M Hope is a contributing author, writing to Black Entertainment USA and Vass.

There is a question that is being asked during this political race. The question has been asked and answered and debated and even blown off as being ridiculous. It’s a question that has been asked on both sides of the political line. The question is:

“Will there be an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2008, regardless who wins?”

Many people say “No, there is too much bad blood between them”, others say “Hillary will never pick Obama to run with her”, still others say “Barak will not be comfortable with HER as a running mate, having to deal with her legacy with Bill”.

The sad truth is that all those answers are wrong.

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are THE 2 strongest running candidates in the Democratic Party. They also represent something much more than just popular candidates. They represent how far we as a diverse country have come to looking past things as trivial as race, gender, religion, and looking into the “content of character” so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. (not that I think Clinton has much content, but go with me on this).

If they do not team up on this election that will say to me 2 things:

• 1. Neither of the 2 candidates have this country in mind when running for the presidency. This is all just a quest for power and fame, plain and simple. The fact that both Clinton and Obama have some different views on how this country should be run is the perfect dynamic needed to bring about change in the government today, which is still doing business as usual. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently.
  
  
• 2. Neither of the 2 is qualified for the Presidency. Pardon me for being out of line, but being the President requires that you make some decisions that will preclude trivial things like pride, self-worth, feelings, etc. If you can’t make a decision about what is best for your Party as opposed to your feelings, how can you begin to hope to lead this country which is now at a crossroads the like we have never seen before and will never see again?
  

I don’t claim to support either Democrat or Republican candidates, but I do know this. In order for the Democrats to win this election, I can’t see how Clinton and Obama (or Obama and Clinton, whichever way you prefer) can not partner up and focus on the business of bringing change to this country. That is, if that’s what they really want to do…

Labels: Demcratic Party, election 2008, presidential cantidates, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from Preparing for the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum Part 1...

What do I expect the debate to go over today? I think that most people are more concerned about education for their children, the economy continuing to be stable and prosperous – so they know they have job security, illegal immigrants – taking away jobs and receiving benefits funded by taxpayer money (including income taxes which illegals don’t pay). Not necessarily in that order.

Lower on the list are issues like race relations (the inequalities in the law enforcement and justice system that plague minorities as seen via Sean Bell, Megan Williams, Genarlow Wilson, and the Jena 6 as recent examples), anti-terrorism actions to keep us safe in this country (the Canadian border is still my biggest issue), and entitlement programs (like Welfare though not necessarily including Social Security). Again that is not a guarantee they are in that order of preference.

I base this on my conversations with people across this country. Friends, associates, clients, blog readers and authors, as well as polls found on my blogs and corporate website. That is what I think the real America wants to hear answers to. Yet pundits and candidates of both parties have given short shrift to these issues.

Think about it, other than one question in one debate, I don’t recall any candidate speaking about their plans to ensure our kids graduate high school, and are able to read. Yet in the African American community alone dropout rates exceed 50%. I recall one question, early in 2007, that dealt with AIDS and HIV, yet a recent announcement states that AIDS cases in kids 15-19 are up 20%, and those 20-24 are up 22% (according to 2005 numbers which are the most current known). The numbers for African American youth are appallingly higher.

That says nothing about youth pregnancy (in the Black community up an estimated 60+%). And what about other issues that are not as close to home as the abovementioned? Like the Child Soldier Act (which Congress seems determined to ignore) or HR 180 IH which deals with Darfur (now nearing its 5th year of genocide). No, but there has been plenty of talk about green energy (which most regular people don’t even think about as far as I’ve heard) which we could not resolve immediately even if there was an energy source that we could use effectively right now.

I hope that when these serious issues are asked by the regular people in the audience (hopefully not planted by the Clinton campaign which seems like a common practice for them based on recent revelations) there are full real answers.

But don’t be surprised if you only hear 30 second soundbites that sound motivating but answer nothing. I mean I’m not running for any office and this quick recap takes about 5 minutes to read in full. When was the last time any candidate actually took 5 minutes to explain 1 issue without going off on a tangent, blaming Congress or the President (or both), or sliding the discussion into a completely different direction altogether?

