Well today has been a busy day of video editing. I hope those that see my Youtube channel enjoy it. One of the topics I hit on today is the comments of Ralph Nader.

Nader was speaking in reference to President Obama and likened his Presidency as being either for the people or a sell-out to corporations. It is that sell-out potential that I want to focus on.



The words used to describe the potential that Nader fears was

“...or Uncle Tom for giant corporations” - radio station KTRH

Besides the fact that I take great offense to even hinting that our next President could be an Uncle Tom (which is offensive enough to any Black American) is the precedence it provides. This is a comment that is racially based and negatively at that. Its implication is perhaps the most offensive comment I have ever heard directed towards a President.

The office of the Presidency is an honorable one. It is the highest office in the land. And those that occupy it are the representation of America to the world. As such it demands a level of respect.

That does not mean a President is above ridicule, question, and/or criticism. But the manner in which these things are done should have respect for the office is not the individual. Anything less demeans not only the President but the nation as well.

Nader has in a few words insulted America. He has also opened the door to racially belittle the actions of our 44th President before he has even uttered one word of the Oath. This has never happened before to my knowledge.

So what I take from this is the thought that if President Obama acts in any manner in which Nader or others don’t like its fair game to demean him by calling him Uncle Tom or n-word. I don’t mean the average Joe on the street, I mean in the media, press, and pundits. That this is acceptable is to tell the world that it’s ok to demean the President and every other American in the nation.

Can you imagine President Obama pushing for a law that some group dislikes and calling him a dumb coon because of it, on national TV. Or likening him to an n-word on national television if a controversial law passes? Nader has opened that door.

Already I have received comments at Youtube trying to remind me how much Nader has done for the nation and African Americans.

"...more like a metaphor to the point he's making, uncle tom has different connotations). His point is that obama votes and sides with corporate interest because his campaign was pocketed by them.

...Nader is an intellegent man, a great man who has exposed more ills done to blacks than Obama, he's not a raciest, he didn't call him an Uncle Tom and be very honest, i didn't think the uncle tom thing was that necessary." - thediversion77 on Youtube

That’s wonderful that his past is truthfully impressive. That does not take away from what he is doing right now.

And this is not like calling President Bush dumb. This is like cursing the President out.

No President should be subject to this kind of treatment, especially when they have yet to even utter a word. It is harmful to America, and the office of the President. I cannot imagine any justification for such commentary and I can only see these creating rifts in America so wide as to further damage the nation.

Race is not a criterion to judge anyone on. As such it is not a comment that should be casually used to criticize a potential action of a President. And having a respected past is not justification for such actions.

One other thing I would note is that Sheppard Smith of Fox news was correct in confronting Ralph Nader on this comment. I have my own problems when it comes to Smith and certain issues (like his glee over OJ). But he also rightly challenged Nader and offered him an escape route, which Nader denied.

It seems odd to me that Fox News is constantly criticized for its reporting; accused of bias constantly, but over this entire election it has been the only station that has predominantly avoided blatantly using race and/or active promotion to a particular candidate. And this may be why it quickly and directly has questioned Nader on this issue. Because the ramifications of this will show up over the next 4 years. And it will only get worse.

Labels: Fox News, news media, O'Reilly Factor, President Barack Obama, race in America, racial controversy, Ralph Nader, Sheppard Smith, YouTube

Sometimes I find it quite interesting the opinions some have in regards to politics. Even in the most neutral of facts some cannot let go of there own prejudices to evaluate what is before them. The most troubling aspect of that is the fact that these vocal individuals are actively trying to sway voters to their often misguided views.

Case in point, I decided to place a video detailing the electoral map based on where the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates currently stand. This is not a really debatable issue. It’s a snapshot of the then current political highs and lows in sentiment of various states. These are not final votes and will change given time. But it does establish clearly that neither candidate can today state they have a consensus of though in America to their views for our future.

[the Youtube video and comments can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYcMWKKn0Y]

One of the comments I received was the following,

“Don't believe a word you hear on Fox FRAUDCASTING!! Nothing but Right Wingnut Talking Points. Watch The Daily Show for the truth. Fox Fakes the "news"!!!BOYCOTT FOX FRAUDCASTING!!”

Now I realize that ultra-liberals hate FOX News. It’s irrational to have such a hate but they do. But how does presenting a fluid fact as a lie help anyone decide who to vote for? How does advocating a satirical psuedo-political pusedo-news comedy show prove that one candidate is better than another? One might be a better subject of jokes, but where does that help the nation and economy?

