child has Down syndrome, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, now recommends that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be routinely tested.

In the UK, British women are increasingly “eliminating their unborn children because of non life-threatening deformities such as deformed feet or cleft lips and palates” and “more Down's Syndrome babies are now killed than are allowed to be born.” (LifeSiteNews.com)

When I first learned of these statistics I didn’t believe them. The numbers were staggering. “It couldn’t be true. It must be a misprint,” I thought. But I was very wrong.

Where Have All the Down syndrome Babies Gone?
According to George Neumayr, the executive editor of the American Spectator, “Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.” (The American Spectator).

Medical researchers estimate that since 1989, 70% of Down-syndrome fetuses have been aborted—along with a high percentage of fetuses with cystic fibrosis, spina bifida and Tay-Sachs. It appears as though the “New Eugenics” is in effect and many are concerned as to where it will lead. Some experts are paving the way. Princeton professor Peter Singer, has stated that, "It does not seem quite wise to increase any further draining of limited resources by increasing the number of children with impairments."

Bob Edwards, the embryologist who created the first test-tube baby through in vitro fertilization, has stated that, "soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children."

According to Neumayr, “In essence, the “right to abort a disabled child, in other words, is approaching the status of a duty to abort a disabled child. Parents who abort their disabled children won't be asked to justify their decision. Rather, it is the parents with disabled children who must justify themselves to a society that tacitly asks: Why did you bring into the world a child you knew was disabled or might become disabled?” (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8418)

My Story
My youngest child Joshua (shown above) was born with Down Syndrome, a condition that replicates a critical portion of the 21st chromosome in other cells in the body. This additional genetic material alters the course of development and causes the characteristics associated with Down syndrome. In Joshua’s case, it was unofficially diagnosed before he was born and confirmed through genetic testing after his birth.

Joshua is an energetic three year-old who exudes love to everyone he meets. He really is thoughtfulness personified. He brings immeasurable joy and laughter to our family—as well as some pretty big messes and spills. Joshua gets a big kick out of making others laugh and finds joy in comforting others when they are sad. He loves swimming and “reading” books (i.e., holding books while uttering various syllables). We like to joke that he’ll grow up to be a comedian.

The Most Common Genetic Disorder
Today, Down syndrome is the most common genetic condition with one in every 800-1,000 children born with it. Down syndrome is the most studied and well-understood genetic condition. Government sponsored programs and services abound, as well as support groups for families. Individuals with Down syndrome are also living longer than they used to. It’s safe to assume that if 90% of Down syndrome babies weren’t being aborted, the number of children born with Down syndrome would be much greater.

While many doctors discourage the birth of Down Syndrome babies—whether knowingly or unknowingly—the truth is, individuals with Down syndrome possess varying degrees of mental retardation, from very mild to severe, and most people with Down syndrome have IQs in the mild to moderate range of mental retardation. If more expecting moms and dads understood Down syndrome—and knew the possibilities that existed for their unborn child—I really believe that far fewer parents would choose to abort.

Opportunities Abound
Inclusion of individuals with Down syndrome in typical classroom settings, community organizations, work forces and social and recreational activities now occurs regularly.Often, doctors feel obligated to present pregnant women with the worst case scenario and stress the difficulties of life with a “disabled” child. But before we assume the worst, let’s examine the facts and explore the possibilities:
· The majority of Down syndrome babies are well functioning members of society. They attend school, hold jobs, and now, are beginning to be assimilated into college.
· Down syndrome is the most commonly occurring genetic condition. Today, Down syndrome affects more than 350,000 people in the United States.
· Eighty percent of children born with Down syndrome are born to women younger than 35-years-old. However, the incidence of births of children with Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother.
· Today people with Down syndrome are active participants in the educational, vocational, social and recreational activities of the community and live in group homes and other independent housing arrangements.
· Businesses are seeking young adults with Down syndrome for a variety of positions in banks, corporations, nursing homes, hotels and restaurants, music and entertainment industry, in clerical positions and in the computer industry. People with Down syndrome bring to their jobs enthusiasm, reliability and dedication.
· People with Down syndrome date, socialize and form ongoing relationships. Some are beginning to marry. Women with Down syndrome can and do have children.

Perfect People Only—Where Will It End?
The problem I have with the deep, dark, downward spiral of aborting “imperfect babies” is that tests are fallible. I happen to have five female friends who were told their child had Down syndrome, but the baby was born completely normal.In today’s society, where more and more couples are having difficulty conceiving a child or waiting later in life to conceive, it would be very unfortunate for these parents to forego what might be their one and only shot at having a child. Modern technology is never one hundred percent accurate.

Furthermore, will the deep, dark, downward spiral of aborting “imperfect babies” eventually span to include children who are later discovered to have autism or some other rare debilitating disease? What happens then?

Imperfection—an Inconvenient Truth
While the aforementioned line of questioning may seem extreme, it probably seems extreme to our creator that we would go through such efforts to eliminate a child whom we feel poses an inconvenience upon our lives.One day we may wake up to find the Perfect People Patrol strolling the halls of prenatal clinics and birthing wards to encourage proper disposal of society’s “undesirables.”

Insurance companies will have a “pre-existing condition” clause prohibiting health coverage of children with disabilities detectable in the womb.Individuals living with recognizable disabilities and their parents will be mocked and looked upon with scorn for having the audacity to give birth to an imperfect child.

The law will allow pre-selection of gender and other desirable traits and parents will finally have the opportunity to create the “perfect” family—literally. That is, until we open our eyes and realize that none of us is perfect.Everyday PeopleThe simple, yet profound truth is that there is no perfect human being—even if you have all of your faculties and you’re not cognitively impaired—and the more we try to create one, the more we will become as a dog chasing its tail. Each person on the face of the earth has value—and it’s not determined by his or her fellow citizen. It is innate and God-given.

Living with a disability, or having a special needs child is not easy. At times it may seem flat-out unbearable. Yet living with and among people we consider “disabled” has the potential to make us more loving, patient and compassionate individuals.

As a society, let us be careful not to morph into a Perfect People Patrol, who want to reduce the number of individuals they consider an “unproductive” drain on precious resources. May we learn to live amicably with all people—even with all our faults, challenges, disabilities and imperfections.

Let us allow everyone in our society to live up to his or her full potential and leave his or her mark on the world. In the process of embracing our “imperfections,” I believe each of us will evolve into a more “perfect” person.

###

Learn more about Down syndrome. Visit the National Down Syndrome Society http://www.ndss.org/

Also check out this great article in the New York Times. There are video clips as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?fta=y

Kwame Kilpatrick: He still doesn’t get it

2008-09-04T21:00:00.007-04:00

Today is a very sad day for the city of Detroit. It’s a historic day for all the wrong reasons.

Today, our sitting mayor pleaded guilty to two felony counts of “obstruction of justice” (lying under oath). As a result, he will be automatically removed from the Office of Mayor (per the city charter) and lose his law license. He will also serve four months in prison, pay a one million dollar restitution and forfeit his state pension.

This evening, Mayor Kilpatrick stood before the city. I was looking for brief, contrite remarks that would put this saga behind us once and for all. However, all I heard was more of the same.

Kilpatrick began by stating that he accepts “full responsibility” for his mistakes and poor judgment. But then he quickly took aim at Governor Jennifer Granholm—chiding her for neglecting other state duties to make his removal hearings a priority.

Next, Kilpatrick turned his attention to the next-in-line for the Mayor’s job—City Council President Kenneth Crockrel, Jr.—with what came across as a back-handed request for “prayer” for Mr. Cockrel because —as Kwame Kilpatrick puts it—there is a “big difference between the office of Mayor and city council.”

In all, Kilpatrick spent about ten minutes of his thirteen-minute announcement touting his accomplishments—in what sounded more like a campaign speech than a heartfelt apology.

Tonight, I was really hoping that for once, we’d see a truly humble Mayor who wanted more than anything—to relinquish the reigns so that Detroit can move forward. Instead, we saw Kwame Kilpatrick in his usual form—not backing down, but already positioning himself to come back.

Republicans Belittle Service

2008-09-04T01:56:00.012-04:00

This week the Republican party heralded the themes of “Country First” and “Service” at their national convention. Throughout the week they highlighted numerous examples of bravery and courage among service persons and civilians alike. Service is a core value of this party and its 2008 convention.

Then came a series of speeches on Wednesday night—particularly the speeches given by Rudy Giuliani and Governor Sarah Palin. What I heard astounded me. Both speakers blatantly belittled and mocked the little-known (now more well-known due to Barack Obama) role of community organizer.

I was utterly appalled when I listened as Giuliani eagerly waited the audience’s response after making the remark, “He worked as a community organizer. What? … OK, maybe this is the first problem on the resume.” I couldn’t believe it.

It didn’t stop there. In her acceptance speech, Governor Sarah Palin stated, “I guess a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer… except that you have actual responsibilities.”

One can argue that Governor Palin was simply comparing the responsibilities of the office of President with that of the responsibility of a community organizer. Definitely there is little comparison. However, to diminish the role or value of community organizers is despicable.

Certainly the responsibility of a neighborhood community organizer doesn’t equate to the responsibility of the President of the United States—nothing can— but Giuliani and Palin didn’t make that distinction. Rudy Giuilani called Obama’s service as a community organizer the first “problem” on Obama’s resume, but nothing could be further from the truth.

A community organizer is a grassroots warrior. A community organizer is someone who sacrifices his or her time, energy, resources—and very often higher earnings— to rally and empower families and communities to fight for the causes in which they believe—whether it’s working to improve educational opportunities for neighborhood children, ridding the neighborhood of abandoned homes and drug havens, organizing to bring job training and jobs after plants have closed, fighting to get fresh produce at neighborhood grocery stores, or rallying for affordable housing and reliable public transportation.

Community organizers bring the various sectors of the community together to solve problems—real problems that are affecting real people in real neighborhoods across America. Community organizers help communities recognize their own power by mobilizing them to stand up to “the powers that be.”

In essence, community organizers organize individuals into a stronger, more effective unit for change—similar to how a union organizes its members to provide a collective voice to demand better pay and working conditions.

Community organizers come alongside individuals to help them define what success is for them and help them acquire the resources needed to accomplish the task at hand.

Most importantly, community organizers inspire hope. Whether they’re your next door neighbor or neighbors from across town, by investing their time, energy and enthusiasm, community organizers inspire other community members—many of whom have been down trodden and disenfranchised—to believe again.

Community organizers inspire individuals to believe in themselves and to come together to create the change they want to see. It’s called self-determination. It’s the foundation of a democratic society. It's also the embodiment of the self-help, individual-responsibility doctrine so often associated with the Republican Party.

So when it comes to creating change at the grassroots level that positively impacts people’s everyday lives—that’s the kind of change community organizers help create. Good, old-fashioned, hard work and bottom-up change that’s actually worthwhile.

It’s this kind of real-life, impactful change upon which Barack Obama has built his career in public service—a deep-seated belief that individuals have within them the power to make their communities a better place if they can come together.

The irony of the Republican’s community organizer-bashing is that Senator Barack Obama’s incredible success emanates from his community organizing skills and his ability to listen to, understand, relate to, encourage and help empower others. In his amazing, historic, campaign—which is made possible by the contributions of everyday people volunteering and making multiple small donations— Barack Obama is employing community organizing 101—only multiplied by 1,000.

The community organizing experience that Giuliani and Palin belittled in Barack Obama cuts to the very core of Obama's philosophy of service, and it is the preeminent value that has produced the kind of following and enthusiasm Senator Barack Obama is experiencing.

Community organizing is service. And it is very unfortunate that a party whose theme for their convention is "Country First" and "Service" would be so blind as to not recognize service in its myriad of forms.

Twenty years ago Barack Obama helped empower a community to bring change on Chicago's Southside. In 2008, Barack Obama has brought that same courageous spirit of community to the national scene. This time, however, he’ll not only change the Southside of Chicago. This time, Obama is mobilizing individuals in communities across America, and inspiring all of America to believe that together we can change this nation, and together we can change the world.

###

Anita S. Lane is a public policy advocate and former full-time community organizer in Detroit, Michigan.

McCain's Extreme Republican Makeover

2008-09-01T15:00:00.003-04:00

As news hit the airwaves that Governor Sarah Palin’s 17 year-old daughter is pregnant, my first thought was that Senator John McCain decided to push the “maverick envelope” a little far—for his own good, that is.

It’s one thing to be a celebrity— as McCain portrays Obama—but it’s another thing to own the celebrity drama. Immediately my mind conjures up images of Brittany Spears and her little sister Jamie Lynn. Momma Spears can now share a copy of her new book, “Through the Storm,” with Momma Palin. No doubt there is a storm that lies ahead.

Certainly Republicans cannot be happy with this news. However, they will likely use it as an opportunity to promote the pro-life message. Bristol intends to keep the baby and marry the father.

Does this news blemish the can-do-everything-woman image of Governor Sarah Palin? Maybe. Maybe not. Was Sarah Palin too busy being Governor to meet more of the emotional and spiritual needs of her daughter? Did they spend time together talking about dating, God’s purpose for sex, marriage and contraceptives? Was Bristol being kept busy with more productive extracurricular activities and were her whereabouts being monitored?

Perhaps all of the above occurred. After all, seventeen year-olds have minds of their own and will do what they choose. No parent is immune.

News reports claim that McCain knew of Bristol’s pregnancy before offering Palin the VP slot. If so, then McCain new exactly what he was doing—and jumped at the opportunity. He could have chosen a “safe” pick in Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, but if the reports are true, McCain chose to go with Palin anyway.

McCain’s VP pick is McCain’s way of presenting the Republican party in a whole new light—a makeover. In effect, McCain is saying, “We’re not the party of the elite. We work for a living, we hunt, we fish we struggle with addiction and our teens have babies out of wedlock. We’re your average American.”

