Tonya Jones's Blog
About the Author
With McCain’s advanced age, never has a VP choice been so important. Let’s see if the Republican voters will wage their persistent question at their own VP nominee. Is Sarah Palin, the self-proclaimed “hockey mom” ready to lead after being Alaska’s governor for two years? What do you think his decision says about his judgment? Will voters risk more pocket breaking policies, in a Republican attempt to create their own groundbreaking candidate to pander to Hillary‘s stanch supports?
We understand that change is contagious and that the Republican choice for VP was in response to the inspirational narratives of several of the candidates our party produced. We are pleased that we have motivated inclusiveness; something that doesn’t come naturally to the party of the status quo. While the Republicans are artful at painting a scene, it doesn’t make the picture of value or substantive.
Throughout this Presidential election process, we have heard criticism of media bias in the content and amount of coverage given to some candidates verses others. The protest prose the question of if the media drives the story, or the story that drives the media? Could John Edward's grievance of Clinton's and Obama's coverage been driven by; the more interesting story of two groundbreaking candidates, qualities of the candidate, the popularity or notoriety of the candidates, or the boredom of covering Edward's unmodified message for the third time? The question of why Edward's even thinner resume was never an issue, but Obama's experience was and is continuously questioned was never publicly posed. Although from the start there have been racial challenges and threats waged on even the Caucasian workers of the Obama campaign, the camp made every attempt to avoid any public complaints related to racism or prejudice.
McCain, who at one time referred to the media as a part of his constituency, has even vigorously voiced his complaints of the media's coverage of both his primary and general election run. Most recently, McCain has protested what he deemed as uneven coverage of the Obama European tour. Are we suppose to have sympathy for a male that never had the deck stacked against him or societal limits on his opportunities, because he's not as interesting as his opponent?
McCain's recent negative "celebrity ad" that attempts to minimize some of Obama's "star power", diminishes his history of integrity, doesn't speak to why he's the better choice, insults Obama's supporters and reneges on his promise of a positive campaign. When there are such vast policy differences to debate, McCain just appears petty and personal. To equate Obama to the unearned celebrity contributed to the likes of Paris Hilton is to minimize the testimony of Obama's childhood, discount his professional and educational achievements, overlook his public works, disregard the power of his message of change, dismiss his leadership of an effective organization and campaign, and to ignore his miraculous rise despite historical obstacles. Read More »
McCain, who at one time referred to the media as a part of his constituency, has even vigorously voiced his complaints of the media's coverage of both his primary and general election run. Most recently, McCain has protested what he deemed as uneven coverage of the Obama European tour. Are we suppose to have sympathy for a male that never had the deck stacked against him or societal limits on his opportunities, because he's not as interesting as his opponent?
McCain's recent negative "celebrity ad" that attempts to minimize some of Obama's "star power", diminishes his history of integrity, doesn't speak to why he's the better choice, insults Obama's supporters and reneges on his promise of a positive campaign. When there are such vast policy differences to debate, McCain just appears petty and personal. To equate Obama to the unearned celebrity contributed to the likes of Paris Hilton is to minimize the testimony of Obama's childhood, discount his professional and educational achievements, overlook his public works, disregard the power of his message of change, dismiss his leadership of an effective organization and campaign, and to ignore his miraculous rise despite historical obstacles. Read More »
In the Democratic race for the presidency the latest media hype pits African Americans against the so-called white blue collar voters. We hear the constant discussions of tantrums and threats of some groups of Democratic voters, threatening to vote for the opposing party if their candidate doesn't become the nominee. Some question if the party's divisions created by the long protracted primary will be beyond repair in the general election.
In this corner, you have the loyal 90% plus voting block of the Democratic Party, the African Americans. There has been unfair criticism of the black community's overwhelming vote for the first viable candidate that most represents them. At the outset, the pundits wondered why African Americans were so slow to support Obama.The initial black community apprehension of Obama was due to a lack of trust that the country was ready to elect an African American, Obama was not as well know as his opponents, and above all else African Americans had to believe he was viable. Understanding the urgency of change in the white house, African Americans were more skeptical then most. The same complaints weren't waged when the "black vote" helped nominate and elect Bill Clinton and many other sometimes mediocre white men. But now somehow this dependable voting block is supposed to forego or not have pride in an accomplished, articulate, inspirational visionary candidate like Obama.
Read More »
In this corner, you have the loyal 90% plus voting block of the Democratic Party, the African Americans. There has been unfair criticism of the black community's overwhelming vote for the first viable candidate that most represents them. At the outset, the pundits wondered why African Americans were so slow to support Obama.The initial black community apprehension of Obama was due to a lack of trust that the country was ready to elect an African American, Obama was not as well know as his opponents, and above all else African Americans had to believe he was viable. Understanding the urgency of change in the white house, African Americans were more skeptical then most. The same complaints weren't waged when the "black vote" helped nominate and elect Bill Clinton and many other sometimes mediocre white men. But now somehow this dependable voting block is supposed to forego or not have pride in an accomplished, articulate, inspirational visionary candidate like Obama.
Read More »
"What Part Of Obama Can't Win The General Elections Don't His Backers "Get?"
By Fyrefoxxe - May 6th, 2008 at 5:45 am EDT
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Fyrefoxxe/CRyY#comments
Your logic in your post is so, so, so flawed, because of the following;
1. NO creditability on CHANGE:
I have continuously stated that Clinton's argument of experience as an unconventionally active First Lady wasn't a good strategy. It only highlighted her own weakness of a padded resume and connects her to the contentious past; not change.
If this election was based on experience McCain would win against both our candidates, but it is about CHANGE. Increasingly the Clintons have damaged their creditability on being instrument of change when each them have engaged in Washington politics as usually, the "politics of personal destruction", the phase they coined.
