jweiii

It’s just what France (and the world) has been waiting for – the real story behind the marriage of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and his third wife Carla.

And that’s exactly what it’s going to get on Thursday – apparently – with the release of a new book “La V

The French justice minister, Rachida Dati, has once again shown that she has a less than a firm grasp of her job by doing a complete volte face in a case that has been making the headlines here in France over the past week.

On Monday Dati asked the public prosecutors office to appeal a court ruling, which had annulled a marriage because the wife had lied about being a virgin.

When the case first came to public attention last week, Dati refused to intervene (she actually supported the decision by the court). But a heated debate has since raged – largely fuelled by the media – and the justice minister (or is it the president, Nicolas Sarkozy?) has now decided it’s time to act.

The case involves a man who suspected that his bride – also a Moslem – had lied about being a virgin before they were married in 2006.

His wife at first assured him she was “pure” but later revealed that she had indeed had sex before marriage. The wife returned to her family “in disgrace” and although she was initially reluctant to assent to her husband’s request to seek an annulment, she eventually agreed.

In April a judge in the northern French city of Lille granted the couple’s request for an annulment on the grounds that the man had been “mistaken about the essential qualities” of his wife-to-be. Such a term of course leaves the door wide open for a myriad of potential interpretations.

The media didn’t actually get wind of the story until last week but not surprisingly once it broke it created an uproar with many politicians, women’s rights campaigners and leading French Moslem figures denouncing the court’s ruling as both a breach of a woman’s privacy and an offence – in legal terms – to the equality of men and women.

While the debate raged Dati appeared to say very little and do even less – until that is her immediate boss, the prime minister, Fran

Just when many Americans believed that Barack Obama’s success in the Democratic primary was a sign that racial divisions were mending, racism has reappeared and threatens to curtail the progress that has been made.

Lyndon LaRouche recently compared Obama, one of the most successful Blacks in politics, to a monkey and referred to his mother as a race-mixing slut, comparing her to Margaret Mead, a woman who had various husbands of various ethnic backgrounds.

“If you chase Obama’s family tree, everybody’s climbing and swinging from the branches there—from all over the world,” LaRouche stated. “Every monkey in every tree from every part of the world, has participated in the sexual act of producing him. And he works for organized crime—which is a branch of British intelligence.

According to Dennis King of lyndonlarouchewatch.org, LaRouche’s followers “seeking a political alliance around seemingly legitimate issues” have approached Blacks in politics for their assistance.

“The LaRouche people are trained in deceptive tactics,” King said, “and have scored successes from time to time. I hope that ministers, state legislators and others in the Black community who’ve been tricked into lending their names to some LaRouche-sponsored conference or rally—and also White liberals like Ed Asner who’ve become enamored of LaRouche—will look at the evidence … If they do, I think many of them will agree that it’s time to sever all ties with the LaRouche network.”

A further look at some of LaRouche’s past writings shows that he views the Black community as a subhuman culture. He supported the apartheid government of South Africa from the 1970s to the mid-1990s and has been associated with the Ku Klux Klan and other White supremacists.

Comments such as the ones made by LaRouche and the media’s obsession with the fiery rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright has led many like Joy Behar of “The View” to believe that Obama’s opponents are using racial fear to “sabotage” his campaign, and that of other highly regarded Blacks in politics.

Since the release of Wright’s incendiary remarks, the Black community and prestigious Blacks in politics have had to defend Obama and his historic bid at the White House.

A candidate who has spent his entire political life defending the rights of all citizens, not just those in the Black community, has had to constantly answer questions about his close relationship with his former pastor and whether or not he shares the same views.

It would be hard to believe, that John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic in the White House, would have had to endure the same scrutiny if his priest and spiritual advisor faced accusations of sexually molesting young children.

No one would think for a moment that Kennedy was a child molester, simply because his priest allegedly molested children.

However, for Blacks in politics like Obama, serious issues like health care, high gas prices and a never-ending war are pushed to the background because of mainstream media’s determination to derail his once unstoppable momentum.

It is important that the Black community and White community realize the insignificance of Wright’s remarks. Because after all, people like Wright and LaRouche are not running for president, and their views are irrelevant.