So it is. But maverick McCain may want to slow his roll. His new Republican makeover may not go over too well with party diehards. They just got excited about McCain’s campaign two days ago because of Palin. Now, they might be scratching their heads. Not about Palin, but about McCain.

Rain on the Republican Parade?

2008-09-01T12:25:00.007-04:00

No, no, no…This is not happening. The Democrats get ideal weather in an open air stadium of 84,000 people—along with fireworks and the orchestral equivalent of an Oscar-winning Hans Zimmer movie score—and the Republicans get Gustav? This can’t be happening.

McCain and Palin were supposed to be able to ride the wave of their big surprise announcement into the convention and captivate the American TV viewer next week much like the Democrats. Instead, they must take a back seat to the torrential waves and potential devastation that hurricane Gustav is bringing to the Gulf Coast.

We all know that life’s not fair, but can the Republicans get a break? Surely it’s not their “year”—with all that George W. Bush has done to weaken the Republican brand—but could it get any worse?

Already the President, the Vice President and one of the rising stars of the party—Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana—have already bailed out of the convention to tend to more urgent matters. Now, the first day of the convention has been all but canceled, only convening to take care of pertinent business matters.

According to party rules, the convention must take place in order to officially nominate McCain and Palin. The question is, just what form will the convention now take?

McCain has stated that it would be wrong to have a festive “party” atmosphere while Americans are facing a natural disaster. Certainly it would be political suicide for Republicans to look despondent (once again) while families in the Gulf Coast suffer.

Please God, Stop the Rain!
The irony of this entire scenario is that Stuart Shepard, director of digital media at Focus Action, the political arm of Focus on the Family, created a short video which actually asked individuals to pray for rain on the night of Barack Obama’s outdoor acceptance speech at Invesco Field. Meant to be "mildly humorous," in the video Shepard asks viewers to pray for rain of “Biblical proportions.”

Focus on the Family later pulled the video, stating that "We are not about confusing people about prayer." So, there you have it. Some conservatives wished rain upon Obama’s parade and now they’ll have rain on McCain’s. You know, that’s scriptural too. It’s called the law of sowing and reaping. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

Personally, I love the wisdom, information and encouragement that Focus on the Family provides as it relates to marriage and family. But this particular action was inappropriate.

Now, on the eve of the Republican national convention, Republicans can only pray that the torrential rains of Biblical proportions that Shepard prayed for in jest, don’t ruin on their parade.

McCain’s Big Birthday Surprise

2008-08-29T18:00:00.010-04:00

On the eve of Senator John McCain’s 72nd birthday, there was a big, secret surprise being planned in Dayton, Ohio. However, the surprise was not for McCain, but for the American voter. And that surprise was the selection of Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his Vice Presidential running mate.

No, she didn’t pop out of a cake, but she might as well have. Almost no one saw this announcement coming. The announcement would have been a surprise up until the moment she appeared on stage if an airport worker hadn’t spoiled it by announcing that he saw a private jet arrive from Alaska and whisk off a husband, wife and three daughters.

In his announcement of Governor Palin, he stated he was looking for a VP choice who could best help him “shake up Washington and make it start working again for the people who are counting on us.” He talked about Palin’s record as Governor and stated that Palin is a woman of “strong principles, a fighting spirit and deep compassion.”

Perhaps Palin can deliver in every way that McCain is hoping. The only challenge is, Palin is younger--and some claim--just as inexperienced as Senator Barack Obama. At forty-four years old, Palin is two years into her first term as Governor. She’s a wife and mother of five (including a son headed to Iraq and four month-old with Down Syndrome). She is the Commander of Alaska’s National Guard. For fun, she enjoys snowmobiling, hunting and eliminating wasteful government spending. Wadda gal. Now we know why McCain picked her.

On the morning after Obama’s historic acceptance speech to over 80,000 and 38 million viewers—replete with fireworks, Stevie Wonder, Jennifer Hudson, Sheryl Crow and a host of Democratic stalwarts— McCain decided to take the wind out of Obama’s sails and make history as well (for Republicans), by choosing a female running mate.

After a presidential primary like none other, it’s painstakingly clear that this election year, change is the name of the game. McCain wanted to make sure that he was not on the opposite side of the change mantra that has so galvanized American voters and Democrats around Senator Barack Obama.

McCain wants to prove that he really does intend to make some change of his own—and now he has someone to help him do it. Someone who can help him make the case for change because she’s made change of her own—both as Mayor of the city of Wasilla and as Governor of Alaska. Granted, the population of the entire state of Alaska is that of the city of Austin, Texas—but it’s change nonetheless. Scripture teaches us that being faithful over little qualifies us to be ruler over much.

However, these questions remain:
Will McCain’s Vice Presidential pick hurt or help?
Will Governor Sarah Palin be able to woo disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters?
Will she draw out disaffected pro-life conservatives?
Will she help excite the Republican base and draw new, young republicans to the polls Nov. 4th?
Will she serve as proof that McCain indeed plans to bring change to Washington?

We shall see. The conservative alternative to Hillary Clinton, McCain describes her as having grit, integrity, good sense and fierce devotion to the common good...She’s exactly who I need to help me fight the same old Washington politics of ‘me first’ and ‘country second.’”

SURPRISE! It may have been Senator McCain’s birthday, but the surprise was on us.

The Re-introduction of Barack Obama

2008-08-28T23:46:00.004-04:00

Tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land—enough! …And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight…”
--Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama

Throughout the primary campaign, often Barack Obama would say that since he first began running for president 18 months ago, babies have been born and are now walking and talking.

On some levels, the same can be said for Senator Barack Obama—who, over the past eighteen months has learned, grown, gleaned and matured into the man we saw tonight.

Barack Obama was a different man tonight. He was a bigger man, a tougher man, an incensed man who made it clear why he desires to serve as President of the United States. For a man who has won over many with his generous, unarming smile, tonight, Obama smiled little as he hammered away at the failed polices of George Bush and John McCain.

Best-selling author, John Maxwell describes true leadership as the ability to influence others. Leadership is more than a policy position, a title, or years in public office. Leadership is the ability to offer a compelling vision, and communicate and live out that vision in a way that persuades others to follow and join in.

Barack Obama has ideas, solutions and the ability to listen and learn from the wisdom of others. He knows where he’s weak and works to become stronger. In the primary campaign, he began as a poor debater, and he grew to become a strong one.

Barack Obama doesn’t pretend to possess all the answers, but knows that together, we Americans have the answers, and together we can produce the change we need. One of his favorite sayings is that “I’m asking you to believe. Not just about my ability to bring about real change in Washington…I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

Barack Obama is an intelligent man with keen insight and the ability to grasp and process information quickly and thoroughly and make an informed decision. Obama will not blindly nor stubbornly “lead” the American people into harm’s way.

As a well-trained lawyer, he will do his due diligence, take action, change direction when necessary, and willingly admit his mistakes when they occur. This is the tradition of Barack Obama. This is the man he is. This is the president he will be.

Disciplined, diplomatic and determined, Barack Obama will continue to grow, to learn, to glean and to mature. It’s called being teachable. And it’s something each of us must be—even the president of the United States.

This week we saw the Democratic party come together to heal the wounds from the primary season. This week we saw an incredibly well orchestrated event with incredible talent, music and inspiring speakers. This week we saw an astoundingly enthusiastic crowd, culminating in over 80,000 in Denver’s mile high stadium proudly nominate the first African American as the presidential nominee of a major party.

Tonight, on the 45th anniversary of the historic March on Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, Barack Obama was firm, forceful and formidable. He carries with him the struggles of each of the families with whom he’s had the privilege of listening while sitting at kitchen tables across the country. It’s these faces that Obama sees. It’s these faces that cause a righteous indignation to rise up in Barack Obama. It’s the stories behind these faces that give Barack Obama the moral authority to demand change in Washington.

I believe that Barack Obama understands the weight of the responsibility he’s seeking. Never have I seen him tear up—until tonight. Never have I seen him visibly nervous—until tonight. And I have never seen him angry—until tonight.

It was just a matter of time before Barack Obama the candidate would evolve into Barack Obama the president. Many may have wanted this moment to come sooner, but it came at precisely the right moment.

A Graceful Hillary

2008-08-27T15:00:00.002-04:00

This wasn’t the night she wanted. It was not the speech she envisioned giving at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. However, in a full about-face from this year’s nasty primary campaign, Senator Hillary Clinton backed down and put Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic party, and the American people—first. Kudos to Hillary.

While Clinton delivered a great, energetic and compelling speech, many will focus on what she did not say—how she did not come out and say, “Barack Obama is qualified to lead and will be ready on day one.” No, she never spoke directly to Obama’s readiness, or overtly stated whether he had in fact passed her infamous “commander in chief threshold.” Many will focus on what she did not say, but what she did say--did it do the job?

I think so. The bottom line is that the Democratic voters have a choice to make in the fall. It’s a choice between a democratic candidate who holds traditional democratic values and positions, and a republican candidate who does not. Hopefully Democrats will do what is in their best interest.

In my opinion, Hillary really did do what she needed to. She bowed out gracefully and forcefully threw her support behind Barack Obama—all the while directing her supporters to do the same.

In Clinton’s words, “We don't have a moment to lose or a vote to spare.” She made it clear to her supporters this campaign has never been about her but about the American people.

She quickly cut to the chase at the start of her speech to state that Senator Barack Obama is her choice. Then she made her case when she stated, “I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?”

Hillary made it clear that those who have supported her should be committed to America’s families and our children’s future. Be in this “for them” was Clinton’s theme. “Obama is my candidate, and he must be our president.”

Enough said.

Change We Can Believe In—John McCain?

2008-08-26T23:30:00.004-04:00

If I recall correctly, John McCain said he would run a positive campaign. After all, McCain is a statesman, a war hero and Mr. Straight Talk Express.

As it turns out, McCain changed his mind. Within the last three weeks, McCain has released a furry of on air and internet ads that are anything but “positive.” In my opinion, running a positive campaign means just that. You positively present yourself and your positions without presenting your opponent as negative, or running ads that tear down your opponent with outrageous claims or images that misrepresent your opponent’s words, or border on slander or libel. However, this is exactly what McCain has done. The straight-talking statesman has morphed into Mr. Negative Numero Uno.

If we can’t count on McCain to keep a simple promise to run a positive campaign, how can we count on him to deliver on larger promises regarding our nation’s economy or national security?

Before Hillary Clinton succeeded the primary race to Barack Obama, John McCain was civil—even cordial to Obama, and quickly and fiercely denounced negative campaigning and below-the-belt punches—such as one radio host’s introduction of McCain while stressing Obama’s middle name, “Hussein.”

However, since the campaign has turned into a two-man race between McCain and Obama, McCain appears to have changed and back-tracked 180 degrees on his “no negative campaigning” pledge. From McCain’s ads, we’re learning more about what Senator Barack Obama is not than what Senator John McCain is.

McCain’s ads have exposed us to Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, and stark quotes from Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden in five separate campaign commercials. It’s clear that John McCain has decided that the best way for him to win is to use smear tactics against Obama, images of suicide bombers and fear to motivate Americans to vote for himself (McCain).

Ironically, in spite of McCain’s clear negative campaigning, he says that he doesn’t believe he is being negative “in the slightest.” Perhaps McCain’s view of “negative” is different than the average person—just as his view of the economy (being fundamentally strong) is different from average person.

McCain said he would be a positive campaigner, yet he’s changed his tune. Clearly, in John McCain there is change we can believe in—that is in his propensity to change his mind and his direction. So just what tune will he be singing come January if elected? Will McCain be the McCain the strong, independent maverick, or will he continue courting conservatives as he’s now doing and tow the party line? Which McCain will America get? We really don’t know.

###

(View McCain's negative ads on his You Tube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/JohnMcCaindotcom)

Isn’t She Lovely…

2008-08-25T23:50:00.002-04:00

She did it. If America had any doubt about Michelle Obama, none should remain. Michelle Obama delivered an incredibly impassioned speech that made clear the values that she and her husband hold. She shared that it was those common values of hard work and respect for others that drew she and Barack—individuals from opposite ends of the continent—together.

With perfect delivery, grace and confidence, Michelle connected with all of us, and made the case for electing Barack Obama as president of the United States of America. Michelle spoke in loving terms about her big brother Craig and her hard-working and loving parents.

Most of all, what became glaringly evident was that this was a woman speaking from her heart. A woman who within every living cell in her body—believed firmly in what she was saying. For Michelle Obama, it was not a stretch to speak in favorable terms about the opportunities that America provides. She did not have to conjure up elaborate tales of hard times. No. Michelle is no elitist.

Michelle knows hard work, struggle, opportunity—as well as triumph, first-hand. The story of her life and that of her husband Barack are only possible in America—and it’s cleary one reason why she is proud to be an American and why loves her country do deeply.

Stevie Wonder’s song, “Isn’t She Lovely,” is the perfect tribute to Michelle Obama’s speech. It is the first thing that came to mind when I saw her ascend to the podium. Flawless in appearance, graceful, cheerful and amazingly at ease while speaking to the entire world (via satellite and internet)—Michelle Obama is truly a woman in the right place at the right time. She can communicate and connect with every American of every color and creed. Michelle Obama simply has to be who she is—and she will make a terrific First Lady, and she will make America very proud.

Barack Obama is No Sugar Daddy!

2008-06-21T17:00:00.002-04:00

I’m sorry, but can anyone give me really good explanation as to why Senator Obama should bail Senator Hillary Clinton out of her $22.5 million self-imposed campaign debt?

Really, this concept is difficult for me to grasp. Hillary loaned herself a reported $12.175 million. She owes $4.6 million to her advisor Mark Penn and his polling firm, and another $5.4 million to vendors.