Change means not returning to the 1990's government gridlock and shutdowns due to, not just policy differences but personality clashes. The American people REJECT Bill Clinton's statement of politics being a contact sport and kitchen sink politics!
2. Each candidate can't be accountable for all the statements and beliefs of others:
Each of us has friends, family and associates in which we do not agree totally with ALL of their BELIEFS. Why are candidates expected to admonish every statement and belief of their associates? It's enough of a battle dealing with their own statements and beliefs being misconstrued and distorted.
The resistance to the tide of change and Obama's transcending race, would like to create the following simple equation;
Wright =racist+ Wright=Obama+ Obama =racist
But this equation, with all its added variables, DOESN'T ADD UP! Read More »
By Fyrefoxxe - May 6th, 2008 at 5:45 am EDT
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/Fyrefoxxe/CRyY#comments
Your logic in your post is so, so, so flawed, because of the following;
1. NO creditability on CHANGE:
I have continuously stated that Clinton's argument of experience as an unconventionally active First Lady wasn't a good strategy. It only highlighted her own weakness of a padded resume and connects her to the contentious past; not change.
If this election was based on experience McCain would win against both our candidates, but it is about CHANGE. Increasingly the Clintons have damaged their creditability on being instrument of change when each them have engaged in Washington politics as usually, the "politics of personal destruction", the phase they coined.
Change means not returning to the 1990's government gridlock and shutdowns due to, not just policy differences but personality clashes. The American people REJECT Bill Clinton's statement of politics being a contact sport and kitchen sink politics!
2. Each candidate can't be accountable for all the statements and beliefs of others:
Each of us has friends, family and associates in which we do not agree totally with ALL of their BELIEFS. Why are candidates expected to admonish every statement and belief of their associates? It's enough of a battle dealing with their own statements and beliefs being misconstrued and distorted.
The resistance to the tide of change and Obama's transcending race, would like to create the following simple equation;
Wright =racist+ Wright=Obama+ Obama =racist
But this equation, with all its added variables, DOESN'T ADD UP! Read More »
Without repentance buried burdens nag
When there is a stain of black blood
Within the rich red of the American flag
In my tears see no longing for a distant land
But the source of anguish
Of abuse by your oppressive heavy hand
I commence my pledge of unwavering loyalty
Confirmed in my blood
Within the independence from British royalty
Boasting of freedoms not always afforded to me
With my hand placed at my heart
I proudly sing your songs of liberty
Symptoms of persisting pain forever remains
Though my ankles lay bare
Far gone is the weight of shackles & chains
My soul, my value you attack
With signs of colored only
I am forced to the bleak back
With my schools and community still sub par
I cling to antidotal notions
Promoting strength and unity to propel us far
I contest the barriers of all that I believe
Challenging our Constitution and concepts
To the true greatness we can achieve
Tonya J
When there is a stain of black blood
Within the rich red of the American flag
In my tears see no longing for a distant land
But the source of anguish
Of abuse by your oppressive heavy hand
I commence my pledge of unwavering loyalty
Confirmed in my blood
Within the independence from British royalty
Boasting of freedoms not always afforded to me
With my hand placed at my heart
I proudly sing your songs of liberty
Symptoms of persisting pain forever remains
Though my ankles lay bare
Far gone is the weight of shackles & chains
My soul, my value you attack
With signs of colored only
I am forced to the bleak back
With my schools and community still sub par
I cling to antidotal notions
Promoting strength and unity to propel us far
I contest the barriers of all that I believe
Challenging our Constitution and concepts
To the true greatness we can achieve
Tonya J
If I can love and see the greatness of this country despite it's legacy of racism?
Why can't I love Rev. Wright despite his wounds from living through such turbulent times as segregation, assassination of Black leaders, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, segregated military and etc.?
Why can't we meet him with understanding, instead of just labeling and dismissing him?
I've done that here on PB when I've seen demonstrations of prejudice. Did you notice I didn't say racist? There are good people that carry prejudice or symptoms of being born of this society, that doesn't automatically make them racist.
Why is it wrong to ask the American government to assess it's foreign policies that could contribute to animosity?
My generation, like Obama's don't have wounds that run as deep as some who lived through what we can only read about.
Does it seem far fetched to connect the government to a disease that disparately affects the poor and minorities, after witnessing the Tuskegee syphilis experiment from 1932 and 1972?
Many of us have grown up hearing conservative or even prejudice views but we still have upheld our own views. We can love our church, family, friends, country, etc. despite faults and flaws. We can take the good from what is around us without throwing out the baby with the bath water!
The connections and implications are weak and tired! Find another dead horse to beat!
Why can't I love Rev. Wright despite his wounds from living through such turbulent times as segregation, assassination of Black leaders, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, segregated military and etc.?
Why can't we meet him with understanding, instead of just labeling and dismissing him?
I've done that here on PB when I've seen demonstrations of prejudice. Did you notice I didn't say racist? There are good people that carry prejudice or symptoms of being born of this society, that doesn't automatically make them racist.
Why is it wrong to ask the American government to assess it's foreign policies that could contribute to animosity?
My generation, like Obama's don't have wounds that run as deep as some who lived through what we can only read about.
Does it seem far fetched to connect the government to a disease that disparately affects the poor and minorities, after witnessing the Tuskegee syphilis experiment from 1932 and 1972?
Many of us have grown up hearing conservative or even prejudice views but we still have upheld our own views. We can love our church, family, friends, country, etc. despite faults and flaws. We can take the good from what is around us without throwing out the baby with the bath water!
The connections and implications are weak and tired! Find another dead horse to beat!
Some of the American people understand why it is the interest of some to divert the presidential campaign discussion away from the important issues. As long as we are focused on Rev. Wright; we are distracted from the effects of the failed trickle-down economic policies, the unfocused and poorly managed Clinton campaign and the Iraq War. Although we have made previous denouncements and declarations against the exploitation of hot button issues such as Vietnam, abortion, gay rights, religion and race to divide & divert, we still participate in the circus. Has voting for a pro-life candidate abolished abortion? Has picking on gays and the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in previous elections strengthened or increased the dwindling heterosexual marriage rate? Yet, some of us vote against our economic interest because of diversions but before us.