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men

In the wake of a tragedy we are often left in a state of complete and utter shock. Especially in events where our homes are destroyed and our loves one separated from us, our minds are the furthest thing from rational or clear. The unfortunate part about this fact is that it is in times like these that a clear head is the most important thing we can have. When events such as these happen, it is our family, friends, and neighbors in our communities that often come to our aid, providing relief and support where needed. When disaster hits on a broader scale, however, and it affects entire cities, counties, and states, what happens then? Enter the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Since 1979, this organization’s efforts have played vitals roles in the lives of millions of citizens who have fallen victim to natural disasters across the nation. With almost 30 years past, and five presidents overseeing this agency, it has undergone reorganization and changes aimed at making it a better responsive resource for the citizens of the United States in times of urgent need. Ironically enough, it is this reorganization, among many things, that have caused for this organization to fail at its primary task of responding efficiently and effectively in times of national crisis.

One of the worst disasters in American history is the San Francisco earthquake of 1906. Almost eight hundred citizens died and over two hundred and fifty thousand were left homeless as a result of the earthquake and its resulting damage. (Kernell, p.77) In the aftermath of the earthquake federal and state government officials were unable to immediately communicate with San Francisco authorities regarding the damage and needed assistance. When word finally made it through, the disaster was on a scale nobody had ever seen. Mass looting and chaos eventually led the city’s mayor and the state governor to request President Roosevelt for assistance. Roosevelt’s response was to use the United States Military and the American Red Cross as well as private party support from across the country. (Kernell, p. 78-79) The aid of these institutions and people was dysfunctional and controversial, as no central direction was given for the enormous task of coordinating all rescues, relief and rebuilding efforts. The resulting lesson was that in times of crisis, local governments who are also often rendered inoperable, have a serious need for national support in most all aspects of response. Over the next sixty years, various measures were taken to implement programs and response plans into national government entities in preparation for another major disaster. Multiple organizations were setup to be responsive to specific aspects of need. (fema.gov, history 3/11) Although doing much better in comparison to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the federal government’s involvement was still inefficient in disaster times. In 1979, the National Governor’s Association urged President Jimmy Carter to centralize the leadership of the various federal organizations and programs involved in emergency response. (fema.gov, history 3/11) President Carter’s response was Executive Order 12148. This order created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and effectively consolidated the leadership of the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from Housing and Urban Development. Additionally it would oversee army responsibilities transferred from the Defense Department’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency. (fema.gov history 3/11) FEMA’s abilities were tested shortly after its creation with various smaller-scale situations and the agency’s inception proved to be beneficial. Although kinks in the organization were still being worked out, a sense of order seemed to be brought to the local governments of areas fallen victim to disasters. (fema.gov, history 3/11). Approximately ten years after its creation, FEMA faced its first large-scale natural disaster, ironically enough, in San Francisco. “The 1989 San Francisco earthquake snapped sections of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The disaster triggered massive federal assistance and efficient disaster relief efforts, in stark contrast to the failures of volunteerism and state efforts so evident in 1906.” (Kernell, p. 79) This tribute to efficiency and organization is largely as a result of FEMA and the efforts coordinated under its leadership and training. Only two months prior to the earthquake FEMA had conducted a training exercise for emergency response and government officials in relation to such an earthquake scenario. (Kernell, p 78). This is evidence of a successful direction of the organization shortly after its implementation and a far superior response comparatively to the 1906 quake. The direction of FEMA following the 89’ earthquake was towards building on the already demonstrated strengths of the organization, a valuable asset to this country.