Does this hold any water? Let’s say we pay the vendors. $5.4 million is a drop in the bucket in presidential politics. If $5.4 million is all that’s needed to make “peace” between Obama and Clinton and to get her enthusiastic support—then write her campaign a check—but then, that kind of resembles a “payoff” doesn’t it?

What’s the real solution? First, the innocent, hard-working, service-providing vendors deserve to be paid. Period. Mark Penn—well, he was Clinton’s pal—at least until the Columbia scandal, and he should chalk it up as a contribution to the campaign in which he so strongly believed and so arduously fought.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton…They simply need to forgive the debt owed to themselves. After all, who believed in Hillary Clinton’s candidacy more than Bill and Hillary? Investing in a political campaign is not like a treasury bond. There are absolutely no guarantees. In politics, you win some and you lose some. When you lose, you have to be prepared to cut your losses. Not ask for a refund.

Like every other donor, Clinton should have freely given to her campaign. She lost. Now she wants her money back? Is she going to refund all of her donors their money back too? That would only be fair…

Ultimately there are two issues at stake:
1) The issue of party unity and how best to achieve it. Eradicating Clinton’s debt would go a long way toward wooing Clinton and her supporters. After all, how can she effectively campaign on his behalf with this huge debt hanging over her head, right?

2) Obama’s authority as a leader. Is Obama to be perceived as a soft, weak-kneed, push-over, sugar daddy? First, Clinton supporters lobby—or more accurately, try and twist Obama’s arm into giving Clinton the Vice Presidential slot out of a sense of entitlement. Now, Clinton supporters are pushing to have Obama retire Clinton’s debt utilizing well-managed campaign funds donated (not loaned) by Obama’s 1.5 million enthusiastic, dedicated and hard-working supporters. "Introducing, Obama the sugar daddy…eh?""

Here's the real deal—Senator Hillary Clinton’s debt is a result of financial mismanagement, her refusal to conclude her campaign sooner, and her own lack of confidence regarding her ability to win. (Hence, the $12.175 loan versus donation to her campaign).

Now is this really the kind the behavior we want to reward with a $22 million gift? Even a child knows the answer to that.

For the Good of the Party

2008-05-07T15:15:00.004-04:00

Yesterday, Hillary lost the North Carolina primary to Barack Obama by14 percentage points, and squeaked out a two point lead in Indiana. As Hillary Clinton watches her chances for clinching the nomination slip away, is she feeling betrayed—scorned?

If Hillary’s number one interest is seeing a Democrat in the white house, then for the good of the party, she should step aside and let the real campaign begin. What campaign is that? It’s the campaign betwee a relatively well-known, long-term Washington republican John McCain, and the relatively new and less known Barack Obama.

Between now and November, Barack Obama needs to use every precious moment to getting to know voters in large cities and small towns across America. Obama needs to conduct his own version of John McCain’s Biography tour. Obama needs to be traveling the country solidifying his base, and having conversations with blue collar workers and farmers in rural America—because each and every vote counts. And remember, in most instances, to know Obama is to like him.

Each and every day that Hillary Clinton stays in the race is one less day Obama has to make the case to Seniors, Women, Reagan Democrats, disaffected Republicans and Independents, that he is the right man to lead our country. Each day that Clinton stays in the race, she lessens Obama’s opportunity to make that case, gain more ground and improve his lead against Senator John McCain.

Does anyone truly doubt that Clinton is fully aware of this fact? Is there any doubt that Clinton is thinking primarily about her interests—even while the greater interest of the entire Democratic party is at stake?

As the old saying goes, “Beware of a woman scorned.” You know, the “If I can’t have it [the presidency] no one will…” type of attitude. I’d hate to think that Clinton is responding in such fashion, but her actions speak volumes over her words that call for a “unified party” once a nominee is selected (albeit by the Superdelegates).

Well, I have news for Clinton—the nominee has been selected (by the voters), and his name is Barack Obama. Clinton should face the inevitable sooner rather than later, so that Obama and a unified Democratic party can get on with the business of winning the 2008 presidential election!

How Can She Win?

2008-05-07T08:00:00.000-04:00

Hillary is in it to win it. So just how does she plan to do it? What is her argument for staying in the race until the convention or until the last contest in June?

Something surprising from Obama’s past may appear that will permanently derail the campaign.
A re-vote, or the counting of existing votes from Michigan and Florida.
Remaining Superdelegates go for Clinton and other Superdelegates switch their vote for Clinton.

Apart from those three highly unlikely scenarios, tonight was Clinton’s last best chance—and it’s over. If there’s no way the numbers can dramatically change between now and June, how does Clinton's staying in the race help the Democratic Party? It doesn’t. Does it waste precious time? Yes. Will Clinton bow out gracefully before then? No.

Remember, Hillary has morphed into the Annie Oakley, Rocky Balboa fighter and the Indianapolis race-to-the-finish line candidate. There’s clearly no escape clause for this candidate. In spite of being behind with no way to surpass Obama in pledged delegates, popular vote or number of states won, Clinton will be in it till the end.

Obama—Broader, Bolder, Better

2008-05-06T23:00:00.003-04:00

Tonight was January 4, 2008—the night of the Iowa caucus—all over again. The room was electric, and Obama’s message filled the room with inspiration and hope. If you were an Obama supporter who had waned, you were recharged. Obama was back.

I felt all of the same emotions I felt that cold night in January—the hopefulness, the awe, the feeling of pride. In spite of the political injuries sustained from the Rev. Wright controversy, accusations of elitism and the questioning of his patriotism, Obama survived.

After what could undeniably be described as toughest six weeks of his campaign, and considerable dwindling of support in the polls, Obama accomplished what few thought he would—a landslide victory in North Carolina, and a near tie in Indiana. The Clinton Camp and the pundits had written Obama off. His support among blue collars was reportedly nonexistent and he was a candidate growing weaker with each ensuing contest.

Clinton called North Carolina a “game changer,” and a game changer it was. In Obama’s victory speech he referred to North Carolina as a “big state” and a “swing state,” the kind of state Obama supposedly “couldn’t” win. Obama’s response—“Yes we can.”

What struck me the most about Obama’s victory speech was its grand, presidential-like qualities and broad appeal. Obama was speaking in North Carolina, but he definitely was speaking beyond North Carolina. Obama spoke to the nation and the world—and as well as to the Democratic base. Referring to his party, Obama stated, “We are the party of Jefferson and Jackson, of Roosevelt and Kennedy, and we are at our best when we lead with principle, when we lead with conviction, [and] when we summon an entire nation to a common purpose and a higher purpose.”

Obama was bolder. He spoke specifically to the economic woes of the unemployed worker in Indiana, the college student in Iowa struggling to pay medical bills, and the mother in Wisconsin who lost her son in Iraq. He spoke boldly and with conviction regarding our need to support our veterans, construct an effective energy policy, and end the war in Iraq.

Obama described an America that “didn't just reward wealth, but rewarded work and the workers who created it.” And how Washington and Wall Street have “lost touch” with these core American values.

Ultimately, Obama proved that he is attempting to be a “better” candidate than what we’ve become accustomed to. Maybe he’s not a gun-toting, whiskey drinking, street fighting, tax cutting populous like Clinton (to borrow the words of political analyst Wolf Blitzer), but he’s honest. As he put it, it’s time to tell the truth “forcefully, repeatedly, and confidently.” He’s striving with all that’s within him to build on our strengths, to find our common ground as Americans, and to build a better America as a result.

Obama stated in his closing words, “Don't ever forget that we have a choice in this country, that we can choose not to be divided, that we can choose not to be afraid, that we can still choose this moment to finally come together and solve the problems we've talked about all those other years and all those other elections.”

On Tuesday, May 6th, Obama proved that his hope chest wasn’t empty—that he hadn’t lost his swagger. On this warm spring night in North Carolina, Obama, the “imperfect messenger” proved that in spite of Preacher-gate, Bitter-gate, charges of elitism, and Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos, Obama couldn’t and wouldn’t be counted out. He was broader, bolder, better—with a clear path to to the Democratic presidential nomination.

C’mon, Tell Us How You’ll Win

2008-05-05T18:00:00.005-04:00

At a campaign stop in North Carolina, on May 5th, Barack Obama was asked how he will win the general election against John McCain. After taking 15 seconds to begin his answer, he began this long-winded soliloquy about how he’s been the underdog since the beginning of this race, and concluded three minutes later with, how after he is the nominee, Democrats will rally together to defeat the Republican nominee.

Unfortunately, Obama the constitutional law professor surfaced to answer what could have and should have been a short, persuasive answer. So, just in case Obama is asked this question again, the simple answer is:

There is a vast ideological and practical difference between me and Senator John McCain. I’m for universal health care; he’s not. I’m for middle class tax cuts; he’s not. I’m for bringing our troops home from Iraq. He says he’s for keeping our troops in Iraq as long as it takes.

The differences between me and Senator John McCain are stark. And once I become the nominee of the Democratic party, I’m confident that our party will rally together because we realize the stakes are too high and this choice too important. We cannot afford four more years of Bush policies.

So I’ll will win on the policy front. I will win with a broad-based coalition of everyday Americans from all across the country. Lastly, I will win because the American people want change. They want an America that can restore it’s standing in the world and restore the American dream for ALL Americans. We can do that. And with your help, we will.

Who’s Distracted?

2008-05-01T22:29:00.004-04:00

“Distraction, distraction, distraction!” That’s all anyone in the media is talking about—how the Rev. Wright controversy is a distraction for Senator Obama. I’m inclined to think that it’s more of a distraction for the news media than for Obama.

Yes, Senator Barack Obama gave a press conference on Tuesday to disassociate himself from Rev. Wright, but aside from that event, Obama has never stopped being “on point,” nor has he been distracted from the issues that matter most to voters.

It’s always amusing to hear someone in the media use a phrase or key word and then hear every other media echo with a resounding chorus. Rev. Wright is a distraction because the news media (along with bona fide help from Rev. Wright) is making it one. If talk radio and the news media decided to stay focused on the issues, Rev. Wright wouldn’t be the front page headline. However, we all know that the media loves whatever is odd, intriguing, horrific, or salacious—so, I guess the media won’t be letting go of the Rev. Wright issue anytime soon.

But as for Obama, I’ve watched three of Obama’s campaign events in North Carolina and Indiana over the last few days—both prior to and after his press conference on Rev. Wright—and to his credit, Obama was never “off point” or distracted, and neither was the audience. In fact, I found his remarks and his demeanor particularly poignant. He seemed like a man on fire. Now that his wife is on the campaign trail, she too is on point and is as determined as ever, to continue advancing the message of change and hope that launched this remarkable campaign.

If anything, I think the Rev. Wright controversy and the long, hard-fought primary campaign overall, has served to fortify Obama and make him an even stronger human being, a stronger candidate, and stronger future President of the United States.

America Needs Solutions, Not Gimmicks!

2008-05-01T08:39:00.004-04:00

After eight years of fiscal, diplomatic and military irresponsibility, we need a president who is smart enough and wise enough to decipher good public policy—policy that actually solves problems. That’s the kind of leadership Senator Barack Obama is offering.

Standing his ground in the face of two opponents who are offering what looks like a quick fix, Obama is well aware that the supposed “gas tax holiday” scheme is likely to make the problem worse, not better—and we should be investing our precious time, energy and resources into real solutions to bring gas prices down—not mask or make worse the problem at hand.

Tough position. Obama is not taking the easy road out on this issue. Politically, he’d be better off joining Clinton and McCain in saying, “Let’s take a summer holiday, everybody!” However, Obama is actually concerned with more than just politics—he’s actually concerned with solving real problems in order to bring real relief to every family in America.

After eight years of Bush’s drain on the United State’s budget, the kind of leadership Obama offers would be a welcome, refreshing relief. We should all know by now that political pandering and short-term gimmicks only lead to long-term suffering. We’re all suffering now. And while it may come as a surprise to some, it appears that the youngest of the presidential candidates is the wiser of the three.

Code Word: “Blue Collar”

2008-04-28T22:00:00.003-04:00

I've been watching the race for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination very carefully. And sadly, I'm beginning to wonder if the term "white working class" or “blue collar” Americans, to which journalists keep referring, is actually code word for "white Americans who are uncomfortable electing a Black man for president."

I say that because Barack Obama is being accused of being elitist. He's being accused of being "out of touch" with middle and working class white Americans. This position is dubious to me for three reasons:

1)Elitist? Both Obama and his wife were raised in working class and middle class families all of their lives. Yes, they attended the "best" schools and obtained "good jobs" upon matriculating. However, they both defected from corporate America to the nonprofit sector in order to "give back," and they financed their first-rate educations by a ton of student loans that amounted to more than their mortgage for the majority of their married life. It's only been as a result of Obama's recent New York Times Best Selling book that he has been able to alleviate that debt.

2)Elitist? The majority of African Americans are not middle-to-upper class, yet African Americans consistently vote for Barack Obama in large numbers. If Barack Obama was truly elitist, Black Americans would be the last group of people to whom he would appeal. Traditionally, Black people have not been enamored with other Blacks who appear to disconnect themselves from other black people. Point in case: Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerley. On the contrary, Black Americans seem to understand Obama's life story and his struggle to find his place in America--and most can relate. To most Black Americans, there is not one thread of elitism about him.

3) Elitist? Senator Barack Obama has engaged more individuals of every economic level and every race, than any other candidate. He’s raised more money in the history of presidential campaigns and he’s done so from everyday working Americans giving anywhere from twenty-five to one hundred dollars. Most telling, he’s garnered the “white working/middle class” vote in Iowa, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Illinois, and Minnesota.