In a twenty-four hour media cycle, and with cell phone cameras and recorders, it is increasing difficult for each candidate to be responsible for their own comments, missteps, and blunders. Now, somehow they must be responsible, explain and denounce the statements and actions of others not even involved in their campaigns. Could you be responsible for the past mistakes, statements, views and opinions of each of your family, friends, associates and neighbors? If your friend and minister preach all gays need to be cured of their illness, because you are a longtime member that view can be contributed to you by the current standards. GIVE ME A BREAK, this is stupidity!
It is obvious that some would like to tarnish Obama's somewhat successful attempt of transcending race, with the overemphasizing of Rev. Wright. The Wright non-issue just unveils something I discussed early on in the blog "A Woman or An African American Male, Do You Truly Believe in the Possibility?" the implicit fear that Obama represents the "Revenge of The Blacks." When many of us have endured sermons that may have been contrary to our own truths and beliefs, to equate Rev. Wright views equals Obama isn't creditable or without malice. How many of us are pro-choice, believe in gay rights, use birth control, have sex before marriage, believe women can become pastors and priest but continuously listen to sermons suggesting eternal damnation but still uphold our independent beliefs and truths?
We, the people must reject all that promote, encourage, and participate in the previously successful swift boating and fear tactics and strategies. We must vote for or against a candidate based on the substance of their own views, vision, capabilities, policies and direction for the country. Vote for the candidate that is more inline with your economic interest and not be easily manipulated by propaganda, spin, misrepresentations and fear. We must not allow the political conversation to be changed to petty contentious conflicts, obviously silly blunders, what candidates eat and drink, but we must demand solutions to the difficult and complex issues facing our nation. The change that the American people have been demanding is not just a request for a different face in the white house but a change in the political process.
In a twenty-four hour media cycle, and with cell phone cameras and recorders, it is increasing difficult for each candidate to be responsible for their own comments, missteps, and blunders. Now, somehow they must be responsible, explain and denounce the statements and actions of others not even involved in their campaigns. Could you be responsible for the past mistakes, statements, views and opinions of each of your family, friends, associates and neighbors? If your friend and minister preach all gays need to be cured of their illness, because you are a longtime member that view can be contributed to you by the current standards. GIVE ME A BREAK, this is stupidity!
It is obvious that some would like to tarnish Obama's somewhat successful attempt of transcending race, with the overemphasizing of Rev. Wright. The Wright non-issue just unveils something I discussed early on in the blog "A Woman or An African American Male, Do You Truly Believe in the Possibility?" the implicit fear that Obama represents the "Revenge of The Blacks." When many of us have endured sermons that may have been contrary to our own truths and beliefs, to equate Rev. Wright views equals Obama isn't creditable or without malice. How many of us are pro-choice, believe in gay rights, use birth control, have sex before marriage, believe women can become pastors and priest but continuously listen to sermons suggesting eternal damnation but still uphold our independent beliefs and truths?
We, the people must reject all that promote, encourage, and participate in the previously successful swift boating and fear tactics and strategies. We must vote for or against a candidate based on the substance of their own views, vision, capabilities, policies and direction for the country. Vote for the candidate that is more inline with your economic interest and not be easily manipulated by propaganda, spin, misrepresentations and fear. We must not allow the political conversation to be changed to petty contentious conflicts, obviously silly blunders, what candidates eat and drink, but we must demand solutions to the difficult and complex issues facing our nation. The change that the American people have been demanding is not just a request for a different face in the white house but a change in the political process.
I'm not afraid to ask Reply
By Letitrip Today at 7:07 pm EST
and I don't care what the color of your skin is genetically...
**they seem to want to keep the Black community of this country in their place**
what the HELL is that about?
Blacks take a majority of space on our sports fields, in celebrity land, in music industry, seated in politics, and elsewhere, just to name a FEW...it's YOUR choice to do what you do in this life, whites shouldn't have a fucking noose around their neck because of history, move on dumb shit, get above and beyond it. Blame yourself, not white skin for your failures in life. You don't see successful blacks blaming whites.
Please explain your hatred of whites now. Look at where BO is, he did NOT even serve 4 yr as a republican in the state house, then 4 yrs as a senator in the state, then move up to serve in the US ...he passed all the people that HAVE served their time...he even won a state where the guy pulled OUT...that's not a major WIN. We LET him slide. White people go overboard to correct history, and give blacks a chance, but blacks keep themselves in sympathy mode and continue to spit in white man's face. Grow-up and remove yourself of hatred. Be color blind and learn to talk it. You are racist, you are against whites and you want revenge and will fight to your last breath. Right, it's all about loyalty to black skin, no matter the qualifications.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/oplissloan/CXMv#comments Read More »
By Letitrip Today at 7:07 pm EST
and I don't care what the color of your skin is genetically...
**they seem to want to keep the Black community of this country in their place**
what the HELL is that about?
Blacks take a majority of space on our sports fields, in celebrity land, in music industry, seated in politics, and elsewhere, just to name a FEW...it's YOUR choice to do what you do in this life, whites shouldn't have a fucking noose around their neck because of history, move on dumb shit, get above and beyond it. Blame yourself, not white skin for your failures in life. You don't see successful blacks blaming whites.