But we will see.

Labels: AIDS, Black community, Darfur, HIV, illegal immigration, Megan Williams, political debate, presidential cantidates, race in America, TV One

In a little less than 6 weeks America will decide which candidates will be running for the Presidency of the United States. This next election will be perhaps the most critical for America in decades. Definitely for those Americans that have grown up with the internet, cell phones, and cable television this is the most definitive moment in American government they have ever witnessed.

Because of that TV One will be presenting a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum from Iowa. This debate will likely be the last held prior to the primary voting that will follow shortly in January 2008. The debate will be taking place on December 1st 2007 at 2:30pm. Expectations are that 5000 citizens will be at the forum, and some will be able to directly ask the candidates questions about their plans and goals for America.

Also in conjunction with this Forum and webcast, TV One has gathered several bloggers that will discuss the various aspects of the political landscape leading up to the debate, and who will blog during the live debate as well. This will be a chance for you to be directly aware of what the candidates have to say about the issues you care about; and to be able to hear the thoughts of other average Americans about the answers given.

I am proud to say that I have been selected as one of the bloggers to be involved with TV One and the Heartland Presidential Forum webcast.

To that end I want to take a moment and review a bit about the many issues I have been blogging about since the beginning of the year in regard to the 2008 election. Long time readers to my site will be familiar with much of this, while newer visitors may find information that they may have missed.

I started the year by sending out letters to several of the Presidential candidates. Those candidates were in both the Democratic and Republican parties. In those letters I asked each candidate several questions that were prevalent in the minds of many people, and continue to be today.

Examples of some of the questions are

“Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been. – To Senator Hillary Clinton, Dec. 16, 2006”

“In recent weeks a great deal has been made of Representative Ellison’s informal swearing in using the Quran. As an individual of the Mormon faith, if you were to be elected President, would you use The Book Of Mormon to be sworn in on? (Please excuse my ignorance about your faith but I believe that is your religious text) Do you feel that your religious background would have any affect on your performance if elected President? Would it have any affect in dealing with dignitaries and governments that hold a different religion, and if so what? What place do you feel religion has for any elected official, if any? – To Mitt Romney, Jan. 10, 2007”

“As a fellow African American I'm sure you are aware that there are several issues that are of great impact to the Black community. One of the most important may be the issue of education. What have you done to improve the number of African Americans that finish high school and/or seek higher education? If you were to be elected President, what plan would you follow that will improve the education system in America? – To Senator Barack Obama, Jan. 22, 2007”

“Another matter that was received in a mixed manner was your choice of police commissioner and the law enforcement policies during your term of office. During your time as Mayor, Mr. Amidou Diallo and Mr. Patrick Dorismond were murdered by police officers in a disturbing manner and Mr. Abner Louima was tortured by police officers which was then attempted to be covered up. These policies and your defense of the police department created a significant atmosphere of anger and cries of racism among the African American, Hispanic/Latino and other minority groups in the city; that was not covered significantly across the nation. For those African American and minority voters in the nation, what are your views on law enforcement? Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and other reforms that address racial inequality? – To Rudy Giuliani, April 5, 2007”

Other questions and letters can be found at my corporate website in the Presidential candidates section, or via search at any of my blogs.

I have also been running a poll tracking the opinion of average Americans on who should be the next President of America. [The exact question is - If the election was held today who would you vote for? – The list of candidates does not include Fred Thompson who entered the race far later than any other candidate.] As of this post Senator Barack Obama leads with 52% of respondents. Senator Hillary Clinton trails behind in second with 22%, followed by Senator John McCain in a distant 3rd (9%). These can be found on the poll on the sidebar of all my sites. Feel free to place your vote as well, I will update this the day of the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast and the following Monday.

So to sum up the introduction, I try to be neutral in my questions and views of the Presidential race at this time. While we as a nation are trying to decide which candidates of either party are the best choices for the nation to choose between, I feel it’s most important for me to raise questions about what we need to know from any candidate. This next election is far too important. And I’m glad to say that TV One agrees.