Despite its relatively short existence, FEMA’s structure has had a rollercoaster history. Its initial establishment as an independent regulatory agency was eventually elevated to cabinet-level leadership by President Clinton, only to be reorganized as an agency under the new Department of Homeland Security by current President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in his Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. (dhs.gov, emergencies and disasters, 3-11) The current organization of the agency carries a Director (the Under-Secretary), four divisions, fourteen offices, and ten regions. (fema.gov, structure 3-11). The Director position is currently vacant but acting Director is Robert David Paulison, who reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. The four divisions, which the agency defines as domains of emergency management, are mitigation, preparedness, recovery, and response. They have very distinct roles and the heads of these divisions report to Interim Director Paulison. (fema.gov, structure, 3-11) (dhs.gov, dhs organization, 3-11) Interim Director Paulison is a Democrat from Florida who also currently serves as the Director of the National Preparedness Division of FEMA. He was appointed by President Bush in 2001 to lead the United States Fire Administration and served in that capacity until 2003 when he was promoted. Former FEMA director Michael Brown was relieved of command in 2005 following much controversy surrounding FEMA’s response performance to Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast of the United States in August 2005. Paulison was selected to temporarily replace Brown and the position has yet to be filled. (Fournier, AP 9-12-05). The responsibilities of the agency, which have also been adjusted a lot, are to primarily respond to United States disasters as declared by the President. It works heavily with different organizations at all governmental levels, leading and coordinating the response effort and eventually the financial assistance for the rebuilding effort. While much of its management powers have been relocated to the Department of Homeland Security, the agency still oversees the National Flood Insurance Program. (dhs.gov, emergency response and preparedness, 3-11) This jumbling and exchanging of the organizational structure and responsibilities is credited by critics as being one of the largest reasons for the failure of the agency during Hurricane Katrina. (Editorial 2-16-06, Columbus Dispatch)

The arguments about the strengths and weaknesses of FEMA as an agency are tough to make for the fact that the reorganization of the agency has practically created a brand new organization in comparison to the pre-9/11 FEMA. Following the enormity of Hurricane Katrina and the terrible response to the destruction that plagued the southern states, demands for investigations into the slow response of FEMA and other governmental bodies including the White House and the Department of Homeland Security were rampant. The agency’s current positions, critics argue, leaves it with less money to fund federal disaster relief efforts because of increased spending on the fight on terrorism and the agency’s belonging to the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, the mass reorganization of twenty-two federal agencies into the Department of Homeland Security is often citied by critics as a major reason for failed relief efforts during Katrina.

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown has been castigated for his agency’s failure to respond competently to the Gulf Coast disaster, but The Post’s investigation showed that he had been bitterly protesting for two years about the shifting of some of FEMA’s responsibility to other agencies in the reorganization. In a September 2003 memo to then-Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, Brown wrote that moving some of FEMA’s emergency-preparedness functions elsewhere would “shatter agency morale” and “break longstanding, effective and tested relationships with states and first-responder stakeholders” and could result in “an ineffective and uncoordinated response” to a disaster. –Editorial 2-16-06, Columbus Dispatch

A major strength of the organization lies in its recognition with the citizens of the United States. Its well-known responsibilities given its enormous work in the last 26 years have elevated the agency to a position of leadership in times of a disaster crisis. Thus, the coordinating and management of smaller agencies, governments, and private companies during such times is beginning to move smoother and for that reason. Well the debate on the topic of FEMA’s strengths and weaknesses is never-ending, one thing is clear; this agency is a relatively young one that is still experiencing growing pains and figuring out how to operate among mass changes and in primarily chaotic times.

Very clearly this organization is failing. Hurricane Katrina is one of the largest disasters in our nation’s history. Like the earthquake of 1906, victims of that disaster were left stranded, by themselves, in complete and utter shock. The prevailing opinion is that FEMA’s response to the disaster was nothing close to what it should or could have been. The real question is why is this organization failing? Evidence of streamlined operations and ever-increasing performance quality was making itself apparent in the early 90’s and President Clinton’s action of bringing the agency to cabinet level only helped that process move forward. The response of FEMA to the terrorist attack of 9/11 was within minutes of the first plane striking the tower. It played the major role in the distribution of the almost all of the raised funds. However, the new directive of President Bush to reorganize FEMA under the new DHS has proven to be the cause for failure as it has not been since before the agency’s existence that we have seen such a failed federal response to a large-scale natural disaster. Predictions of the reorganization’s implication on FEMA’s performance were made when former director Brown first heard of the plan. According to The Washington Post’s investigation, Brown shouted these concerns at the top of his lungs for months prior to Katrina. Once Hurricane Katrina happened, the federal government even ignored offers to help there were so disorganized (Editorial, Chicago Tribune) It is unfortunate that this consolidation attempt is so seriously impacting the performance of the organization and the outcry for its reestablishment as its own agency needs to be considered immediately.