Please explain your hatred of whites now. Look at where BO is, he did NOT even serve 4 yr as a republican in the state house, then 4 yrs as a senator in the state, then move up to serve in the US ...he passed all the people that HAVE served their time...he even won a state where the guy pulled OUT...that's not a major WIN. We LET him slide. White people go overboard to correct history, and give blacks a chance, but blacks keep themselves in sympathy mode and continue to spit in white man's face. Grow-up and remove yourself of hatred. Be color blind and learn to talk it. You are racist, you are against whites and you want revenge and will fight to your last breath. Right, it's all about loyalty to black skin, no matter the qualifications.
http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/oplissloan/CXMv#comments Read More »
John Edwards
Birth: June 10, 1953 in Seneca, South Carolina
Education: Bachelor's degree, North Carolina State University high honors 1974
Law degree, University of North Carolina with honors1977
Career: Federal Judge Clerk and Associate at Dearborn & Ewin1978
Successful Trial Lawyer from 1978-1998
Partner at private firm Edwards & Kirby
Served one-term as U.S. Senator from North Carolina
He was VP running mate in Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign 2004
Director of the Center on Poverty at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Senior Adviser and Consultant to Fortress Investment Group 2005
Established One America Committee, a political action committee 2001-present
Negatives: Defeat by Kerry and Dean in every state but SC for the nomination in 2004
He and Kerry didn't carry his home state of NC in 2004
He began retail campaigning in Iowa for two years prior to current primary loss
Had second place primary finish in birthplace of SC 2008
Positives: He advocates for the poor and middle class. He was chosen as Sen. John Kerry's VP running mate. He is a likeable candidate with a populist message.
Notables: Edwards is the first in his family to obtain a college degree. "Two Americas" stump speech put him in the stoplight. Was a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence when in Congress. His practice, Edwards & Kirby received the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.
Campaign Complaint: Edwards blames his lack of support on "overwhelming massive national publicity" given to his two rivals. He accuses his opponents of taking money from special interest. Read More »
Birth: June 10, 1953 in Seneca, South Carolina
Education: Bachelor's degree, North Carolina State University high honors 1974
Law degree, University of North Carolina with honors1977
Career: Federal Judge Clerk and Associate at Dearborn & Ewin1978
Successful Trial Lawyer from 1978-1998
Partner at private firm Edwards & Kirby
Served one-term as U.S. Senator from North Carolina
He was VP running mate in Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign 2004
Director of the Center on Poverty at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Senior Adviser and Consultant to Fortress Investment Group 2005
Established One America Committee, a political action committee 2001-present
Negatives: Defeat by Kerry and Dean in every state but SC for the nomination in 2004
He and Kerry didn't carry his home state of NC in 2004
He began retail campaigning in Iowa for two years prior to current primary loss
Had second place primary finish in birthplace of SC 2008
Positives: He advocates for the poor and middle class. He was chosen as Sen. John Kerry's VP running mate. He is a likeable candidate with a populist message.
Notables: Edwards is the first in his family to obtain a college degree. "Two Americas" stump speech put him in the stoplight. Was a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence when in Congress. His practice, Edwards & Kirby received the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.
Campaign Complaint: Edwards blames his lack of support on "overwhelming massive national publicity" given to his two rivals. He accuses his opponents of taking money from special interest. Read More »
The value of good leadership, judgment and competence has become more significant than mastering the bureaucratic process, after enduring eight years of a President that had previous executive experience as the former Governor of Texas. Although no job could truly prepare a person for the gravity of becoming the leader of the western world, a Governorship should be the most comparable position. Currently, the presumed better resume is being defeated by the ability to communicate and inspire a better vision for America.
Leadership
The ability to inspire, manage, guide and persuade people to accomplish a goal or task defines a good leader. Given that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill into law, a president must have the power of persuasion beyond party lines to promote an agenda. A great leader inspires and cultivates the best from followers to build a strong institution.
Judgment
Since the primary role of a President is to steer the direction of the country, the ability to make sound decisions is vital. The President operates within a structure of support staffers; advisors and executive administrators who execute and monitor the expressed objective of the leader's communicated vision. Since the wheels of government will continue to turn, should there be more emphasis on knowledge of the process or the directives? A President must discern, analyze and make estimations of information presented by advisors. Great leaders are steadfast on convictions but able to adapt to changing circumstances.
Competence
A President's ability and intellect is essential to the effectiveness of communicating and executing a successful plan for the future. Initially more was made of the punctuality and procedural discipline of the Bush administration, than the substance of the decisions and strategies. Does procedural efficiency equate to competence?
Hillary Clinton's argument of more experience in the mechanics of a system that most Americans want changed is becoming less effective. When both frontrunners have such similar policy initiatives, it has amounted to who inspires and motivates the Democratic following to build the talent and capacity for change. Obama speaks in terms of "we" and Hillary speaks in terms of "me". Although the majority of Democrats appreciate the contributions the Clintons have made to advance the Party, some do not subscribe to the "it's my turn posturing."
Strong, successful and special leaders are not just born of charismatic attributes; they are developed from comprehending the lessons of life experience. The American people increasingly appear to embrace Obama's experience of supporting a middle class family, navigating between ethnic communities, unifying legislators in Chicago to pass difficult bills, adding sophistication and respect to the political discourse, overcoming enormous obstacles to even be a contender, promoting optimism and facilitating change through leading a tremendous organization of supporters. The American people value a candidate that challenges and renews their faith and dreams for the future, not just entrenched in the practicalities of the process of the presidency.
Leadership
The ability to inspire, manage, guide and persuade people to accomplish a goal or task defines a good leader. Given that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill into law, a president must have the power of persuasion beyond party lines to promote an agenda. A great leader inspires and cultivates the best from followers to build a strong institution.
Judgment
Since the primary role of a President is to steer the direction of the country, the ability to make sound decisions is vital. The President operates within a structure of support staffers; advisors and executive administrators who execute and monitor the expressed objective of the leader's communicated vision. Since the wheels of government will continue to turn, should there be more emphasis on knowledge of the process or the directives? A President must discern, analyze and make estimations of information presented by advisors. Great leaders are steadfast on convictions but able to adapt to changing circumstances.
