Palin, Obama shake up presidential landscape

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama definitely stand for fresh, history-making perspectives in this presidential election year.

Palin has burst on to the 2008 presidential scene and in less than two weeks has established that she is a politician with the characteristics of an 'ordinary person.' As a Republican governor she has an 80 percent approval rating in her state, still few in the other 49 states knew her name.

As a relatively unknown Palin has assumed the role of attack dog (she would say 'pit bull with lipstick') in this race—her 'red meat' is Obama. With her acceptance speech the Republican Vice President nominee tore into the Illinois senator like a moose she has slaughtered and was preparing to dress. Since her speech she has repeated her slick one-liners on the campaign trail.

Palin had some interesting one-liners (this time as answers) ABC interview with Charles Gibson in her first non-scripted television appearance. Her foreign policy knowledge on NATO, Russia and Georgia relations and Bush Doctrine were the first litmus test on her expertise on international affairs. You do the math, did she pass?

Now it was Obama who burst onto the scene during the 2004 presidential race at the Democratic National Convention. His oratory skills and charisma was what made the first-term Senator stand out. But attack dog was never his style. His speeches and his demeanor have inspired, much like a motivational speaker, a preacher even (hmmm?).

But his speaking abilities were not Obama's only attributes or associations during this campaign. The issues of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (controversial remarks at Trinity Baptist Church), Father Pfleger (pastor at St. Sabina who made remarks at Trinity), William Ayers (co-founder of radical left organization with alleged associations to Obama), Tony Rezko (political finance mogul who is under federal indictment) and his association with notorious Chicago machine politics have made Obama's journey to the Democratic Presidential nominee a dramatic one.

What is interesting is these two politicians with very different paths share a lot in common. They both were virtually unknown (and in essence they are still politically mysterious). To many Obama and Palin have questionable levels of experience to be the No. 1 and No. 2 ranking political officials in the U.S. They are both relatively young, in their 40s (Obama, 47 and Palin, 44). They both represent historic firsts for their parties as nominees (Palin, first woman and Obama, first African-American man). Frankly the both are compelling speakers and personalities—different facets of the American Dream have gotten them to this point.

Alleged scandal plagues them both, as mentioned with Obama — for Palin the flip flopping on support of the 'Bridge to Nowhere,' media scrutiny around her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy and the pending ethics investigation of her firing of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan who did not dismiss state trooper Michael Wooten despite Palin's allegedly urging. Wooten is Palin's ex-brother-in-law.

The irony is these two are not battling it out directly. Obama's running mate, Delaware Senator Joe Biden is the Democrats' Vice Presidential nominee and John McCain is atop of the Republican ticket.

Biden and McCain have been friends, long-time senators working on opposite sides of the aisle in Washington, DC for over two decades. The are both entrenched and experienced in the political landscape domestically and internationally. With an unpopular incumbent president 'change' is the buzz word this election and Biden and McCain are not change as much as they may try to be. Their running mates, however, embody change.

The Democrats should be running away with this election many pundits say because of the failures of the Bush administration. But the forecast doesn't call for a landslide at this point. This seems like it is going to be another close one, 2000 and 2004 were down to the wire contests as well.

But this election is close for different reasons. Whichever party takes control of the White House is going to usher in change—historic and hopefully substantive. Whether Obama or Palin are sitting in the White House offices history will be made.

What is more exciting is the changes or reforms that will be made during the next administration. What direction will that lead the country in?

During this campaign so many have reminisced on the leadership of former presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Whether Obama or Palin reach the nation's office it is a wonder who they will inspire and what leaders will spring up that will call out their historic names as their role models.

What do you think? Sound off by posting a comment below.

A Chicagoan's take on New Yorker Cartoon

As a black man who grew up minutes from where Sen. Barack Obama made his mark as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago— as someone who has gotten a haircut in the barber shop that Obama has frequented for years, I am not offended by the editorial political cartoon in the New Yorker.

If a reader/viewer is brash and reacts solely on emotions to the jarring nature of the illustration he or she has simply missed the point.

Obama dressed in "Muslim" garb, his wife, Michelle Obama, as a rifle toting rebel, an American flag burning in the nearby fireplace and their so-called "terrorist fist jab" illustrate the extremist caricature of the Obamas that SOME in the Republican party are hoping to draw up in hopes of leading to Obama's political demise during the 2008 presidential election.

I listen to the conservative talk radio hosts and I watch a certain news station to hear and understand the thoughts of journalists that are touted by Republicans. You have to have a varied perspective so you to understand political commentary. Some people, most people don't care that much to acquire this understanding and they have the right not to care.

But here is the deal on the New Yorker cover:

Does this editorial political cartoon mean the New Yorker supports this view?
NO. Upon closer look the magazine leans in the opposite direction.