Works Cited

Editorial Board. “Daley ‘Shocked’ At Federal Snub of Offers to Help.” Chicago Tribune 2 Sept. 2005. ProQuest. UMD Library, Duluth, MN. 11 Mar. 2006.

Editorial Board. “Fix What’s Broken; Post-Hurricane Reports Make Clear That Homeland Security’s FEMA Setup Doesn’t Work.” Columbus Dispatch 16 Feb. 2006. ProQuest. UMD Library, Duluth, MN. 11 Mar. 2006.

“Emergencies & Disasters.” Department of Homeland Security. 11 Mar. 2006.

Fournier, Ron. “Firefighter to Replace Brown as FEMA Chief.” Associated Press 12 Sept. 2005. ProQuest. UMD Library, Duluth, MN. 11 Mar. 2006.

“History.” FEMA. 11 Mar. 2006 .

Kernell, Samuel, and Jacobson Gary. The Logic of American Politics. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ P, 2006. 77-79.

“Structure.” FEMA. 11 Mar. 2006 .

Phil Forp is a contributing editor at Free Essays!

The looming mortgage crisis has affected almost everyone in all facets of life. When the homes stop selling the builders stop building, the carpenters stop nailing, the painters stop painting, paint stores stop selling and Home Depot stock hits record lows. Vertical damage is universal in almost all aspects of retail, services and durable goods. Let’s face it, America is a nation that is fueled by land development and salesmanship. One look at all of the runways across the world and you can see that we have the greatest airplane sales people in the world. Unfortunately, ingenuity, invention and production have taken a back seat to Americans selling products owned or built by other countries. For Goodness sake, GM is second in sales to Toyota now, who’d a thunk it?

The reason for this article is not to bemoan today’s economic footprint but to help people understand the most common myths that you hear about the housing and mortgage debacle. What you hear from our completely un-biased and non-partisan media auspiciously omits some of the important facts that might help the average American better understand exactly what we are up against.

Do you remember Jesse Jackson’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984 and 1988? Do you recall the hope and pride that filled the streets of the African American community during Jackson’s two campaigns? Streets filled with the chant, “run Jesse run.”

That same hope has been reborn with the announcement that Illinois Senator Barack Obama will make a run for the White House in 2008.

Many have compared Obama’s bid for the White House to John F. Kennedy’s election in 1960. At the time, many critics did not believe that the American public would elect a Catholic to the run the Oval office, but his victory over Richard Nixon captured the imagination of the American public, and started a love affair between Americans and the Kennedy family.

However, the presidential hopeful has also faced intense criticism from the African American community for not being “Black enough,” and from conservatives for his lack of experiences on many foreign and domestic issues.

At a recent forum, critics blasted Obama’s health care plan, while praising rival Hilary Clinton.

“I think he needed to know a little more about health care issues and he was just unprepared,” said Daniel Romo, 45, a member of Service Employees International, sponsors of the forum.

Despite criticisms of his health care plan, supporters praise Obama for his plan to get troops out of Iraq, beginning with a drawdown in May that would last until next March. However, many critics believe that plan is virtually impossible because President George W. Bush plans to veto any bill that calls for the withdrawal timetable.

Although Obama has discovered that support in the Black community is not guaranteed, he has picked up an endorsement from Black Entertainment Television co-founder Sheila Johnson, despite the fact that her ex-husband Robert Johnson is endorsing Clinton.

“Barack Obama’s campaign of change brings hope to America,” said Johnson.

However, the majority of African Americans in Long Island, New York support Clinton who has a long history of supporting causes that are important to them such as health care, education, and affordable housing.

Despite Clinton’s popularity in Long Island, her 40-point lead among African Americans is gone and now Obama has an 11-point lead, according to a poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post.

“Both of these candidates have enormous potential to offer, not only to the Black community, but to the country at large. Not everyone in the African American community is always of one mind, but it’s clear that the African American vote will be critical and crucial as it has been in the past three presidential elections,” said civil rights attorney Fred Brewington of Hempstead, New York.