Competence
A President's ability and intellect is essential to the effectiveness of communicating and executing a successful plan for the future. Initially more was made of the punctuality and procedural discipline of the Bush administration, than the substance of the decisions and strategies. Does procedural efficiency equate to competence?
Hillary Clinton's argument of more experience in the mechanics of a system that most Americans want changed is becoming less effective. When both frontrunners have such similar policy initiatives, it has amounted to who inspires and motivates the Democratic following to build the talent and capacity for change. Obama speaks in terms of "we" and Hillary speaks in terms of "me". Although the majority of Democrats appreciate the contributions the Clintons have made to advance the Party, some do not subscribe to the "it's my turn posturing."
Strong, successful and special leaders are not just born of charismatic attributes; they are developed from comprehending the lessons of life experience. The American people increasingly appear to embrace Obama's experience of supporting a middle class family, navigating between ethnic communities, unifying legislators in Chicago to pass difficult bills, adding sophistication and respect to the political discourse, overcoming enormous obstacles to even be a contender, promoting optimism and facilitating change through leading a tremendous organization of supporters. The American people value a candidate that challenges and renews their faith and dreams for the future, not just entrenched in the practicalities of the process of the presidency.
A little over forty years ago, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed the Jim Crow laws that segregated African Americans in all facets of public life. Although African Americans are no longer forced to enter through the backdoor, are they forced to leave their "blackness" there in order to succeed? Must African Americans homogenize or neutralize their ethnicity to appeal to the mass.
For all that is made about Oprah's campaigning for Obama, it is suspected that she will do little to gain in the black community. It appears that Michelle Obama has more authenticity and creditability in this 85% voting block for the Democrats. Fair or not, there has long been criticism of Oprah's lack of being vocal on issues of importance to the black community. There has always been a quiet community accusation of desertion and complacency waged at some of the most prominent African Americans such as; Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas. There are conflicting fractions of the African American community on promoting prosperity and equality in the minority community. There is the demand, bulldoze and rebuild the broken systems approach and the other work within the failing system to promote change approach.
Are minority candidates forced to overcompensate to quiet fears of them gaining office and making sweeping policies that benefit only their limited interest? In the pursuit of mass appeal, does a female or minority candidate have to suppress their identity or speak quietly on issues affecting their peer group? Perhaps this is the reason the only Democratic candidate avidly speaking to issues that strongly affect women and minorities is John Edwards a Caucasian man. Edward's, "Two Americas" theme resonates with minority communities. Recently, Hilary Clinton's femininity caused a controversy when she showed a little cleavage. Barack Obama merely whispered on the issue of black defendant's disparity in sentencing, highlighted by the Jena 6 and the new high court ruling in powder vs. crack cocaine sentencing guidelines.
A great deal of the public has heard of his mixed heritage; a black African Kenyan father and white Kansan mother. Since we don't have our percentages of ethnicity stamped on us and given his ethnic appearance, Obama had to experience life as a black man. Surely, the disclosure or discovery of his mixed race by others, allowed him no free pass from discrimination. The implicit fear is that a minority, if elected, will heavy handedly attempt to right the government sanctioned wrongs of the not so distant past or implement policies to remedy the effects of discrimination. So, how does he keep a balance of calming fears on one hand and not appearing neglectful on the other? To break the monumental barrier, Barack Hussein Obama must speak and stay rooted in the intricate fabric that makes both he and this colorful country unique. He must lead through the front door, with authenticity, pride and with all the understanding that his unique diverse experience garners.
Tonya J
For all that is made about Oprah's campaigning for Obama, it is suspected that she will do little to gain in the black community. It appears that Michelle Obama has more authenticity and creditability in this 85% voting block for the Democrats. Fair or not, there has long been criticism of Oprah's lack of being vocal on issues of importance to the black community. There has always been a quiet community accusation of desertion and complacency waged at some of the most prominent African Americans such as; Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas. There are conflicting fractions of the African American community on promoting prosperity and equality in the minority community. There is the demand, bulldoze and rebuild the broken systems approach and the other work within the failing system to promote change approach.
Are minority candidates forced to overcompensate to quiet fears of them gaining office and making sweeping policies that benefit only their limited interest? In the pursuit of mass appeal, does a female or minority candidate have to suppress their identity or speak quietly on issues affecting their peer group? Perhaps this is the reason the only Democratic candidate avidly speaking to issues that strongly affect women and minorities is John Edwards a Caucasian man. Edward's, "Two Americas" theme resonates with minority communities. Recently, Hilary Clinton's femininity caused a controversy when she showed a little cleavage. Barack Obama merely whispered on the issue of black defendant's disparity in sentencing, highlighted by the Jena 6 and the new high court ruling in powder vs. crack cocaine sentencing guidelines.
A great deal of the public has heard of his mixed heritage; a black African Kenyan father and white Kansan mother. Since we don't have our percentages of ethnicity stamped on us and given his ethnic appearance, Obama had to experience life as a black man. Surely, the disclosure or discovery of his mixed race by others, allowed him no free pass from discrimination. The implicit fear is that a minority, if elected, will heavy handedly attempt to right the government sanctioned wrongs of the not so distant past or implement policies to remedy the effects of discrimination. So, how does he keep a balance of calming fears on one hand and not appearing neglectful on the other? To break the monumental barrier, Barack Hussein Obama must speak and stay rooted in the intricate fabric that makes both he and this colorful country unique. He must lead through the front door, with authenticity, pride and with all the understanding that his unique diverse experience garners.