I think if you take a close look at Senator Barack Obama and his life, his work you’ll find that he’s not an elitist. So when I keep hearing the accusation that Barack Obama is “elitist” or "out of touch" it is mind boggling to me. It is then that I wonder if there is not more to the “elitist” claim than what appears on the surface.

It is then that I wonder if "elitist" and "out of touch with working and middle class Americans" is not simply code word for “working and middle class white Americans who find it difficult to elect a Black man for President of the United States of America.”

I certainly hope it’s not true, but I sure wonder.

Let’s Talk About Race, Gender

2008-03-12T13:00:00.001-04:00

by Anita S. Lane

The 2008 Democratic presidential primary has brought front and center the issues of race and gender. To be honest, America has a sordid past with both, and it can be very difficult for Americans to confront these issues.

Personally, I don’t agree with Clinton’s finance committee member, Geraldine Ferraro’s comment that “If Obama were a white man, he wouldn’t be where he is today.” Obama is qualified to be president, and he has run an incredibly effective campaign.

At the same time, I believe that Obama’s supporters are delighted in the fact that this great, talented, visionary leader, is also a black man. I think his supporters—white and black—are thrilled by that. It in no way lessens the legitimacy of his candidacy— it just happens to be a plus for some supporters—just as Clinton’s gender just happens to be a plus for her supporters.

To be fair, I think what I’ve described is part of what Ferraro was attempting to convey—albeit rather poorly, and seemingly out of a lot of bitterness over the fact that Clinton is losing—and I give her credit for having the courage to stand behind her statement. Because I agree? No—but don’t we want individuals in our society to be able to say what they really mean?

Isn’t it better to know where a person is coming from, instead of naïvely believing that someone is “with” you because they spew politically correct statements, when inwardly they despise and abhor you?

Just ask any African American who grow up in the segregated south and lived to see the advent of desegregation. One of the biggest challenges for these individuals was coming to terms with the fact that they no longer knew who was “for” them and who was “against” them. As my grandmother—who grew up in segregated Arkansas and later moved North—used to say, “At least we knew where they stood, because they’d just say it.”

My point is two-fold. We should all seek to be honest with one another in as diplomatic, respectful and courteous manner as possible. Secondly, we should allow individuals to be honest with us, and we can respond in one of three ways: 1)accept their comment and suspend judgment; 2) Accept their comment and agree with their comment; or 3) Accept their comment and agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, I think many of us employ a fourth response, and that is to not accept the other person’s comment and to demand that they recant—or to use the current lingo—reject and denounce, their own remarks. But is such a demand fair?

And may I go as far as to say that we as African Americans have been given a great measure of liberty when it comes to saying what we feel because of our history and the deplorable treatment we’ve received in this country. However, I don’t believe we allow Caucasians that same liberty.

Perhaps we need to recreate the college campus—the laboratory for ideas, philosophy and honest exchange among America’s future leaders. I can recall many lively, heated and hotly contested informal debates with my college classmates on the subjects of religion, race and politics. While difficult, such discourses were enlightening and invigorating.
As a result of our discourse, we were wiser, stronger and held a greater respect for one another because we had come to know one another better. Our conversations eroded the ignorance and made way for greater understanding—and genuine friendships.

My grandmother also used to say that there is a grain of truth in every lie. Well if there is truth in a lie, there is bound to be a grain of truth in one individual’s perspective spoken from their personal paradigm.

So, is Geraldine Ferraro a racist? I assume not. Was she being honest? Probably so. Should she have been so honest? Well, that depends on if we want an America where we can be honest with one another, pinpoint our prejudices, and attempt to heal the racial and gender divides in this country—or if we want to remain a country in silent inner turmoil—“politically correct” on the outside, while deeply suspicious on the inside, refusing the treatment of talk therapy for fear of opening up old wounds—but there’s really no other alternative. In the words of Dr. Phil, “How’s that working for you?” Our answer: “Not well.”

This campaign season has opened up a window of opportunity for America. Let’s talk.

My Two-cents for Obama

2008-03-11T20:00:00.009-04:00

by Anita S. Lane

Is it just me? Or has Obama begun to morph into his former self on the campaign trail within the last week—you know, the constitutional law professor? Where is Obama the preacher/politician? That Obama is much more interesting and invigorating. Professors bode well in academia, but politicians bode better in the public square.

I was one of the lucky ones. I got to see Obama deliver a rousing speech before an enthusiastic crowd of 10,000 in an Ohio arena. Yet after witnessing much of Obama’s stump speech before voters in Jackson, Mississippi on March 10, 2008—I couldn’t help but think that the Mississippi voters might have felt a little cheated.

After all, it appears they missed out on the grandiose, Obama-mania like fanfare field with the lively, uproarious, pop-concert-like-crowds, and rousing speeches for which Obama has become so famous. The speaker that evening: Professor Obama—discussing his policy agenda—as well as his contempt for Senator Clinton’s audacity to extend VP privileges to him when he’s the one in the lead.

In Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania on March 11th, Obama held a quasi town hall meeting with workers inside a plant. Certainly not everyone in the audience was an Obama supporter. Hence, there were no signs or clamorous applause. But so that no one can allege that Obama can’t answer the tough questions, he answered in fairly lengthy detail, each question asked.

I know the effort to increase the number of smaller venues and “town hall” settings are in direct response to the accusations that Obama is all “talk” and no solutions, but Obama must find the fine line between giving people the inspiration they crave, and the information they need.

How did he do in the town hall setting? Well, I thought he did well—considering the audience wasn’t full of his typical fawning fans. The Pennsylvania crowd was more of a skeptical audience-jury that was waiting for the charismatic lawyer (Obama) to convince them that he is their guy. I believe that if they were going to be swayed, it was going to be by the preponderance of evidence presented.

The workers at this plant definitely weren’t the young, idealistic, touchy-feely, warm and fuzzy types you find at many Obama rallies. The individuals at this plant represented the hard-working, meat and potatoes, bread and butter Americans. The questions they asked weren’t the theoretical, ideological, global agenda-type questions. These folks wanted to know how are you going to help the single working mom who has an autistic child for whom she has to pay out of pocket for services, and who at the same time is also taking care of her mother; or the Mexican American who asks, “What will you do for Mexican people?” Or the woman who needs help sending her two children through college.

Obama needed to show that he could respond to such questions—and he did. However, I think Obama could stand a few pointers if he’s going to continue engaging in the town hall type of event in his six-week camp-out in Pennsylvania. Here’s my two cents:

Make it uniquely your own. You give great speeches—so give one. Get folks excited about you and your message.

Smile more. I know you’re tired, but you gotta keep your energy up and continue to put on the charm. Look the voter in the eye and make your first response to every question one of the following: “Great question,” “That’s a good question,” “Great point,” “Thank you for asking that question,” “I appreciate you asking that,” etc. You get the point. It’s important to immediately make that connection with the voter, affirm the individual asking the question, and make him or her feel good—realizing it took real guts for them to ask the question, especially if they revealed something personal. Pause for a second as to ponder the question. Then proceed to answer the question.
Be concise.

Be more conversational. Don’t morph into Obama the professor. Keep your answers upbeat in tone.

Always remember to maintain the demeanor of Obama the visionary leader. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, voters are looking for a leader they can believe in and a leader who inspires them to believe the best in themselves and others.

Obama is demonstrating that he can give voters what they want and need—whether it’s inspiration or information. But I guess it’s to be expected: visionary talk is just a lot more exciting than policy talk. Voters want to hear visionary talk and see practical results. It’s only the stuff in the middle voters aren’t all that interested in.

Clinton-Obama ’08—“No Thank You”

2008-03-09T09:00:00.013-04:00

The latest strategy of the Clinton camp is to make voters think that a vote for Hillary Clinton will also be a vote for Barack Obama. How? By pairing the two on one ticket—with her at the top of the ticket, of course.

If the Democratic voters—particularly those who are trying to decide between the two candidates—believe that by voting for Hillary they’ll get Obama too, they just might give her their vote. Surely a joint-ticket will strengthen the party and pretty much assure victory in November.

Bill Clinton called a possible joint ticket “an almost unstoppable force.” The day after the February 5th Super Tuesday contests, Democratic National Chair Howard Dean stated that if neither has enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination, the DNC would have to “get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement.” Do you mean like an arranged political marriage between Clinton and Obama?

The Clinton camp may like the idea of a Clinton-Obama ticket, but they would have to get over two very big hurdles:
1) Obama is running for President—not Vice President
2) Obama happens to have won more pledged delegates, more popular votes, more states and more primary contests than Clinton

Fortunately, Obama put this dialogue to rest when he replied by saying, “You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate. I'm running for president."

So here we have typical Hillary, at it again—essentially saying, “Vote for me, and I’ll give you Obama too.” She suggested it. If it doesn’t happen, Obama will look like the bad guy—the poor Democratic sport—for spoiling the “dream ticket.”

But let’s be honest—these two don’t really, genuinely get along do they? For Clinton, Obama is a pawn in her political game of chess—a means to an end. Her aim is the White House. If that means Obama has to tag along, so be it.

The problem is, Obama’s not running to be somebody’s “yes man.” He’s running to be “the man.” I’m sorry, I know many Democrats would love to see them both on one ticket, but four to eight years with Hillary, Bill and Barack (in that order) at the helm, would be a total nightmare—not a dream. I mean, can you imagine Hillary, Bill and Barack racing each other to answer that 3AM phone call? Nightmare!

And let’s be honest, it would be a particularly intense nightmare for Barack Obama—number three on the totem pole. Do Obama’s supporters really want to put him through that kind of torture?

If you want Obama for President, follow his lead. Obama answered a decisive “no” to the idea of a joint-ticket. His supporters should fall in line.

Clinton-Obama ’08? “No thank you.”

Obama’s Strategy Moving Forward

2008-03-05T16:00:00.016-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

Now that Barack Obama has been hit hard by Clinton’s kitchen sink, it’s Obama’s turn to fight back. But given Obama’s promise of “clean” politics, what kind of “fight” can he really have?

Obama wants to play “by the rules,” but it’s apparent he has an opponent who has little regard for “the rules.” Can he really play fair and win?

If Obama wants to win, his strategy moving forward needs to be the following:

Lay down the law
Obama needs to set clear boundaries for his team and his advisors, as to what actions are acceptable and what actions are not. He does not need another Canadian/NAFTA debacle.

Forcefully fight back
Clinton is on the attack. Obama must fight back—and he must do so forcefully. He must clear up any misrepresentation presented by the Clinton campaign, clarify the differences between him and Clinton, call into question her experience and her judgment for executive office, and question why she’s failed to release her tax returns—as well as her papers as first lady. I recommend he do so in press conferences and in written statements (taking full advantage of free air time). Voters need to see that he’s a fighter. But he has to fight Obama style.

Stir up the romance
It’s been said that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. If that’s so, then Obama needs to make Democrats fall in love with him again. Smile. Talk that talk folks love to hear. Tell ‘em, “I love you back!” It’s not that Dems (and others) aren’t still in love with Obama, they’re just likely feeling a bit insecure in their relationship because of the other woman—Hillary.

Do what’s worked for him
Obama must not veer from what’s worked for him in the campaign thus far. He must be himself, continue taking the high road in his rhetoric and stay committed to his core values. Keep having fun at his rallies, stay positive and keep hope alive.

Update his stump speech
Obama needs to update his stump speech to include more details—new details, while still presenting his inspirational message of hope and change.

Run feel-good, message-based ads
Obama’s campaign ads in the various states need to make people feel good while offering detail on his plans. The ads should demonstrate that Obama understands the issues that concern the voters most, and that demonstrate that he has and will do something to help improve their situation.

Obama has to reconnect with voters in the upcoming primaries and shore up their confidence. Obama needs to run feel-good ads with sincere, enthusiastic voters of all ages, races and cultures stating why they’re for him. While Clinton’s ads stir up fear, Obama needs to create powerful ads that stir up the hope and aspiration that Americans have, while giving them reasons to believe it can come to pass.

Get a good night’s sleep
It’s easy to be negative on little-to-no sleep—you know, pointing fingers and yelling, “Shame on you!” However, it takes rest to remain positive and draw out one’s best inspiration. Voter’s want Obama’s best. So get a little rest. It will be to his advantage.

If the last three days before the March 4th primaries are any indicator, I think we can expect to see some hard hitting NAFTA-gate and Rezco-related ads attempting to defame Obama’s character and credibility—as well as more ads that attempt to cast doubt on his foreign policy experience. The Obama camp needs to be ready, and they must fight back.

Lest we forget
Obama needs to remind the voters that he has the populous message, the popular vote, the delegates and the momentum. Everyone knows that securing the Democratic Party nomination doesn’t require that one candidate win each and every state. You'll win some and you'll lose some.

We can’t forget that Obama managed to upstage the presumptive front runner for the Democratic Party nomination—and then he proceeded to out-raise her, out-campaign her, stage an upset in Iowa and then go on to win eleven straight contests in a row. Truth be told, Hillary Clinton had a 20 point lead in Ohio two weeks prior to the primary. Yes, Clinton may have gotten her grove back, but Obama never lost his.

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It—Clinton Strategy is Working

2008-03-05T10:00:00.006-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

She did it. Senator Hillary Clinton made a big comeback by winning primaries in Rhode Island as well as the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio. Her husband Bill Clinton said she had to win Texas and Ohio to stay in the game—and she did. Kudos to Clinton. She’s a fighter and she’s demonstrated that she knows how to win.

Her game plan moving forward: more of the same. You know the saying, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Clinton has proven that her tactics aren’t broken. They work.

The question is, do Democrats see her tactics as fair and above board, as desperate, or as potentially harmful to the Democratic Party and the Democrats’ chances in the general election?

