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.

McCain and his camp has diminished and offended African American's daily experiences of dealing with race in America by terming our experiences as a "race card". Race isn"t something that could just be pulled out when it's convenient. Whether valid or not, questions of Obama being up for the task, echoes the all too familiar societal message of inferiority that African Americans continue to encounter. Some have even voiced that the odd elitist claims waged by other candidates of major means are reminiscent or born of the "old uppity negro" sentiments. Why is it that other candidates are free to wage their complaints or challenges but Obama isn't free to merely suggest the obvious that some have used surface characteristics as his full name, religion and color of his skin to advance public feelings of mistrust?

Unlike his opponents, instead of complaining about the cards being stacked against him, Obama has played well the cards he was dealt. So it only balances the bad hand he was dealt, if Barack Obama possesses some attributes that garners him some attention. Obama must keep his winning strategy of promoting his strengths and plans for the country, and not play into McCain's game of "politics of personal destruction". Despite having to prove who he's not in showing who he is, the once little known senator from Illinois has become both a national and international inspiration. He has inspired others to also have the audacity to believe that the glass ceiling is cracking and that their opportunities are truly limitless.