Tonya J
I was managing a promotional event of a new business in O’Fallon Missouri an emerging suburbanized city with a per capita income of at least $22,000. While canvassing and inviting neighboring businesses to a grand opening, I met a young pregnant mother. The woman’s sweaty face was pale and her cheeks were flushed. She waddled, holding the tiny hand of her little blond pigtailed daughter. The little girl skipped to keep up with her mother’s movements, as she struggled to the payday loan business. The stress on her face increased as she read the “I will return sign” on the door. After I asked if she was okay, she pointed to her vehicle and shared her situation. She had run out of gas and was attempting to get a loan of $20 until her Friday payday. She informed that she worked overtime but barely survived on her wage before the high gas prices but now she couldn’t get through the week. Although she did not ask for a handout, I give her the $20. After she asked for a card to return the money, I encouraged her to just pass on the blessing when she is able.
The encounter with the woman in O’Fallon prompted my research of the recent Congressional debate over the minimum wage increase. The minimum wage increases to $5.85/hour as of July 24, 2007, $12,168/annually before taxes. The increase ended the longest period without a federal minimum wage increase since the enactment in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The last increase, raising the minimum wage to $5.15/hour was in 1997 signed by President Bill Clinton.
The new Democratic majority's “100-Hour Plan” in the House included the first initiative to increase in a decade. All 233 House Democrats and 82 Republicans voted for the bill. The bill was voted down by 116 Republican representatives. Although the Democratic Senators were unanimous in their support of the bill, all but five Republican Senators voted no. After the Bush advocated tax cuts for small business were added, the bill passed 94 to 3. 3 Republicans rejected the bill; 1 Republican and 2 Democrats did not vote. The legislation was signed by President Bush in May 2007, as a rider to the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The minimum wage will increase 70 cents each summer until July 2009 to $7.25/hour, that’s $15080 before taxes.
The increase does little to diminish the poverty of the full-time working poor. The earnings of an estimated 13 million workers will increase. The majority of the workers receiving minimum wage are adults over 20, mostly female, single parents with kids under 18 and minorities. Inflation, the rising cost of living, high fuel cost, etc. nullify the modest income gain. According to Congressional research, if the cost of living was factored the minimum wage should be over $9.
While there will always be businesses that complain of the negative effects of an increase on their bottom line, there are others who understand the value of having a work force that can afford to purchase the goods and services they produce. Furthermore the claim of job loss do to a minimum wage increase has never been established. Minimum wage was meant to be a starting guideline, not the standard. Some businesses have connected the value of better employee retention, an increase in productivity, a reduction in absenteeism and employee morale with increased profits. There are successful companies, like Intel Corp., Timberland Co., Starbucks Coffee Co. and Whole Foods that are focused on integrating business and societal values.
The Republican opponents of the minimum wage increase have a fundamentally different approach to their counterparts concerns of remedying income inequality. The Republicans view tax cuts on capital gains, estate taxes, lower taxes on the upper income, and the reduction of corporate incomes taxes as economic stimulus that will circulate from the top to the bottom of the economic sphere; coined as “trickle-down economics”. I heard someone ask, what do you buy someone that has everything? I propose, what do you buy when you already have everything? Who are the real consumers and the economic stimuli? I offer it as the middle and lower earners who tapped into equity in their homes and spent as Bush advised after 911. Enron became the negative symbol of deregulation and corporate greed. The wealthy and the business community have to sometimes be reminded to pass on the blessings.
The gap between the wealthy and poor continues to grow. Despite economic growth, many of the “real wage increase” gains of those on the bottom of the scale in the 1990’s were eroded in the weak labor market of the current economic recovery. The total focus for many corporate citizens and policy makers has been on economic growth and shareholders, with little regard for a balanced distribution of income. We must remain committed to the average American’s contribution to the national economy and not just to the “BIG GUY”. Hard work is presumed to lift you out of poverty, this theory is essential to the “American dream.”
Tonya J
The encounter with the woman in O’Fallon prompted my research of the recent Congressional debate over the minimum wage increase. The minimum wage increases to $5.85/hour as of July 24, 2007, $12,168/annually before taxes. The increase ended the longest period without a federal minimum wage increase since the enactment in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The last increase, raising the minimum wage to $5.15/hour was in 1997 signed by President Bill Clinton.
The new Democratic majority's “100-Hour Plan” in the House included the first initiative to increase in a decade. All 233 House Democrats and 82 Republicans voted for the bill. The bill was voted down by 116 Republican representatives. Although the Democratic Senators were unanimous in their support of the bill, all but five Republican Senators voted no. After the Bush advocated tax cuts for small business were added, the bill passed 94 to 3. 3 Republicans rejected the bill; 1 Republican and 2 Democrats did not vote. The legislation was signed by President Bush in May 2007, as a rider to the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. The minimum wage will increase 70 cents each summer until July 2009 to $7.25/hour, that’s $15080 before taxes.
The increase does little to diminish the poverty of the full-time working poor. The earnings of an estimated 13 million workers will increase. The majority of the workers receiving minimum wage are adults over 20, mostly female, single parents with kids under 18 and minorities. Inflation, the rising cost of living, high fuel cost, etc. nullify the modest income gain. According to Congressional research, if the cost of living was factored the minimum wage should be over $9.
While there will always be businesses that complain of the negative effects of an increase on their bottom line, there are others who understand the value of having a work force that can afford to purchase the goods and services they produce. Furthermore the claim of job loss do to a minimum wage increase has never been established. Minimum wage was meant to be a starting guideline, not the standard. Some businesses have connected the value of better employee retention, an increase in productivity, a reduction in absenteeism and employee morale with increased profits. There are successful companies, like Intel Corp., Timberland Co., Starbucks Coffee Co. and Whole Foods that are focused on integrating business and societal values.
The Republican opponents of the minimum wage increase have a fundamentally different approach to their counterparts concerns of remedying income inequality. The Republicans view tax cuts on capital gains, estate taxes, lower taxes on the upper income, and the reduction of corporate incomes taxes as economic stimulus that will circulate from the top to the bottom of the economic sphere; coined as “trickle-down economics”. I heard someone ask, what do you buy someone that has everything? I propose, what do you buy when you already have everything? Who are the real consumers and the economic stimuli? I offer it as the middle and lower earners who tapped into equity in their homes and spent as Bush advised after 911. Enron became the negative symbol of deregulation and corporate greed. The wealthy and the business community have to sometimes be reminded to pass on the blessings.