On the contrary, many conservatives recently blasted the senator for his membership in a Black activist church that preaches a “Black Value System.”

Obama received criticism for distancing himself from the pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., who has supported Louis Farrakhan and Moammar Gadhafi in the past.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, and the political pressure that Obama has endured over the recent months, his campaign has lit a fire across America, and not just Black America.

Voters see a confident and charismatic leader that they can envision leading America in a new direction in 2008. Furthermore, his success can lead to an entire generation of young Americans changing the course of this great nation for the near future.

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men

When it finally seemed as if Barack Obama had regained momentum, after losing primaries in Ohio and Texas, critics played a card that is still polarizing today, and ultimately threatening his goal of bringing all Americans together in a turbulent era.

In the 2008 election campaign, Obama has distanced himself from his rivals, not by solely focusing on the hot-button issues that have divided Americans in the past, such as 4,000 lives lost in the Iraq War or the imminent economic recession. However, he has done so by uniting people of all colors and backgrounds to work together for the common good.

Nevertheless, past remarks by the controversial former pastor of Obama’s church in Chicago may derail some of that momentum, as some have questioned his “true” political ideologies and patriotism.

“I think it’s ridiculous to try to penalize someone for being a part of a congregation or sitting under a pastor and being responsible for whatever the pastor’s views are,” said Pastor Patricia Rickenbacker of the predominantly Black Living Hope Fellowship Baptist Church in Massapequa, N.Y.

“All the other levels that Pastor Jeremiah Wright has ministered to Obama’s family, they have developed some type of personal relationship there that is not crossed out or cancelled because there’s a difference in ideology or message. You hate the message, but you don’t hate the messenger,” she added.

Obama responded to the controversy by delivering what critics have called the most important speech on race relations since Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in 1963.

If there is a litmus test that says Black candidates must distance themselves from the Black community and leaders who are still bitter over past racial injustices, then America may not have come as far as she thinks she has.

Has White America come far enough to understand that the wounds of discrimination still hurt for the thousands who were beaten, jailed and killed so that Obama could be sitting on the cusp of history?

In addition, has Black America come far enough to realize that race relations have improved and many in the younger generation see people for the content of their character and not the color of their skin?

“I was uncertain whether Obama was going to be able to get out of the tired old racism box he was painted into. I am now more convinced than ever that Obama is the right candidate at the right time to move us into the 21st century without a whole lot of the baggage that has been weighing us down as a nation,” said Meryl Vladimer of Brooklyn, N.Y.

However, Harvey Karron stated, “Obama knew his pastor for more than 20 years. He had to have known about the hateful remarks that his pastor said against America. Yet, Obama and his wife continued to think of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a great inspiration. If Obama wanted to be a great healer, unifier and different type of politician, he should have had the strength to move his family out of that church.”

Nevertheless, Rabbi Jonathan Waxman said he often hears from congregants who do not agree with his sermons or political views, according to the Associated Press.

“Religious leaders don’t necessarily represent the views of the people in the pews. Sometimes we are deliberately provocative, knowing that not everybody will be thrilled,” said Waxman.

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men.

Many thought the day would never come. A day that all Americans could prove to their children that they could become whatever they want in life no matter what their background is. A day that Americans could put aside their differences and see their neighbors for the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Barack Obama’s stunning victory at the Iowa Caucus ignited a spark among Democratic voters, reminiscent of the days of Camelot and John F. Kennedy. Many believed that a state like Iowa, with a miniscule Black population, would never elect an African American to such a high position, but Obama’s message of change resonated in the Hawkeye State, as 37.6 percent of Iowa voters selected him to represent the Democratic party in November.

More shocking was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s third place finish with 29.5 percent of Iowa Democrats supporting the New York Senator.

According to the Associated Press, Obama’s victory marked the first time an African American candidate has won such a vital caucus or primary.

“Years from now you’ll be able to say, ‘This was the moment when it all began.’ This is the moment when we finally beat back the politics of fear and doubt and cynicism,” a victorious Obama told a crowd of supporters at a Des Moines, Iowa sports arena.

Obama dominated the college-age vote and enjoyed enormous success among Blacks in Waterloo, Iowa.