I think the answer is “yes” to all of the above. However, I think Clinton is willing to risk it all on winning. One of Clinton’s early campaign themes when she first announced her candidacy was “In it to Win.” She may have changed her campaign theme a dozen times since then, but she hasn’t changed her intent. She’s in it to win it. This is her time. It’s now or never.

So, what does she have to do? As one Clinton strategist put it, “We gotta mess him up.” (Obama that is). How exactly does Clinton “mess Obama up?” If the March 4th primary is any indication, Clinton Must:

Keep raising the question in voter’s minds as to whether or not Obama is experienced enough to lead on “day one,” as well as handle a national security crisis.

Make voter’s question whether or not Obama is tough enough to fight off the Republicans and win in a general election.

Attack Obama on his judgment by continually bringing up his relationship with Tony Rezco.

Continue accusing Obama of pulling away from his fervent anti-war stance after his speech in 2002.

Attack Obama’s credibility as to whether he is really a candidate for “change” against the “politics as usual” given the Obama economic advisor’s recent meeting with the Canadian Consulate and the questions the “memo” that surfaced raised.

When Clinton won Ohio, and Texas was still too close to call, we knew Clinton wouldn’t give up—in spite of her husband’s clarion call that she must win both states. But once she won the Texas primary, there was no doubt that Clinton had gotten her groove back—particularly with white males and seniors.

Regardless as to whether or not Clinton’s accusations of Obama are factual or valid, the lawyer in Hillary Clinton must press hard to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of voters—including the superdelegates. If she does this, she just might win it.

Is Clinton Endorsing John McCain?

2008-03-04T08:00:00.006-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

While campaigning in Ohio on March 3, 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton made the following statement, “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

So let me get this right, Senator Clinton’s been alive for 60 years and has a lifetime of experience; Senator McCain’s been alive 72 years and has a lifetime of experience; and Senator Obama has been alive 46 years, and has no experience? Doesn’t Obama's lifetime stand for something—anything?

I’m sure she’s really referring to one’s number of years in Washington D.C.; because that’s the central thing she and John McCain have in common. But again, is experience inside the beltway the only experience that matters? If so, Clinton only has about 16 years of Washington experience—only eight of which has been as an elected position herself, as senator.

That said, Obama spent eight years in the Illinois State legislature and two years in the United States Senate. Two plus eight equals ten.

In Hillary’s lifetime, as a young Republican she helped register voters in Texas. She also worked for the Children’s Defense Fund.

In Obama’s lifetime, he worked as a community organizer on the South side of Chicago—helping to improve living conditions in neighborhoods plagued with crime and high unemployment.

To give Clinton her due, she did have a front row seat to the presidency when her husband, Bill Clinton was in the white house for eight years. However, she never had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning.

If experience is truly the determining factor for Clinton, perhaps it follows that she should drop out and concede the race to her dear friend, John McCain—the most experienced of all three candidates. Of course she wouldn’t do it. But she sure came close to offering John McCain an unofficial “endorsement” with her poignant remarks yesterday.

Hillary then took it one step further. On “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” on the eve of the Texas primary, Jon Stewart made the comment, “Whether you are the victor or Obama or even Senator McCain…I would not be surprised to see any of you working in each other’s cabinets.

Clinton’s response was, “Well I’ve said many times that I would like to have a bipartisan cabinet in the White House. We’ve got to start acting like Americans again, and roll up our sleeves and solve our problems—and there are good ideas across the political spectrum.”

Want the best possible combination of experience—real unity and the best ideas across the political spectrum? Maybe the two “lifetimers” should run together.

“Clinton-McCain ‘08!” Weird? Well, someone should tell Clinton to stop cozying up to John McCain. It does nothing to help the Democratic Party.

Obama-Mania: The Magic

2008-02-28T15:00:00.002-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

It’s been called Obama-mania. Some refer to it as being "Obamafied." Whatever you call it—and as ridiculous as you think it may be— it’s real, and I experienced it first-hand at the Obama Campaign’s “Keeping America’s Promise Rally,” in Toledo, Ohio last Sunday.

You see, I’m a historian of sorts. I love chronicling events and taking photos as a record of events past. I’m also a political scientist and public policy analyst. Thus, I know that no matter the outcome, the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama is ground-breaking on many levels. Years from now I knew that I would regret not experiencing this small piece of history. I was not alone.

In fact, I was joined by another 10,000 individuals in the packed arena. We were all part of an historic event taking place at the University of Toledo’s Savage Hall—a very typical campaign rally for Senator Barack Obama—but a very atypical rally for any other politician.

Every Race, Age, Gender and Creed
One of the best aspects of the experience for me was the people I met. Seated in front of me was Dave of Ohio—a Mexican American and Vietnam War Veteran in his early sixties. He’d come by himself, but he had plenty company.When I asked Dave when and why he decided to support Barack Obama, his answer surprised me. “I’ve been looking for leadership like this since I was eight years old,” Dave said.

Dave says he first found such leadership in President John F. Kennedy and in his inaugural words, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” At the age of 15, Dave recalls walking 50 miles in response to JFK’s “Shaping Up America” challenge. Dave was inspired.

Forty-seven years later, Dave is once again feeling that same kind of inspiration. He says he first heard Obama speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and he immediately thought, “That’s leadership…True leadership inspires us to action.”

Inspiration is also what motivated the young gentleman seated behind me—eight year-old Andrew—to action. An avid Obama supporter, he woke his mother up at 6:00 a.m.Sunday morning demanding they get Savage Hall to see Senator Barack Obama.

Andrew, a close follower of the campaign didn’t want this opportunity to pass him by. It’s likely that Andrew, a very bright and hope-filled bi-racial boy, probably sees himself in Barack Obama. When I asked him what he wants to be when he grows up he said, “I want to be a lawyer and a judge.” Obama is his inspiration.

To my left was Rhonda—a middle aged Caucasian woman from Michigan— who is working diligently to help Obama win the nomination and become president. “I want this man to become president more than anything,” Rhonda shared.

Rhonda, who took time away from planning her wedding in three weeks to come to Ohio— found herself wiping away tears as she listened to Obama speak. “I just know he will be so good for America…” Rhonda concluded.

To my left was Cliff—a sixty something independent film maker whose Grandfather was from Panama and whose mother was from Belize. Cliff, a long-time Democratic activist, worked on the presidential campaign of Robert Kennedy in 1968. “We’ve not had this in 40 years,” Cliff says of the engagement, excitement and enthusiasm engendered by the Obama campaign.

Rekindling the Kennedy Era
While I wasn’t born at the time, history reveals that now is not the first time that America has experienced the “inspiration factor” in American politics. As Cliff mentioned, there was a lot of excitement surrounding the candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.

In his book, Robert F. Kennedy and His Times, Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., referred to Robert Kennedy’s campaign as "uproarious” and “filled with enthusiasm and fun.” He also stated it was a campaign “moving in its sweep and passion." Sound familiar?If we go all the way back to June of 1840, presidential candidate William Henry Harrison of the Whig Party actually drew a crowd of 60,000 to his campaign rally at the site of the Tippecanoe battle. It’s stated that by the end of his campaign, there were “parades three miles long of voters singing, chanting and drinking.” (Miller Center for Public Affairs Online Reference Resource, University of Virginia.)

Lastly, let us not forget the first Kennedy with broad popular appeal—President John F. Kennedy. JFK was young, inspirational and wildly popular (in addition to being intelligent and experienced, of course). And in spite of the challenges that faced his administration—including his acknowledged missteps—he managed to come through it as one of America’s favorite presidents, and an icon of American hopes and aspirations.

In 2008, there appears to be a new icon of American hopes and aspirations. His name is Barack Obama. And many are comparing him to President John F. Kennedy—everyone from the average American who lived during that period—to even JFK’s younger brother Ted Kennedy, and JFK’s own daughter, Caroline Kennedy.

My new friend Cliff drew the comparison in a very interesting manner: He asked me, “Didn’t Moses and the children of Israel wander in the wilderness for forty years?”
“Yes,” I affirmed.
“Yeah…well, it’s been forty years…”

The “Inspiration Factor”
It’s this type of rhetoric and association with the Kennedy era that has mystified much of the media—and perhaps the Clinton campaign as well. Why? Well, the “Obama factor” (as it’s often called) can be difficult to quantify or put your arms around.

However, I don’t call it the “Obama factor,” I call it the “inspiration factor”—the ability to inspire individuals to action—whether the action is voting, giving to a campaign, volunteering on behalf of the campaign or getting involved in politics in other ways. However he does it, Obama is able to inspire.

Some want to disparage Obama’s inspirational message of hope and inclusiveness and dismiss his pop star appeal. However, we must realize that when America is in a time of turmoil— today, as it was 40 years ago—Americans turn to a leader who can lift their collective spirit, and unify and inspire them to believe in a better, brighter tomorrow. I believe that it’s the magical “inspiration factor” to which Americans find themselves drawn. And with over one million contributors to the Obama campaign, the inspiration factor appears to be spreading like wildfire.

“This is just the beginning,” Cliff remarked about the Obama campaign.
“You see this…” He said as he looked around the arena,
“This is a movement. The Obama campaign has mobilized millions of people who are now ready to make change happen. We can solve the problems facing America if we come together.”

Cliff’s words mirror what Obama has been saying throughout much of his campaign—and perhaps this is what the Obama campaign’s grassroots organizers already know, and what most Americans desperately want to believe right now—that “We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were leaders who inspired a similar kind of excitement, hope and enthusiasm—and history was kind to them. Maybe history will be kind to Obama as well.

BORING! Democratic Debate Is Nothing New

2008-02-23T12:00:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

I was wrong. Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t try to scratch and claw her way to a debate victory Thursday night. Someone in her camp must have advised her that such a strategy would certainly backfire.

In fact, I thought the debate between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama was rather civil—once again. It wasn’t quite the love fest the first one-on-one debate was, but it was civil.

Unlike my husband, I’m really not into the sort of fights that take place in the boxing ring. I was a political science major, so I get much more excited about political contests. And while I don’t believe there were any fatal punches, there was some sparring, one hit below the belt, one would-be knockout and no clear winner.

Sparring
I’d have to say the most sparring occurred when the two candidate went back and forth…and back and forth…trying to distinguish their health care plans. They really had to dance around the ring on this one because their plans are essentially the same. Whether you call the differences philosophical (like Obama) or substantive (like Clinton), the difference is this— Clinton’s health care plan aims to make health care affordable and mandates that everyone purchase health care (similar to how everyone who works pays into social security).

Obama’s plan aims to make health care affordable and mandates that every child is covered but does not require every adult to purchase health care. We get it, Senators. It’s the same thing you’ve been saying on the campaign trail for the last two months. Now I honestly believe there are some very serious practical and logistical challenges to either plan—but that’s a topic for discussion all its own.

One Hit Below the Belt
The very civil fight between the two contenders was going somewhat smoothly until the question about whether or not the campaign was going negative. Obama responded to the charge by Clinton that he had plagiarized a speech and referred to it as the beginning of “silly season” in politics.

The irony is that in responding to the question—instead of taking the high road—Hillary totally hits below the belt and offers what is an amazingly cheap, fifth-grade like attack. Obama stated that his friend and national campaign co-chair, Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick recommended that he use the phrase in his speeches to help make the argument that words are important.

In response, Hillary said, “I think that if your candidacy is going be about words, then they should be your own words. Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.” Ooh! Gotcha back! Now, top that Barry! Yes folks, this round goes to Barack. This is definitely the “silly season” in politics.The Would-Be

Knock Out
The best punch of the evening came in the final round. In fact it was the last question and Clinton got the final word. And what a powerful “final word” it was.
“Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. We have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about,” Clinton said with conviction and empathy.

Clinton went on to say, “The hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country, [and] I resolved, at a very young age, that I'd been blessed, and that I was called by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessing that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.” Clinton's remarks garnered a standing ovation.

It truly seemed as though Hillary had recaptured her “New Hampshire Voice.” But guess what, folks, that wasn’t her voice—at least not a key component of the statement—it was John Edward’s voice. Edwards used the line “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine…I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same about the American people…” on many occasions at the close of his speeches. Didn’t Hillary just pounce on Obama for borrowing phrases without crediting the source? Is this hypocrisy? The You Tube display certainly makes that case. Check it out for yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAYItnI-lPo&feature=related)

So, while it’s true that I was overcome by Clinton’s endearing words and show of emotion, it turns out they weren’t fully hers. There goes the knockout. As one individual commented on You Tube, “That’s not a closing you can count on, that’s a closing you can Xerox.”

No Clear Winner
I believe Clinton’s closing comments could have been a knockout—if they hadn’t been borrowed. Thus, I don’t believe there was a clear winner of the night’s debate. If you listen to the political commentators on radio and TV, many seem to think that Obama won. I disagree. Yes, he was much more comfortable than in past debates. His rebuttals to Clinton were clear and decisive, and he made his policy positions clear—albeit not very detailed.

The reality is that Clinton is still a much better debater. Maybe it’s because she has more experience. Maybe it’s because of her working command of the intricacies of the various national policy issues. Honestly, I think she came across as having a better command of the issues—or at least how to communicate the details. She is extremely comfortable in the debate setting. Many made issue of the fact that when Clinton spoke Barack looked directly at her but when he talked, Clinton seemed to look past him. Maybe it means something. Maybe it doesn’t.
Nonetheless, those of us who have been following the campaigns know that Thursday’s debate offered nothing new. It did however, offer a little sparring, one hit below the belt, and one would-be knockout, but no clear winner.

Hillary Clinton--There’s Simply No Shame in Her Game

2008-02-21T08:00:00.002-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

Hillary Clinton wants to be elected President of the United States— of course she must have her limits, but it certainly appears as though winning “by any means necessary” is her secret motto.