The gap between the wealthy and poor continues to grow. Despite economic growth, many of the “real wage increase” gains of those on the bottom of the scale in the 1990’s were eroded in the weak labor market of the current economic recovery. The total focus for many corporate citizens and policy makers has been on economic growth and shareholders, with little regard for a balanced distribution of income. We must remain committed to the average American’s contribution to the national economy and not just to the “BIG GUY”. Hard work is presumed to lift you out of poverty, this theory is essential to the “American dream.”
Tonya J
After the announcement of Carl Rove leaving his position in the White House, I thought of the obvious role successful marketing played during his term. Carl Rove, labeled the architect, has worn many different hats such as political campaign and fundraising strategist, deputy chief of staff and a senior adviser to the president. He has been credited with coining some successful party phases and policies such as compassionate conservative, tax relief, tax and spender, flip-flopper, faith based initiative and the practice of labeling the opposition unpatriotic. What can we the public learn of ourselves from Rove's tenure, during this political season? Without any judgment of the actual issues, policies or platforms, how does the power of language and marketing tap into the American psyche?
Although he's been labeled a political genius, Rove and his camp simply adapted proven tools that advertisers and marketing reps have utilize in branding products and services for years. He was instrumental in his party uniformly regurgitating the same simple messages, slogans and platitudes until they rang in our heads as a bubble gum pop tune in heavy rotation. Everyone from conservative talk shows, political pundits, party operatives, cabinet members and the president continuously recited the same simple messages and slogans. Whether you agreed with the parties message of the minute or not, you sure could recall it. Remnants of Bush's reelection propaganda such as flip-flopper has become a part of the everyday political speak.
Rove vowed to make the republican party the majority by courting the so called middle, evangelicals, Catholics and Hispanics. The "faith based initiative", in which the administration gave federal tax dollars to faith based charities or churches, was a part of building the alliance with the church. Before his reelection, when referring to the call for the constitutional ban on gay marriage, he would state he was "defending the institution of marriage". Bush's constant references to his faith, the "faith based initiative" and call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage were all effective in energizing the base and getting evangelicals to promote the party. Some voters in the middle had issue with conservatives appearing mean spirited, so "compassionate conservative" was termed to appease them.
The party employed and enlisted the aid of notable pollsters, pundits and media personalities to promote and tailor their message. It was discovered that Armstrong Williams, a political commentator, was compensated by the Bush administration for communicating favorable views of the party and issues. Frank Luntz, a political strategist and pollster, was contributed with changing public sentiment even of the inheritance tax by encouraging the use of the term "The Death Tax." When most Americans will not die leaving estates totaling over two million dollars, changing the language made them care. Also, he was said to have assisted Bush's second term bid to defuse it's policies on "Global Warming" by rephrasing and softening the term to "Climate Changes".
Although the practice of promoting propaganda is not exclusive to conservatives and republicans, they have successfully mastered the power of language and marketing. They treat the party as a business that rolls out an advertising campaign to promote the parties latest produce or issue. Can you remember any slogans from across the political spectrum? Republicans and conservatives were not only successful in transforming their party image, they redefined their opposition. They have made liberalism, which at one time stood for progressiveness, tolerance and fairness in the distribution of wealth; a bad word.
We would hope that we are not as gullible as children wanting the latest packaged toy presented during Saturday morning cartoons, but the majority of us want everything entertaining, easy and packaged pretty. It is frightening that because people behave as sheep led to the slaughter, it is possible to have another Hitler like character in the world. We must be engaged, active participants in the future of our country; not wasted space. The artful use of some euphemisms, doesn't make bullsxxx smell like roses; it still stinks. It is our duty as citizens of this great land to tune in and not to succumb to crafty marketed messages. What ever your political leanings, demand and seek substance; not settling for slogans and sound bites.
Tonya J
Although he's been labeled a political genius, Rove and his camp simply adapted proven tools that advertisers and marketing reps have utilize in branding products and services for years. He was instrumental in his party uniformly regurgitating the same simple messages, slogans and platitudes until they rang in our heads as a bubble gum pop tune in heavy rotation. Everyone from conservative talk shows, political pundits, party operatives, cabinet members and the president continuously recited the same simple messages and slogans. Whether you agreed with the parties message of the minute or not, you sure could recall it. Remnants of Bush's reelection propaganda such as flip-flopper has become a part of the everyday political speak.
Rove vowed to make the republican party the majority by courting the so called middle, evangelicals, Catholics and Hispanics. The "faith based initiative", in which the administration gave federal tax dollars to faith based charities or churches, was a part of building the alliance with the church. Before his reelection, when referring to the call for the constitutional ban on gay marriage, he would state he was "defending the institution of marriage". Bush's constant references to his faith, the "faith based initiative" and call for a constitutional ban on gay marriage were all effective in energizing the base and getting evangelicals to promote the party. Some voters in the middle had issue with conservatives appearing mean spirited, so "compassionate conservative" was termed to appease them.
The party employed and enlisted the aid of notable pollsters, pundits and media personalities to promote and tailor their message. It was discovered that Armstrong Williams, a political commentator, was compensated by the Bush administration for communicating favorable views of the party and issues. Frank Luntz, a political strategist and pollster, was contributed with changing public sentiment even of the inheritance tax by encouraging the use of the term "The Death Tax." When most Americans will not die leaving estates totaling over two million dollars, changing the language made them care. Also, he was said to have assisted Bush's second term bid to defuse it's policies on "Global Warming" by rephrasing and softening the term to "Climate Changes".