Expect more everyday, and if I can several times a day, until the debate. And check back during or after the debate. Hopefully together we will be able to find the best choices for America, because anything less diminishes us all.

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Iowa, Mitt Romney, political debate, presidential cantidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, TV One

For all the talk and condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad personally attacking Gen. Petraeus, what affect does this all have on the Average Joe? Where does this entire fluster shake out? The Presidential election and the effects on the nation.

After 2 weeks of denials, the New York Times has finally admitted they broke their rules. This is a big deal. It’s not that the NY Times dropped the price of the ad some $70,000. MoveOn is funded by billionaire George Soros, they can afford whatever price the Times makes up. The question is whether the news organization is impartial, which this proves it is not. The paper broke rules against favoring a political party, running an attack ad, and several other regulations that the Times has in place for themselves. That’s a blatant move, and thus a virtually explicit declaration of ultra-liberal political affiliation.

Some could say that it’s not a big deal. News organizations tend to be liberal anyway. I disagree. Writers may or may not be liberal; a news organization should be neutral. This apparent declaration, which the Times tried to justify for 2 weeks, shows that they are not neutral and thus lie to the American people, as I conclude. It’s a strong conclusion I have come to, and if I am correct it means that every item reported about the President, national policies and international interactions may have been tainted. Imagine that, everything that the Times has said has been altered from the truth, either through omission of facts or editing of those facts, to make readers act in one manner or another.

Add to this the fact that not one of the Democratic Presidential candidates has made a single statement to condemn the ad and the problem grows. It’s not that they are breaking political ranks, this issue is beyond that. The Untied States Armed Forces are in place to protect EVERYONE, without regard to political affiliation or individual thoughts. Our soldiers die for the right to have ads, like the despicable MoveOn ad, to be able to appear without someone dying for it. A mere handful of countries can claim the same thing.

The ad attacked not just the General, but every American military person. To say that Gen Petraeus lied or betrayed the nation is to say that every soldier in his command did the same. It is to say that a temporary political point in time is more important than the lives and constitution he has sworn to uphold and protect. Considering his positive and well supported (by both parties) appointment, this questioning of loyalty is deeply misplaced.

What does it say when the potential next Commander-and-Chief has so little respect for the troops under their command that they will allow any attack upon them individually and as a whole. Yes, disrespect for the whole military. Gen. Petraeus did not leak out information or aide the enemy. He did not put our soldiers in harms way, or intentionally cause them to be killed. He has not reported lies or information that has not been confirmed and understood. He has not acted in any manner other than professionally and respectfully, even while his report given to Congress was questioned in its complete truth to his face.

I feel that a vote to not condemn personal attacks against our Armed Forces is a negative signal of what will come in the future. To vote against condemnation is to vote for the MoveOn ad. It’s a statement of no confidence in the military and a Commander-and –Chief must have faith in the military to command. Especially if that Commander has never spent one second in the Armed Forces.

Equally, the failure to vote either way is an act of cowardice in my opinion. Some issues are black & white. You either agree or disagree. To opt out is merely an attempt to play political games, seeking to keep funding without angering the general populace.

We need our leaders, and those who hope to become a leader, to state what they believe and to be accountable for that decision. If money, and political extremism, are the issues that they feel are most important we need to know that prior to an election. The repercussions are too dire to find out after the fact.

And to know that our news media organizations are being honest to us is no less important. If they are equally biased, what is to stop them from creating a new McCarthy, rather than exposing one? Where does the slippery slope begin that leads to a news media that is merely the tool of the government as opposed to reporting on it? It may sound implausible in America, but if our rules and standards falter how can we be sure it cannot happen?

The MoveOn.org ad is more than just an ad. The controversy and reactions are far reaching. And Average Joe should keep in mind what this means and can lead to. If we don’t we may not be able to get back from the road it takes us down.

Labels: General Petraeus, moveon.org, New York Times, presidential cantidates