Since the Super Tuesday contest on February 5th, Clinton has unveiled the politically calculating, unscrupulous, and self-serving side of her personality. And it’s not pretty.

I Loan, You Give
How do I justify my claim? Let’s start with Clinton’s five million dollar loan to her campaign. She made a loan to her campaign because she “believes very strongly” in her campaign. Well if she truly “believed,” why didn’t she just give the money. She loans to her campaign while she expects others to give to her campaign. Where’s the self-sacrifice and fairness in that?

No, You Can’t See How I Make My Money
Secondly, Clinton has made it clear that she has no intentions on releasing her tax returns (which might reveal where she got the money to make the loan) until after the primary election. Why not just say she won’t release them at all. It’s clear that Clinton knows that her tax returns won’t stand up to Obama’s (whose filings are public record) and it may very well be the demise of her candidacy—or at least a major distraction.

Well, They’re Black…
Or how about Hillary (and Bill’s) attempts to frame Senator Obama’s wins in South Carolina, Washington D.C., Georgia and other states as simply a result of the significant African American population and their “immense pride” in the first black candidate to have a real shot at the white house. This attempt to marginalize Obama and an Obama win may have worked once, maybe twice, but how do you explain Obama’s victories in Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho and Maine?

Superdelegates are Automatic
Hillary’s latest strategy is to attempt to strong arm her superdelegates into staying with her. She even launched a website dedicated to this very cause. As the news that one-by-one, more and more super delegates who formerly supported Clinton are now defecting to the Obama camp, Hillary Clinton wants to make it clear to them that their votes don’t have to represent their constituencies.

Clinton's new website states, "The fact is: no automatic delegate is required to cast a vote on the basis of anything other than his or her best judgment about who is the most qualified to be president.” Unfortunately a lot of what Clinton calls “fact” on her new website is simply opinion. Her clear willingness to massage words and numbers once again prove her willingness to do or say anything to win.

Delegates Don’t Really Represent (It just depends on what the meaning of “is” is…)
Not only is Hillary fighting for every last superdelegate, word surfaced this week that the Clinton camp was considering a strategy to woo Obama’s pledged delegates—delegates that Obama won fair and square via elections and caucuses—citing (and correctly so) that pledged delegates aren't required to cast their vote at the convention for the candidate who won them. But wouldn’t such a strategy reflect poorly among the Democratic voters who truly thought their vote meant something? And would it not lead to an all-out civil war within the Democratic party?

Let the Voters Speak…for Me
Finally, and probably the most blatantly, self-serving tactic is Hillary Clinton’s push to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. Heaven forbid we have a repeat of the 2000 election. Democrats can’t disenfranchise voters…

No, neither party should disenfranchise voters. However the Democratic National Committee made the rules, Michigan and Flordia party leaders broke the rules, all the Democratic candidates, including Hillary agreed to play by the rules, but then—somehow—Hillary wound up the only major democratic candidate with her name on the ballot. So of course, she won the primary. She also won in Florida where all of the candidates agreed to not campaign. And now she wants to fight to seat the delegates? Is it even possible that there could be anything more unscrupulous and blatantly self-serving? Doesn’t pushing the “Michigan and Florida Delegate” hot button feel even the slightest bit unethical to Hillary Clinton? It doesn’t appear so.

Where is the outrage?

There’s Simply No Shame
Hillary Clinton claims to have the experience that can produce change in America. But right now she’s showing us just how experienced she is at playing politics as usual—and there’s simply no shame in her game.

Clinton Needs to Grab Votes, Not Grasp for Straws

2008-02-21T06:00:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

What an interesting week it’s been. In the past seven days, Senator Hillary Clinton—the self-proclaimed solutions candidate—has managed to drum up more hoopla over the issues of plagiarism, patriotism, and political debates, than the issues that matter most to voters.

If Senator Clinton really wants us to believe that she is the individual most capable of affecting change, does she really think that she can convince us by perpetuating politics as usual?

The upcoming presidential election is absolutely critical in the minds of most Democrats. As such, I think Democratic voters have little appetite for petty political squabbling. Voters want to focus on achieving a common vision and identifying practical solutions.

But wait! Obama plagiarized his speech by quoting Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick without crediting him. In addition, Obama refused to agree to a debate in Wisconsin. Finally and worst of all, Obama’s wife Michelle said she is proud of her country for the “first time” in her adult life. Shame! Don’t these “flaps” weaken Obama’s character and speak to his credibility as a potential president of the United States?

Well, these “flaps” just might mean something…if they really meant something. The truth is, while Obama did borrow phrases from Patrick’s speech (which borrowed lines from otherfamous speeches), Obama and Patrick are friends, and Patrick had granted Obama permission.
On the issue of patriotism, when Michelle Obama made her remarks about being proud of her country “for the first time” in her adult life, she was clearly referring to how Americans are engaging in the current political process in record numbers—but you’d have to hear the context of the speech to know that.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton challenged Obama to four more debates on top of the 18 they’ve already had. Obama agreed to two out of the four. Is it really fair to say Obama is avoiding debates?
America needs a President (but first a candidate) who focuses on what matters and does not get distracted—nor try to distract voters—with sidebars that really don’t matter. American voters are not that petty. Not now, the stakes are too high.

Senator Clinton should take a common sense approach to matters like these instead of trying to make mountains out of mole hills. Senator Hillary Clinton has lost ten presidential primary contests in a row—and by embarrassingly wide margins. At this point in the game, Clinton needs to be engaged in the serious task of getting votes, not grasping for straws.

Democratic Presidential Primary 2008: It May All Come Down to Communication

2008-02-20T16:40:00.007-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

After losing ten straight presidential primary contests to Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton moved on to Ohio, seeking to appeal to voters in this now “must-win” State for her. “What we’re trying to do here is not easy and it will not happen overnight. It is going to take more than big rallies. It is going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and websites. It is going to require something more…” These are the words of Hillary Clinton, right? No. These are the words Senator Barack Obama after his decisive win in Wisconsin, speaking to a crowd of 19,000 in Houston, Texas.

Demonstrating his ability to take on the Clinton campaign’s criticisms head-on, Obama didn’t defend but actually embraced Clinton’s most recent talking point. Clinton stresses that this election is about more than speeches, but solutions. Obama doesn’t disagree.

Strategically, Hillary would like to back Barack into a corner that defines him as the naïve, all-talk and no solutions candidate. However, the power to do that is taken away when Barack himself makes the same argument. At that point, are the two really on opposite sides of the issue? What are we really arguing about? Do we really even disagree?

So there you have it. Obama is once again subtly stealing Clinton’s thunder. He’s already begun encroaching on her base—increasing his votes among the middle class, women, white men, Latinos and lower income voters. Now what? Will he also take away her main talking point? While it may not constitute plagiarism (as Clinton may wish) it does constitute good strategy.On

Tuesday night, Obama had every reason to stroll onto the stage “fired up and ready to go” (which by the way is a phrase Clinton stole from Obama), but instead, he took a decisively direct tone that spoke to the mechanics of what comes next in this primary election and what he will need from the voters if he wins the nomination and the general election.

“I need your help,” was Obama’s resounding theme. “We will need you to fight for every delegate it takes to win this nomination. If we are blessed and honored to win the nomination, we’re going to need your help to win the election in November. And if we win that election in November, then we are going to need your help and your time, your energy, your enthusiasm, your mobilization, your organization and your voices to help us change America over the next four years,” Obama told the Houston crowd. But this is the speech Hillary Clinton should have given. She should have been the one talking about the work it would take, and more than anything else, she should have been directly saying “I need your help…”

Instead, Clinton says, “If we pull together, I know we can do this,” and “I hope you will support this campaign because it is your campaign.” Clinton, don’t you remember English 101? You’re speaking in passive voice. Passive language is never as persuasive or motivating as active language.

Instead of dancing around the issue, if you lose, admit it. If you need help, ask for it outright. Yes, people want solutions, but they also want a straight-talker who’s not afraid to say the difficult thing and ask for help when he or she needs it.

Clinton’s loss was public. Her congratulations to Obama should have been public as well. Instead, she made a private phone call to Obama congratulating him. Perhaps she didn’t want a concession to dampen her rally in Ohio. But let’s be honest, the primary contest is slipping away from Clinton, and if she doesn’t do something to recapture her momentum and votes, she will miss this opportunity all together.

But let Hillary tell it, she knows exactly what America needs. “I know what’s happening in America. People are struggling...” That’s true. And it explains why at this point in time, Americans are drawn toward inspiration. Americans need and desire solutions, but we are also starving for inspiration. And to many Americans, Obama offers hope plus solutions—a definite winning combination, as well as a crucial skill set for any potential presidential candidate.

The reality is that much of the contest for the presidency lies in one’s ability to put forth the right message, relate to people, communicate effectively, collaborate, influence and persuade others. Clinton might suggest that the campaign should only contain solutions. But then again, are "solutions" outlined on paper really enough?

Don’t we need a president with the type of insight to rightly pinpoint what’s on the heart of the American people, as well as identify the right solution on critical issues? Don’t we need a president who can truly connect with the people whom he represents? Don’t we need a president who can communicate effectively with and lead his executive team, his cabinet, the legislature and other world leaders? Don’t we need a president who has the ability to not only communicate but also inspire and influence others around the world to aid America in taking on tough challenges like climate change? Don’t we need a president who is persuasive enough to press past gridlock in Congress? If there was a detailed job description for the presidency, certainly these characteristics would be listed.

Hillary Clinton may want to focus only on solutions, but without the right combination of insight, communication, collaboration and influence, how can we really expect to solve anything?

Yes He Can!

2008-02-13T10:00:00.017-05:00

Why Obama Will Likely Win the Democratic Party Nomination and the Presidency of the United States
by Anita S. Lane

To put it mildly, Senator Barack Obama is a genuine phenomenon on the current political scene. You may not like his politics, but you’ll likely find it hard not to like him. After 37 contests for the democratic presidential nomination and the accumulation of 1,253 pledged delegates (42 more than Clinton), Barack Obama stands ready to face whatever challenges may lay ahead in order to win the Democratic nomination and the Presidency of the United States.

Can he do it? I suspect he can.

Ride the Wave
After Obama’s decisive victories in Virginia, Maryland, Washington. D.C., Maine, Washington State, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands during the month of February, Obama is riding a wave of momentum that will be hard to halt. I propose it cannot be stopped, but it may also be difficult to slow down. Like a tidal wave on the islands of Obama’s native Hawaii, the wave his campaign is currently riding is only growing stronger and more formidable as it approaches the shore. If the Obama team is wise, they’ll pick up their surf boards and ride the current wave right through Wisconsin, on to Hawaii, right into the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio in the March 4th primaries, and come ashore victoriously in Pennsylvania on April 22nd.

It Began One Cold February Night
A year ago, Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency for the United States before 16,000 people on a cold February day in Springfield, Illinois—the home of President Abraham Lincoln. Many thought his candidacy was premature, and looking back, it’s likely the Clinton campaign did not view the Obama campaign as a serious threat either.

A year later, those assumptions—and all assumptions—have changed.

Conventional Wisdom Dispelled
Today, Barack Obama has out lasted every other Democratic contender to become the last man standing in the ring with Senator Hillary Clinton. In addition, it is now clear that Barack has out-raised, out-campaigned and out-managed the Clinton campaign. What is his secret?

Vision, hope, charisma, a consistent message and a popular, unifying message of change—combined with a highly-skilled, well-organized leadership team and effective ground troops at the grassroots level. The Obama campaign is also infused with loads of energy, enthusiastic supporters, and last but not least—a hefty war chest.

The question is, did anyone, including Barack Obama, believe he could really get the type of response and support he is now getting?Whether anyone saw it or not is now irrelevant. As of February 13, 2008, Senator Barack Obama now has more votes, more pledged delegates and was won more contests than his rival Hillary Clinton. Can he win? Yes he can.

Yes He Can

Senator Barack Obama has had the right message from the very beginning of his candidacy—Change. He’s set the tone in this race—on both sides of the contest—that everyone else has followed. Yet Obama has never changed his message. Obama’s never changed his message because he knows that his message is on point. He understands that Americans are weary—weary from working harder with little to show for it. Weary from worrying if they’ll have a job, be able to keep their home, send their children to college or retire.

Obama can win the democratic nomination because he offers Americans what we need most at this particular point in time—hope. Obama resonates with what each of us as Americans wants desperately to believe—that things will get better.

Obama has detailed strategies for moving America forward that address the core issues like the economy, healthcare, immigration and the war in Iraq, and he’s surrounded by highly-skilled and experienced individuals on whom he can depend to help him deliver if elected in November.

Personally, Obama is inspirational, charismatic, believable and knows how to connect with all types of people. He believes the best of people and brings out the best in people.

When it comes time to choose between Obama and McCain in the general election— as qualified as McCain may be— it will be difficult to top the energy, vigor and inspiration that Obama and his supporters bring to the race. Not to mention, it will be very difficult for McCain to run against “Hope.”

Change is a Balm
Today, more individuals are united behind the concept of change than in any other decade in recent history. Neither do we want to wait for it—and Obama knows it may be now or never. Obama often states in his campaign speeches, “I am running because of what MLK calls the fierce urgency of now…Because I believe there’s such a thing as being too late. And that hour is almost upon us. We are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is at war. Our planet is at peril. The dream that so many generations fought for feels like it’s slowly slipping away.”

Slowly…Slipping…Away… That is the fear to which Obama brings the antidote of hope—and the change—that Americans want so desperately in which to believe.

So can he win the nomination? (Barring a political upset by the Democratic super delegates), yes he can. Can he win the presidency of the United States? Yes he can. Can he really bring Americans together? Yes he can.