Although the practice of promoting propaganda is not exclusive to conservatives and republicans, they have successfully mastered the power of language and marketing. They treat the party as a business that rolls out an advertising campaign to promote the parties latest produce or issue. Can you remember any slogans from across the political spectrum? Republicans and conservatives were not only successful in transforming their party image, they redefined their opposition. They have made liberalism, which at one time stood for progressiveness, tolerance and fairness in the distribution of wealth; a bad word.
We would hope that we are not as gullible as children wanting the latest packaged toy presented during Saturday morning cartoons, but the majority of us want everything entertaining, easy and packaged pretty. It is frightening that because people behave as sheep led to the slaughter, it is possible to have another Hitler like character in the world. We must be engaged, active participants in the future of our country; not wasted space. The artful use of some euphemisms, doesn't make bullsxxx smell like roses; it still stinks. It is our duty as citizens of this great land to tune in and not to succumb to crafty marketed messages. What ever your political leanings, demand and seek substance; not settling for slogans and sound bites.
Tonya J
Democrats are unified in the commitment to end the Iraq war, provide affordable healthcare, restore public trust through ethics and transparency in government, economic prosperity for average Americans, security at home but respect abroad, reducing our dependency on foreign oil, improving and allocating the funds for public education, cutting taxes for the working class not the wealthy, equal opportunity and civil rights, a cleaner and greener environment and cutting the deficit. With there being mostly minor logistical contrast on the issues in the Democratic field of possible nominees; publicly the race is said to boil down to experience, judgment, change and trustworthiness. Although, most of the party is content with their field of possible candidates, the top contenders generate fears of electability.
Privately, there are discussions of Hilary Clinton's appearance of pandering, her likeability, a fear of rehashing old scandal from her husband's administration and her ability to invigorate the opposition. Her strongest attribute, experience, comes as a result of her stint as an unconventionally involved first lady in positive economic times. Some argue that her healthcare agenda failure as first lady is evidence of her polarizing manner and lack of strategic finesse. She may be plagued with the same difficulties Kerry had in explaining the vote for the Iraq war resolution to the party's anti-war base. Opponents have already questioned why her experience didn't lead to better judgment on giving Bush a blank check for war. Even her ability to keep her cool under fire is offered as evidence of impassiveness and cunningness. Her Republican opponents are armed and waiting to make each of her positives serve as ammunition. But despite her venomous opposition, Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her ability to win by winning two senate terms.
Obama being a fresh face has less baggage, but is not without obstacles to overcome. His experience and readiness to tackle the difficulties of the country is continually questioned. Many political commentators question why one of the most consistent democratic voting blocks, African Americans, are not supporting Obama. Some have speculated that he just isn't known in the black community. Do they really believe that a black man is actually a viable candidate for president and his community isn't tuned in? Could it be that African American's experiences suggest to them that the country is not truly ready to elect someone who looks like them? Many watched Harold Ford, an African American pro-life democratic Rep from Tennessee running for the Senate; inspire adverse ads and commercials with racial overtones. Above all else, African Americans are not unlike all Democrats that just want to support a candidate that can win in the general election. Obama may win the popularity contest but will the rockstar like admiration translate into votes?
Is the country really ready to elect an ethnic president when political talk shows that scapegoat minorities for all the country's ills increasingly grow in popularity? This sentiment seems to strike a cord with discontented individuals looking to explain their lack of personal achievement or prosperity. When women makeup more than half of the work force but earn 80% of what men earn, has society's value of women really changed? Will the same citizens that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hilary Clinton just because of her gender, vote for Obama an African American? Can a person of color or a woman really win when you view the electoral map of red and blue? How is it that the leader of the free world is not among some of the surprising countries that have and had female presidents and prime ministers? Hope is more than a small town in Arkansas.
Tonya J
Privately, there are discussions of Hilary Clinton's appearance of pandering, her likeability, a fear of rehashing old scandal from her husband's administration and her ability to invigorate the opposition. Her strongest attribute, experience, comes as a result of her stint as an unconventionally involved first lady in positive economic times. Some argue that her healthcare agenda failure as first lady is evidence of her polarizing manner and lack of strategic finesse. She may be plagued with the same difficulties Kerry had in explaining the vote for the Iraq war resolution to the party's anti-war base. Opponents have already questioned why her experience didn't lead to better judgment on giving Bush a blank check for war. Even her ability to keep her cool under fire is offered as evidence of impassiveness and cunningness. Her Republican opponents are armed and waiting to make each of her positives serve as ammunition. But despite her venomous opposition, Mrs. Clinton has demonstrated her ability to win by winning two senate terms.
Obama being a fresh face has less baggage, but is not without obstacles to overcome. His experience and readiness to tackle the difficulties of the country is continually questioned. Many political commentators question why one of the most consistent democratic voting blocks, African Americans, are not supporting Obama. Some have speculated that he just isn't known in the black community. Do they really believe that a black man is actually a viable candidate for president and his community isn't tuned in? Could it be that African American's experiences suggest to them that the country is not truly ready to elect someone who looks like them? Many watched Harold Ford, an African American pro-life democratic Rep from Tennessee running for the Senate; inspire adverse ads and commercials with racial overtones. Above all else, African Americans are not unlike all Democrats that just want to support a candidate that can win in the general election. Obama may win the popularity contest but will the rockstar like admiration translate into votes?
Is the country really ready to elect an ethnic president when political talk shows that scapegoat minorities for all the country's ills increasingly grow in popularity? This sentiment seems to strike a cord with discontented individuals looking to explain their lack of personal achievement or prosperity. When women makeup more than half of the work force but earn 80% of what men earn, has society's value of women really changed? Will the same citizens that couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hilary Clinton just because of her gender, vote for Obama an African American? Can a person of color or a woman really win when you view the electoral map of red and blue? How is it that the leader of the free world is not among some of the surprising countries that have and had female presidents and prime ministers? Hope is more than a small town in Arkansas.
Tonya J