I Cried in the Voting Booth Today

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...

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

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!”

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

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

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

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!

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

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

*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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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…

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!

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

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?

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?

1. Something surprising from Obama’s past may appear that will permanently derail the campaign.
2. A re-vote, or the counting of existing votes from Michigan and Florida.
3. 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

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

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?

“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!

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”

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.