Letters to the Editor

• At least, honesty.

  [Read the article: It's OK to vote for Obama because he's black]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I agree that his multi-racial status -- not his blackness -- has helped him propel to this level. To me, it is axiomatic for people who care about people issues to rally behind Obama. When Barack won his campaign for president of the Harvard Law Review, he told the press his goal was to run for office and his platform was "change." I do not and cannot find where he has inspired any "change" on the issues that matter to me or to the base of his constituency.

  I really think one day people will realize they are being hoodwinked. I am not saying that his supporters are delusional, I am saying that his supporters are being misinformed and being sold a bill of goods that will not deliver. Barack is the darling of the media. The media making amends for dudes like IMUS. Recall, Bush was also the darling of the media post 9-11. We eventually learned Bush hoodwinked everyone all the way to the highest approval ratings probably ever had by a President only to be reduced to one of the lowest approval ratings. I believe Obama's supporters will have the same crash and burn.

  Barack poses an interesting dichotomy to me. I am from a multi-racial family, also. I researched both candidates before making a decision. I was appalled to read that when Barack was a law student at Harvard he clerked in a Chicago law firm and spoke out in defense of big law firms' arbitrary hiring practices that served automatically to limit blacks in big law firms. The guy quoted in the article with the counter-viewpoint was someone I admire -- Dennis Archer, former Michigan Supreme Court Justice, former Detroit Mayor, and former President of the American Bar Association. Obama may have changed his position on the issue since then, but the more important message I got from the article was that Obama would say anything to impress those he wanted to impress. Interestingly, Barack's argument in favor of big law firms are hard to reconcile with Michelle Obama's findings in her Princeton Thesis which speaks more to the vicious cycle.

  I am further troubled by the fact that the neighborhood in Chicago that Obama served in as a community organizer is really no better off today despite the fact he catapulted to the State Senate and then the U.S. Senate. I also have trouble reconciling how he can be "for the people" if he had such an overwhelming need for an ostentatious house that he was willing to make a deal on the backs of the poor tenants of his crooked business partner. Obama knew Resko was accused of being crooked and that he advantage of the very people Obama was supposed to be fighting for. . .The Resko story wasn't important because Obama structured a questionable business deal, it is important because it raises questions as to what Obama really cares about.

  If your core driving force is to help people, why would you ever get involved in a stupid deal merely to buy a grandiose house beyond your means. Why not live in a modest home you can buy on your own credit? Obama calls it a boneheaded mistake. Why was it boneheaded, because it revealed he talks populist rhetoric, but his true desires are material riches and power. Not, helping people.

  Barack's refusal to attend Tavis Smiley's State of the Black Union seems to reinforce the dichotomy between who Barack wants to be portrayed as and who he is. Barack could have brought unprecedented attention to the issues facing Black America by sparing a couple hours of his time. Hillary was able to do an event in Ohio, appear in New Orleans at the State of the Black Union and move on to Houston for another campaign event. She never missed a beat in her campaign. Yes, she kept an aggressive schedule. Maybe, Barack does not want to work that hard -- even if it meant using his populist appeal to bring attention to the issues he says are important to him and, well, which should be important to him.

  I keep thinking of the Mayor of New Orleans. He was a great orator, talked of change, and eliminating corruption in the City. He had little political experience and appealed to a diverse base of voters. Then, his lack of poltical experience crippled the City in the aftermath of Katrina. Now, the rumor is he has taken up residence in Dallas while serving as the Mayor of New Orleans.

  Bush and Nagin are two good examples of why anyone considering voting for Obama should reconsider. Bush has destroyed (hopefully) a once rather unified Republican party by his actions and his administration's policies. The Presidency does not come with training wheels. Hillary's experience, fight, and intestinal fortitude to keep pushing issues that concern all of us should be decisive in your decision on who is the best candidate. We can all talk about change. But, change is a slow creature. One that you have to push, push and push up the hill.

  In the end, Democrats are in a good position to win in November. It will be after November, that we need to make sure that "change" happens. I want Obama to get a tatoo on his wrist that says "CHANGE", so a year from now he remembers what people wanted from him if he is lucky enough to become President. Likewise, Hillary should get a tatoo that says "Solutions", to remind her of what people wanted from her if she is lucky enough to become president.

  Talk of Change may inspire, but fighting for Solutions shows ones true heart.

  Permalink Monday, February 25, 2008 07:47 PM