Does the New Yorker have the First Amendment right to use this depiction?
ABSOLUTELY, YES.

Again, everyone is not going to understand this editorial political cartoon. If the Obama campaign is expressing their dismay because they are not sure that voters are going to comprehend the New Yorker cover then I can see their angle. They may want to appear proactive in their "Fighting the Smears," effort I can see that logic.

But if the Obama campaign is disturbed by this for any other reason then in my opinion they are off base.

1968 meet 2008

By 1968 Former President John F. Kennedy and Malcolm X had already been assassinated. The year witnessed the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. who had just proclaimed that he had “Seen the promise land!” As Robert Kennedy was gearing up a presidential campaign, he actually informed people of King’s death. Months later this Kennedy was also killed.

By 2008, 40 years later, another presidential election year has the making of another cast of prolific leaders. No, I am not comparing the current field of candidates to the legends of the sixties. Time will evaluate their significance.

What I do know is that after 232 years of white men running the White House maybe in the U.S. of A “melting pot” can bear some diversity in the Oval Office.

For President 2008: Religion, Race and Gender Diversity
Mitt Romney- potential first Mormon president
Hillary Clinton- potential first Woman president
Barack Obama- potential first Black president
Bill Richardson- potential first Hispanic president

Biblically 40 years is a time of probation or trial. King saw the promise land in ’68. I submit that it has taken a little while longer for the rest of us Americans to see it. Maybe 2008 is the year to get there.

Now the promise land is not a universal place, it means one thing to you and something else to me. Maybe you think we are already there, or you might think we still have a long way to go. But reaching the promise land would imply that we’ve reached a milestone, a turning point in U.S. History.

Having Romney, Clinton, Obama or Richardson in the running for the White House indicates a transition from one trial period to another. With such a crossroad at hand we have to beware of the socio-political landscape of the U.S. from the country cornfields to the suburban strip malls to the massive metropolises that make up the nation.

A look back at the sixties reminds us of the revolutionary leaders who lost their lives. We cannot fathom what our country would be like if they lived.

In 2008, the history-making presidential hopefuls are at risk for the same fate.
Hopefully, the red, white and blue has grown to accept that WASPs won’t always be the sole inhabiters of the White House. If religion, race or gender integrate the Oval Office in 2008 it will prove the nation is a ripe for change.

Majority Mind Questions
Do you think Romney, Clinton, Obama or Richardson will get to the White House this November? If so which one (or two) and why do you think America is ready for them? If not why do you think America is not ready for one of them?

Old Heads should be Fired, New Leaders for Hire

The leaders of the 60s, lead in the 60s. Maybe it is time for the old guard to retire. Two old-time black civil rights leaders come to mind. Both are noteworthy in their own right, but even in their hey day they definitely shared the limelight with brighter stars of the movement.

One is former Mayor of Atlanta, the other is a former democratic presidential candidate. One is a former United Nations U.S. ambassador, the other a reverend.

You guessed it Andrew Young and Al Sharpton. They both ought to cash in their pensions and stop preaching to the masses.

WHY? Because instead of encouraging the next generation of political and social leaders, Young and Sharpton specialize in negatively criticizing them or downing projects that could help them.

Young made some misplaced remarks about Senator Barack Obama’s (D-IL) candidacy for president. The former ambassador said that Obama was not ready to become president. This is a valid opinion, but wouldn’t it make sense to mention what Obama or other politicians of color do have to offer.

Sharpton is even more disappointing. He is an ambulance chaser of civil rights spectacles. He seems more concerned with staying in the press than social progress. The “prolific” preacher speaks (or spews) metaphors and slick phrases that edify next to nothing.

With all his speaking out against everything from rap music (on the heels of Imus) to Chicago seeking the Olympics (because of the city’s police torture instances) he has missed the mark. And people are catching on Al.

Chicago’s Mayor, Daley responded: And the mayor shot a barb at [Sharpton], asking why no one raised questions when his hometown was vying for the 2012 Olympics.
"It's interesting, nobody opposed New York (in the 2012 Olympic bid) -- very, very interesting," the mayor said. "Why all of a sudden is it opposed here?"
(NOTE: New York has endured many cases of police torture)
(Chicago Tribune, Dec. 12)

Rap Mogul, Jay-Z responded: If Sharpton is speaking for me, Somebody get him the word and tell him I don’t approve, Tell him I’ll remove the curses, If our schools gonna be perfect, When Jena 6 don’t exist…
(American Gangster, “Say Hello”)

Majority Mind Question
Which political or social power players who influence today’s youth at large are going to have a significant impact on future generations? How do they impact youth, positively and negatively?