Another comment stated,

“…which leads me to believe that you like many other Republicans follow blindly with a "Mom and Dad are Republicans" mentality. Now I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion but with an election as important as this..It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which candidate will benifit this country but John McCain will get votes and it will somehow again be a close election. By the way, Fox News is hardly "Fair and Balanced." …”

Now I am familiar with many in the Black community across the nation. I have never notice a group of people more likely to vote Democratic (or for any political party) simply because their parents did. I may be naïve, or I may not know enough about the politics of other groups in America. But I can say that in the last 20+ years of following politics I have seen more Democrats, and Black Democrats, vote the party line with less idea of why beyond the general impression that they should and the media assumes they will.

As for a rocket scientist knowing the outcome of the election, it seems that the rest of the nation needs such help. There are massive differences between the candidates and neither candidate has the best solution to all issues facing the nation. So if the election will “somehow again be a close election” I have to believe it’s not that crystal clear or obvious.

Those to the extremes of either party will claim how obvious this election is, but most refuse to give real facts and that means you need to do the homework lest you get talked into buying a bridge.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Fox News, Presidential election race 2008, YouTube

Ok, I saw this in a clip on Fox News coverage of the West Virginia Primary. I knew I wanted to see it in full. Once I saw it I had to provide it for you my readers.

Enjoy, and may the force be with you.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Star Wars, YouTube

There has been a resounding consensus that questions presented to candidates via YouTube are a good thing. The candidates get real questions that are faced by real people everyday. It’s a reminder that average Joe is the person these candidates have to answer to, not the special interest groups and large donors. The questions asked, though some were just ridiculous, did not hold back or cushion the candidates, and that is a great thing.

So far this format has only been presented to the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. It created a lot of interest in who is running and why. It’s lead to further discussion on who really is qualified, earnest, and beneficial enough to lead this nation. It provided perhaps the best example of what choices exist for the election.

There was some debate over whether the Republican Presidential candidates would appear for a debate based on this same format. Initially it appeared that it might not happen as only 2 candidates were confirmed to show. Many, including myself, thought it would be a massive blow against any Republican hopeful not to appear. But recent reports state that this debate format will be happening.

Check out YouTube to submit your question and look forward to the November debate. Remember that your vote counts, and if you don’t ask a question now you may not get a choice later. America deserves better than that.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, political debate, presidential candidate, Republican Party, YouTube

Some may recall that I recently raised the question of what is happening with HR 180 IH. You may not recall the name it has in the House of Representatives, but it’s also known as Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. This is one item of several that are sitting in Congress waiting for some action to be taken by the nation. Not everyoe is aware of this but at least one person had his YouTube question presented to the Democratic candidtates in their recent debate.

Only 4 of the Democratic hopefuls were given the chance to respond. They were Governor Richardson, Sen. Biden, Senator Clinton, and Former Senator Gravel. In my opinion none were satifactory answers, though they were decent soundbites.

Former Senator Gravel only blamed the foreign policy of the nation. How that helps or resolves anything I have no idea.

Governor Richardson suggested economic sanctions and political pressure from European nations and China. Which is something, though that is exactly what HR 180 IH suggests, and it has been sitting in the House without any action since it was created. How can we ask ANY nation to do what we will not?

Senator Biden took a different tack. He compared the situation to Bosnia, and suggested a no-fly zone in addition to 2,500 American troops on the ground. I will get to the comparison in a moment, and the no-fly zone, but I cannot believe that in an area where over 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million are refugees a mere 2,500 American forces can stop the bloodshed. That is unrealistic and stupid in my opinion. It will take more than that, that’s obvious.

As for Senator Clinton, she got a bit of all the best answers and combined them, mostly. She agreed on the need for sanctions. She agreed on a no-fly zone. But she would not agree to place ANY troops on the ground.

Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.

Ok, first off a no-fly zone just does not work. Not in England (Germans during WWII), Viet-Nam, Bosnia, Iraq nor Darfur. It may add some difficulty but OBVIOUSLY things happening on the ground cannot be stopped by planes in the sky. Any suggestion that states this is the main involvement of the United States is doomed to kill innocent civilians. Let’s remember, overwhelmingly most of those that have died in the last several years are civilians. Stopping a plane flying overhead does not stop AK-47 and machete wielding troops from killing people.

Economic and political pressure is one option, but like a no-fly zone it does not stop anything. Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq have all had (or have) sanctions for years if not decades. Yet North Korea has nuclear weapons, Cuba still is a Communist dictatorship and we attacked Iraq. [Iraq may not be the best example, yet they still had a large army – one of the strongest in the region- and the abuse of Kurds and others was not abated by prior political pressure].

Face it, it takes troops. Just like it did in Bosnia.

Continued in Part 2...


**I want to thank Mary-Lea Cox for her writing on the YouTube question from the Presidential candidate debate**

Labels: Bosnia, Darfur, HR 180 IH, political debate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Dodd, Senator Hillary Clinton, YouTube