Americans want to start fresh. They want a president who is honest and intelligent--not to mention well-spoken; a president who listens and is willing to learn; a president who is teachable and willing to admit a mistake. America wants a president who can unify the country rather than separate it. Americans have felt disengaged from the decisions made by the current president and congress. Americans now want to be a part of the solution—no matter what side of the political isle they are on.

The February 12th contest in Virginia reiterates this point. CNN exit polls revealed that Obama overwhelmingly carried the 7% of Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary. Such individuals affectionately call themselves, Obamicans.

The Obamican Factor
In a close general election, capturing seven percent of the Republican electorate could turn the tide for the Democrats. And if one wonders how a Republican could vote for Obama, one explanation might be his demeanor. Aside from being almost as fed up as the Democrats with the current administration, Barack Obama discusses the issues in a way that doesn’t alienate conservatives and evangelicals.

Obama is a Democrat who accurately, and with compassion, describes abortion as a “moral issue” (not just a “choice”), and refers to marriage as a “religious ceremony” rather than just a “civil ceremony,” when describing why he is opposed to “gay” marriage.

As a result, Barack Obama will continue to win over independents and some Republicans because he speaks respectfully about conservatives and the views they hold. Whereas many liberal Democrats portray conservatives and evangelicals as mindless morons who are intolerant extremists, Barack Obama chooses not to demonize these individuals. He seems to understand that individuals who hold different views from him are just that—different. Others’ views may be different, but valid nonetheless.

President Obama
I predict that Barack Obama will win the Democratic party nomination and the general election in November because from the very beginning, he was wise enough to identify and build a campaign around the deep desire in the heart of most Americans—CHANGE.

Barack Obama will win because his campaign is supremely energized, well-funded and and effectively organized. Barack Obama will win because he represents the type of intelligent, honest, open-minded and respectful leadership America wants. Obama will win because he inspires voters to believe in him, as well as themselves, and join him in the fight for change in America.

Lastly, and for the most important reason of all—Barack Obama will win the Democratic party nomination because the voters have spoken—and will continue to speak—until he ascends to the White House.

Barack Obama: One Man for All the People?

2008-02-10T10:00:00.002-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

He is African. He is American. He is black. He is white. He was raised in Hawaii. He was raised in Indonesia. He is Barack Obama, and he wants to become America’s president.

As a bi-racial boy raised by his white mother and grand parents, Barack Obama found himself engaged in a fierce, heart-wrenching battle to unearth who he was, and find his place in America. He had to come to grips with the fact that although he saw himself as Barack, society saw him as black. Worst of all, Barack had no idea what it meant to be black—thus launching his long, inner battle in search of self.

Fortunately, the man who emerged from that battle is the man we see today. A man who is confident and compassionate. A man who can relate to individuals from all races and cultures. And a man—although he does not have to say it—who is both black, and white.

This truth, I believe, is what makes this man and his message so powerful. Obama connects with people because he understands people. He can reach across the isle because he grew up on an Island in Hawaii, and he spent four years of his life living in Djakarta and speaking Indonesian. If anyone in this current presidential race has the ability to understand and relate to more individuals from all walks of life, it is indeed Barack Obama.

No, he doesn’t have 20 years of experience in Washington, but even former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle said recently that while experience is important, one cannot discount life experience. He also implied that electing Obama would be good for foreign relations when stated, "I don't know what would be more transformational than the inauguration of a president who looks like 80 percent of the rest of the world."

America’s sordid relationship between slave and free—black and white—America does not allow individuals in America the luxury of defining themselves as they see themselves, but only as those in power—and I dare say even the powerful media—see them. And for those, who for sinister purposes, wish to define Barack Obama—they define him as simply a “black man,” hoping to conjure up any and every negative preconceived notion and stereotype that one could have about a black man—thus hoping to disqualify him for the highest office in the land.

However, being raised by a white mother and white grand-parents, Barack Obama was not raised to be a “black man in America—” as he might have if he had been born to two black parents. Obama was raised simply to be a man in America. And that mindset bodes well for Obama.

You see, Obama appeals to white America. Why? Because he truly understands how white Americans think—particularly liberal ones. After all, he was raised by white Americans. Thus, it is no surprise that Obama does exceedingly well in overwhelmingly white states. When liberal white Americans listen to Barack Obama, they don’t hear “a black man” they hear a man who sounds like them. Apart from the permanent tan and slightly coarser-than-average-white-person hair, Barack is in many ways—white.

So when we hear that Barack out performs Hillary in areas like Iowa, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska and Washington State, let’s remember that it is the media that portrays Barack as a “black man.” But to those who hear him speak, watch him campaign, and those who are fortunate enough to experience Obama face-to-face, it’s clear that they do not see a black man. They see a man who’s passionate about making America better—for all Americans. They see a man—although he is black and white—who doesn’t see America as black and white. He simply sees America.

One thing is clear. Obama never intended to run a race based on race. He never intended to keep separate tallies of his white vote or his black vote—his Latino vote or his Asian vote. And amazingly, it didn’t appear to bother him that even before the first primary was held, black voters were hesitant to throw their support behind him until they knew that white voters would actually vote for him. I found it endearing that he didn’t seem to hold that against the black community.

You see, Barack Obama understands the complex nature of race in America—and the role that it plays in our society and our politics. He understands it. He just never intended to play by its rules.

Romney Gives His Best Speech on His Way Out

2008-02-07T19:30:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

I’ll admit that I didn’t watch every speech by Mitt Romney while he was on the campaign trail. I watched the debates and I listened to bits and pieces of speeches, and I paid particular attention when Romney was campaigning in Michigan, my home state. Whenever he spoke, he made sound points on the economy and he came across as someone with experience and an understanding of the issues.

Now fast forward to Mitt Romney’s speech before the Conservative Political Action Committee on Thursday, February 7, 2008. I just happened to catch his speech live and in its entirety—and what I saw was pretty remarkable.

Here, on his way out—giving what would be his last speech as a Republican Presidential Candidate—was the most compelling speech I’d ever heard from Romney. He came across as very comfortable and relaxed—perhaps he was just relieved that he would no longer have to dwindle away his entire life fortune on the campaign. He was also very forthright—authoritative—speaking with conviction and heart. He also came across as genuine, humble and likeable. Most notably, he was passionate. And it’s the combination of humility, likeability and passion that I think was missing from Mitt Romney’s campaign.

I recall hearing Mitt Romney in the fall of 2007. I remember liking some of the things he had to say. However, he didn’t move me. Today however, Romney did move me. I think he had it right on a lot of the issues. And he seemed convinced that he did.

Romney talked about the need to genuinely reform welfare in a way that doesn’t promote dependency. He talked about our culture’s attack on faith and religion, our tolerance and celebration of pornography and promiscuity, our society’s weakened faith in the Creator, failed families, disrespect for the sanctity of human life and eroded morality. Romney talked about our economic crisis and our need to become energy secure.

Romney urged us to consider the connection between our ability to compete and our national wealth, and the wealth of our families—as well as the harmful effects of “high taxes, over-regulation, tort windfalls, mandates, and overfed, over-spending government.”

Finally, Romney addressed what he termed, “the greatest challenge facing America-and facing the entire civilized world: the threat of violent, radical Jihad,” stating that “They hate everything we believe about freedom just as we hate everything they believe about radical Jihad.”

And in his quest to bring unity to the Republican party, Romney stated that he agrees with Senator John McCain on what he feels is the critical issue. He put it this way: “I agree with [McCain] on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror,” and Romney feels as though staying in the race would impede on the Republican’s ability to forge a national campaign to beat the Democrats.

Romney concluded his farewell speech by saying, “If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country.”

Well said. Very well said, Romney. But you should have said it sooner.

Insult! Clinton Loans to Campaign While Her Supporters Give

2008-02-07T17:00:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

New Clinton Strategy: Cry broke. The day after the Super Tuesday contests yielded no clear Democratic front-runner, Hillary is crying “broke” as a plea for donations and votes. Honestly, I find it deplorable. No, she didn’t come on TV crying, begging or promising to heal America—like the TV evangelist who gives real evangelists a bad rap—In fact, she was very matter-of-fact and expressed little emotion. She simply stated that preceding Super Tuesday, she loaned her campaign $5 Million dollars.

In her words she states, "I loaned the campaign $5 million from my money. I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign…” STOP. Did she say, “BELIEVE” in her campaign? A presidential campaign is not a for-profit business. When you make an investment in a business venture, you expect a return. Basically, you give to get. It’s a loan and you expect your money back.

But when you give to a cause—something you whole-heartedly believe in—you don’t give expecting something in return. You give because it’s worth it to you to give of your wealth (your treasure) to this cause. You believe so strongly in your cause that you’re willing to make the sacrifice—in church we call this sacrificial giving—and that’s what real giving is all about. Giving with no strings attached.

To those of us who understand this concept, Hillary’s “contribution” is laughable—if not insulting to those who have given, and who will give to her campaign. Okay, so it’s $5 million dollars. Giving is relative to one’s assets and five million to Hillary might be five hundred to you or me. So, can you guess where I’m going with this?

What if everyone who contributed money to Hillary’s campaign wanted their money back at the end of the campaign? Why should Hillary give and get her money back, yet supporters give and receive nothing (monetarily) in return? Why should her contributors sacrifice more than her?

What are the terms of the loan? And for anyone who does gives after hearing her plea, will their contribution end up in Hillary’s personal bank account in order to pay off the loan? Is this what contributors really want?

Basically Hillary is saying, “I’m going to front my campaign the money we need until you (my contributors) get your act together and fund this campaign like it needs to be funded…and then I’ll pull my money out.” Then her contribution will be a wash and she’ll not be out of a dime.

We’ve all heard of matching funds—although it’s usually in the context of giving to charitable causes—and that’s exactly what Hillary wants. Hillary wants us to believe that she is a charity case. It’s called “The Fund to Heal the Hurting Hillary Campaign.” And she desperately wants each of us to open our hearts—and wallets—and give. Well, she may not call it that, but it’s in essence what she put before us when she announced that she loaned her campaign five million dollars. To make us even more sympathetic, some of her top staffers have agreed to work a month without pay.

But here’s the bottom line. If Hillary had donated $5 million dollars to her own campaign, I wouldn’t be writing this piece. I’d be saying, “Bravo. Go for it. Do what you have to do.” But she’s not giving it. No, Hillary is loaning her campaign the money.

Hillary should learn from Mitt Romney. He spent well over $30 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Yet at the end of the day, Romney knew he would need the voters and the voters’ dollars to validate his candidacy, fund his campaign and determine his success in the race. In the end, he didn’t have it and he dropped out.

I’m not suggesting Hillary doesn’t have voter support. It’s clear that Democrats across the nation are split between Clinton and Obama. On the other hand, Scripture tells us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

A lot of the financial treasure coming into the Democratic race right now is going to Barack Obama. And it just might be a sign that their heart is with him too. If that’s the case, Mrs. Clinton, no amount of money you could loan to your campaign can compensate for the heart of the democratic voter.

So please, Hillary, if you’re going to give, don’t give with strings attached. It’s insulting. Your contributors didn’t do it, and neither should you.

Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org

Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com

Voters are Speaking: The Republican Party Should Listen

2008-02-06T08:00:00.001-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

No one suspected it. Few could believe it. But with little money and a volunteer staff, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee managed to surpass both Mitt Romney and John McCain to garner a win in five southern primaries. It really seemed to come as a surprise to everyone—except Mike Huckabee.

Most expected Huckabee to drop out of the race long before Super Tuesday, but Huckabee would not be deterred. In spite of Romney’s presence in the race, Huckabee maintained that it was a two-man race. He was often quoted as saying, “This is a two-man race…and we’re in it!” There may have been doubt before, but Huckabee’s words now ring loud and clear. Super Tuesday was surely a Super-Duper day for Huckabee—but the question is, what does it really mean?

Southern conservatives in Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia and Missouri sent a clear message to the rest of us that Mike Huckabee is a force to be reckoned with. Now whether we reckon he’ll obtain the Republican presidential nomination is another matter all together.

What we do know is that the more folks see and hear from Mike Huckabee, the more they like Huckabee. Like his Democratic counterpart, Barack Obama, Huckabee is seen as a fresh face that represents change in the Republican party—and not as the “establishment” candidate.

Huckabee also prides himself as being the only candidate who is unwavering on core conservative values as protecting the sanctity of life and the defense of marriage.

I think the appeal of Mike Huckabee lies in the fact that he comes across as a genuine, likeable, caring guy. He seems to really understand what the average American family is going through, and he cares enough to want to do something about it. In the words coined by George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee really is a “compassionate conservative.” And he should be. After all, Huckabee is a former pastor, and every good pastor cares deeply about people. So would it really be so bad to have as President someone who views the office as chief servant or a good shepherd?

To his defense, as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee has carried as much as 48% of the African American vote in the state of Arkansas. For a Republican, this speaks volumes. Perhaps Republicans don’t want it. Or perhaps they’re just not quite ready, but Mike Huckabee just might be the new face of the Republican party. Of course he’s conservative on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage, but he’s also compassionate when it comes to the environment and poverty, and holds economic and tax positions that favor more middle-class Americans.

Perhaps the Republican party needs to take another look at its conservative core. It just may be that the core is evolving, and they care about more issues than Republican party leaders and the media gives them credit for. These genuinely compassionate conservatives just have not had a voice—until now.

Unfortunately, their voice may not take them all the way to the white house in the 2008 election, but they have made known their will known loud and clear. And if a Republican is elected as president, this individual had better play close attention to this new groundswell within the Republican party.

The new “Huckabee conservatives” won’t be ignored, and Huckabee is making sure—for their sake and his—that they are heard.

Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org

Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com

Scary: Giuliani's Candidacy Demonstrates How He Might Have Run the Presidency

2008-01-29T22:00:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

Rudy Giuliani lost the Republican primary in Florida. But is it really any surprise? He bet all his odds on Florida. He spent sixty days campaigning in Florida and over 30 million dollars. Yet he still managed to lose. Why? He assumed.

Giuliani assumed that his name recognition and popularity among many would automatically make him a front-runner. He assumed he'd rank high in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan. He assumed Florida would be a big win for him and so he campaigned in Florida and practically no where else.

What Giuliani did not assume, however, is that a relatively unknown newcomer--Mike Huckabee would "steal" the election in Iowa, or that Mitt Romney would gain momentum by winning the Michigan primary. And no, Giuliani did not assume McCain would become the "Comeback kid."

Is Giuliani politically numb? Naive? Giuliani demonstrated by the way he ran his candidacy that either he really didn't want to win, or that he simply does not understand the nature of true leadership or American politics. And if the truth is either of the latter, it's scary.

Did not Giuliani have the foresight to know that politics is an "active" sport? You cannot be passive and expect to win in politics. If you want to win, you have to set the tone, drive the agenda and push the momentum in your direction. The Republican candidates who have won primaries in the race so far have done just that.

It's basic. Leaders lead by influencing people. But to influence people you must meet them, i.e., campaign in their state. A true leader is also proactive. If you want something to happen, you must make it happen. You have to take the bull by the horns and go after it with all your political might. Doesn't Giuliani know that?

Or, did the real Giuliani show himself through this campaign? Perhaps now, we all know that Giuliani is the type of person who only truly leads when crisis comes, and doesn't know how to proactively set the agenda and blaze a trail for progress and change--like the procrastinator who only starts moving with expediency once the warning bell rings.

So is the real Giuliani a passive procrastinator who can only rise to the occasion when crisis demands it? I hope not. But if Giuliani's presidential candidacy is any barometer, I think it's safe to say that it is good for America that Giuliani's candidacy did not lead to the presidency.

Seeking Sanctuary, Mayor Kilpatrick Will Address the City from His Church

2008-01-29T20:00:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

On Wednesday, January 30th, the Mayor of the city of Detroit will finally speak out. He will come out of seclusion and address the residents of the city of Detroit-and the world. But he will not do it from city hall. No, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick will address the world from his church. Church?

The church is a great institution that serves numerous spiritual and social purposes. In fact, there are many perfectly suitable uses for a church--Sunday morning worship service, weekday Bible study, baptisms, weddings, funerals, and baby dedications.

However, the "crimes" that Mayor Kilpatrick allegedly committed were not crimes against the "church" but rather the voters and the residents of Detroit whose public trust he abused. Kilpatrick misused taxpayer dollars, not church dollars to cover up his misdeeds. Kilpatrick doesn't owe the church an apology, so why has his office announced that he will stand before the people of Detroit from a church? I don't know.

Perhaps since the Mayor has been in seclusion for a week he's forgotten that the city owns a public auditorium on the 13th floor of the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center--the home of the Mayor's office. Typically, this is the location where hearings are held and public matters are addressed.

However, my guess is that Kilpatrick hasn't forgotten that this auditorium exists, but that he's frankly a little frightened to come before the people on public turf. He may want the protection of God's angels hovering the church building, and the presence of spiritual leaders to provide him with strength. Perhaps he's afraid of the paparazzi, or afraid that left-over hecklers from the 4 pm union-sponsored resignation rally that precedes his 7pm address, will storm the auditorium and cause a disturbance.

Nevertheless, Kilpatrick or his advisors should know that speaking to the people from a church, given the circumstances (although his spokesperson indicated it won't be the sanctuary), might not sit well with some people.

In no way is it my intent to judge Kilpatrick. I just find it a bit patronizing that while Kilpatrick sinned against the city voters and taxpayers (in addition to God), he doesn't appear brave enough to face voters and taxpayers on city grounds. Will speaking from a church make him more believable? Probably not. Speaking from a church could just seem like another cover--an attempt to veil his wrong-doings under the protective cloak of God's mercy--and to make him appear more humble with the Cross above his head. However, I think the most humble, honorable and brave thing for Mayor Kilpatrick to do would be to address the City from "City Hall."

Truly, I'd love to see Kwame in church--but for purposes like worship, Bible study, and prayer at the altar. And let's be honest, if Kwame had spent more of his time over the past seven years in church for those purposes, he'd probably have no reason to speak to us from one tomorrow.

The City Awaits: Will the Mayor Offer A “Goodbye” or More Promises?

2008-01-29T16:00:00.001-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

I honestly cannot imagine what exactly was going on inside the Detroit Manoogian mansion on the morning of Tuesday, January 29, 2008—a week after Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick's sex-text scandal broke—but it wasn't a happy affair. In fact, as individuals approached the mansion for their regular cabinet meeting, it was clear that the content of this meeting would be anything but regular. The attendees approached the mansion as those attending a funeral—in a steady, singular procession—solemn, quiet and often with heads hanging down. After a week-long seclusion, the Deputy Mayor stated that the city of Detroit will soon hear a statement from the Mayor. Finally.

Finally, we will hear from the man who has so thoroughly embarrassed himself, his family, his employees, the residents of the City of Detroit and the entire region. While hearing from the Mayor may prove that he is willing to “confront” instead of hide from the issue at hand, I’m not sure there is anything he can say to make anyone feel any better—except maybe:

“I was wrong. I have blatantly betrayed the trust of Detroit’s residents, and that is unacceptable. I have asked the forgiveness of my family, and I ask for your forgiveness as well. It know it will take time to regain your trust. Unfortunately, time is not on our side. The city of Detroit has many important and urgent challenges that need our full attention. We cannot afford to be distracted from the issues that matter most. Therefore, I ask that you accept my resignation as the Mayor of the City of Detroit. And please—pray for me and my family. God bless you and God bless this city.”

How’s that for an appropriate response? The recently revealed text messages clearly show that the Mayor and his chief of staff lied under oath and collaborated to cover up their affair, as well as the firing of a police officer who might have uncovered their affair while investigating another incident involving the mayor.

There is no gray area. The Mayor flat-out lied. He then had the audacity to invoke the name of God while he was lying on the witness stand. Well, if he spent much time in God’s Word or even recalled what he learned in Sunday school as a boy, he’d know that “…there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.” (Luke 12:2) It’s just a plain ole’ common sense fact-- and a spiritual law. A law that lawyer Mayor Kilpatrick thought would not apply to him. Shame.

Yes, shame is what Kilpatrick has brought on himself, his family and the city of Detroit. He has some serious issues to contend with—including a perjury investigation and a separate $150 Million law suit concerning the cover-up of a murder of a dancer who performed at party at the Manogian mansion that Mayor Kilpatrick denies ever happened. I fear things may get uglier before they get better. Hence, I purport that Kilpatrick needs to focus on making things right with God, himself, with his family and with the law. All of these important things take time and energy—and they should be a priority.

That said, I think it would be big of the Mayor to admit his wrong-doing and state that he will step down to tend to these matters. Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick can be forgiven and he can move on. But I implore him—please— not on the city’s dime—and not while consuming precious city time.

I have genuine compassion for Mayor Kilpatrick. And I will continue to pray for him and his family—especially his three young sons who are experiencing the brunt of this first-hand.

Lastly, I pray that Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick puts the city and its future first, and steps up to do the right thing—right here, right now.

Welcome Back, Mr. Clinton--America's Three-Term President

2008-01-26T23:30:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

Time after time we've heard Hillary Clinton say, "The question is, who is best prepared to begin leading the country on day one..." Well, I've not heard the political pundits delve into this issue but really, is there any doubt WHY Hillary would be able to begin running the white house on day one? It's obvious. His name is Bill.

This election is indelibly unlike any other. If Hillary is elected, it will be the first time both a husband and wife have served as president.I listened to Bill Clinton in Independence, Missouri talk in intricate detail about climate control, the war in Iraq, the GI Bill of Rights, the medicare drug program, and jobs for middle class Americans. He spoke with such clarity and in depth understanding on a myriad of issues--in many ways unlike how any other candidate's spouse could. Does his experience as the former President of the United States have anything to do with his grasp of the issues?

As I listened to what felt like an hour long impassioned speech, I couldn't help but feel as though I was watching President Bill Clinton campaign for a third term. Every time Bill says, "That's what she believes..." I wonder if he'd feel be more comfortable saying, "That's what I believe."

Well if you want to know what I believe, I believe that President Clinton is out to tout his accomplishments and redeem his legacy (bring it up from out of the gutter). In essence he's saying, "If you liked it when I was in office, elect my wife and you'll get more of the same."So as I said, is it really any wonder why Hillary sees herself as so "ready to lead" on day one in the white house? Is it really any wonder who else Bill Clinton is campaigning for when he's out on the campaign trail?

So then arise the following questions:
"Who will we really get as president if Hillary wins the general election?"
"Who's policy agenda will really be put forth?"
"Just what will be Bill Clinton's role?"
And I know Americans love a good sale, but "Will America will be getting two-for-one?"

Yes, Hillary has a very unique advantage "on day one" if she wins the general election. She knows the layout of the white house like the back of her hand. She's accustomed to secret service and used to being part of the first family of the United States--the most recognized family from the most powerful union in the world. Yes, Hillary has been a Senator and she knows how Washington and the White House work. She's been there. She's done that--along with her former President for a husband.

The real question is, do we really want more of the same all over again? Yes, folks still love them some Bill Clinton. He's quite a charismatic character. But are we really ready and willing to welcome him back?

Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com

America is Different Tonight

2008-01-04T02:45:00.000-05:00

by Anita S. Lane

Tonight was historic. Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois won the Iowa primary—beating out Senator Hillary Clinton of New York 38% to 29%.Obama, his organization, and Iowa voters, proved that change can happen—and Obama's primary campaign theme has been "change." Tonight, the Democratic Caucus, in a state with a 95% White population, caucused for Barack Obama (who just so happens to be a Black man) over the “favored,” experienced and established, Hillary Clinton--as well as candidate John Edwards.

Obama said he believes in hope and that he’s the product of hope. He then mentioned our forefathers of this nation who believed in hope. It’s now apparent that many people have hope in Obama.I’ll admit, I was hopeful to. I watched the results unfold. I then watched Obama’s speech.

The combination of seeing the final results, and him on stage in such presidential form— was emotionally overwhelming. Yet I quickly realized that my elation and even my tears weren't targeted at Barack Obama, as much as they were targeted at those who aren’t even alive today.

I suddenly found myself feeling an intense sense of gratitude and indebtedness to each individual who was hanged from a tree seeking freedom from slavery, who bled and died for the right to vote, who was dragged out of a restaurant for requesting the right to be served, each individual who wore out shoes during a 381-day bus boycott, who was beaten with a club for attempting to integrate public schools, who was jailed for not sitting in the back of a bus, and to each individual who was attacked by dogs for marching peacefully for what they believed in.

I found myself wishing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. could see this moment. That Coretta Scott King—who died only a year ago this month—could see this moment; that my grandmother, who endured so much hardship as a Black woman in the segregated South—could see this moment.

We may not all agree with Obama’s politics, but we must agree that America is not the same America it was forty years ago and beyond. But had it not been for every African American--and every individual of any other race--who believed in equality and aided African Americans in the fight for equality and justice, there would be no Barack Obama as Iowa's chosen front runner for the Democratic party.In a campaign stop recently—when asked about his use of “hope” in his campaign—Barack said the following: “I’m a Black Man with the name Barack Hussein Obama running for President. I’ve got to have hope!”

Hope is indeed what Obama has. And it’s that same type of infectious hope that desegregated busses, integrated lunch counters and schools, and that gave African Americans the right to vote—and the hope that maybe, just maybe, America is a land we too one day can truly call home.

Tonight, Black America, America felt like home. There on stage was a Black man and his family—a brown man with a brown wife and two brown daughters—people who looked like us. People with experiences like ours. People who are hard-working, first generation success stories—and not the children of wealthy elites.

Tonight was both historic and hopeful. Tonight, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream came true. One man, who happened to be a Black man, was judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character. And with only 4% Black participation in the caucus, this event showed us that many White Americans are just as happy as Blacks that today, Democratic Iowans “chose a Black man to lead our country.”

Obama won big among the younger voters—and in fact—the older the voter, the fewer votes he got. So it’s apparent that the tide is changing and that there is a new generation of voters— a generation who's grown up seeing African Americans in positions of leadership and power...A generation who knows that there are intelligent, competent individuals within every race, and that race has no bearing on one's capabilities.Does it help that Barack Obama is bi-racial—being both Black and White and that he was raised by his White mother and his White grandparents?

Does it help that he seems like a man of the world—having a father from Kenya and having lived three years of his childhood in Indonesia? Perhaps. And perhaps this is what gives Obama the ability to transcend race. Culturally, Obama grew up White. He’s familiar with third world culture and he speaks Indonesian. Over time, though, he also came to understand who he is as Black man in America. Perhaps Obama is a bridge. A bridge who can carry both races—many races—to a new time in America.

To have a Black man as a serious, viable and electable candidate demonstrates that anything is possible. It also demonstrates that America just may belong to us too. And if it can belong to us, surely it belongs to every other American as well. I think the message of hope and change in an America filled with fear and despair is one that resonates with every American—Black, White, rich, middle class or poor.

The bottom line is, Barack Obama not just talks about hope, he embodies hope—and that’s what voters see and hear. If a man from the historically most oppressed group in America can overcome life’s adversities to achieve the American dream, and potentially become the nation’s first Black president, surely everyone else can hope as well.

Congratulations Obama, and congratulations to everyone who paved the way… You Did It! (WE did it)!

Visit my online family magazine http://keepingfamilyfirst.org

Check out my new book, http://lessonsmytoddlertaughtme.com