His success among African Americans should assist in his chances in November because many Black voters still believe he is not electable.

Obama’s wife Michelle believes America is ready for a Black president despite the skepticism.

“Ain’t no Black people in Iowa. Something big, something new is happening. Let’s build the future we all know is possible. Let’s show our kids that America is ready for Barack Obama right now,” said Michelle Obama at the Trumpet Awards, a gala celebrating achievement in Black America.

Despite his resounding win in Iowa, and pollsters predicting a double-digit win in the first primary of 2008, Obama finished a close second to Clinton in New Hampshire days later. Surprisingly, Clinton defeated Obama 39 percent to 37 percent in the Granite State. However, the Illinois senator was still upbeat and optimistic in defeat.

“We always knew our climb would be steep. You made it clear that at this moment in this election, there is something happening in America … You can be a new majority,” Obama told his supporters in New Hampshire. Clinton recently won the primary in Michigan and the Nevada caucus also.

According to Allen G. Breed of the A.P., “Obama’s stunning victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Iowa caucuses and strong second in New Hampshire’s primary showed he could win White votes. But some say the South Carolina contest offers a new test of his viability. Can he energize Black voters in places where their numbers could help him win in November?”

On January 26, Obama won the South Carolina primary in a landslide, winning 55 percent of the Democratic vote.

At least half of South Carolina Democrats are Black and they could have been persuaded to distance themselves from Clinton because comments she and her husband Bill Clinton made, which some people view as racially insensitive.

Clinton recently stated that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former president later said that Obama was telling a “fairy tale” about his opposition to the war in Iraq, and that he has received a free pass in this election.

Clinton later went on “Meet the Press” to explain her comments and implied that Obama was injecting race into the election.

“I think it offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous,” Obama replied.

According to the A.P., Clinton’s advisors claim that an Obama staffer has compiled examples of comments by Clinton and her surrogates that could be construed as racially insensitive. The memo later surfaced on some political Web sites.

“To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think that Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in Black issues—when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in his book—when they have been involved,” argued BET founder Bob Johnson in a reference to Obama’s past drug use.

Johnson later said he was talking about Obama’s community activism and not his past drug use.

Former North Carolina senator John Edwards replied, “I must say I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that.”

Ironically, the change that Dr. King gave his life for could be the same change that gives America its first Black president. As Obama’s campaign slogan says, it is a “change we can all believe in.”

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men

Throughout the Democratic primaries, Senator Barack Obama has dedicated his entire campaign to change. Change from the usual divisive politics and mudslinging that have characterized many presidential elections by putting more emphasis on the issues that are important to voters such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economy.

However, as Hillary Clinton continued to attack Obama’s elect-ability, the Obama camp began airing negative ads in Pennsylvania with hopes of halting some of her momentum in that crucial state.

“She’s got the kitchen sink flying, the china flying, the buffet is coming at me,” Obama said about Clinton.

In one Pennsylvania ad, Obama stated that another Clinton presidency would be better than the current Bush administration only because the bar had been set so low.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “Such comments probably led to exit poll numbers out of Pennsylvania showing about half of the voters thought he unfairly attacked Clinton. About 60 percent of the voters made their mind up in the campaigns final days.”

The Los Angeles Times also reported that more than two dozen superdelegates believed the bickering would continue for up to six weeks and ultimately strengthen the eventual nominee.

However, many believed that the negativity would weaken the nominee and the party as a whole, and virtually no one supported Clinton’s notion of fighting on to the convention in Denver.

“If the tone of the presidential campaign continues on this negative trajectory, it will create wounds that are hard to heal,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md). “And it would be a big mistake to have a divisive convention in the full glare of TV lights.”

According to the Associated Press, Obama now has 1,723.5 delegates and Clinton has 1,592.5. The Democratic nominee has to secure 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. Approximately 300 superdelegates out of 800 remain uncommitted.

Despite overcoming the adversity that comes with being a presidential candidate, not to mention the first serious African American candidate, Obama must always remember what made him the Democratic “golden boy.”

For years, Americans have watched as politicians conducted business as usual at the detriment of U.S. citizens.

Democrat and Republican voters have both watched as candidates dished dirt on their opponent, while seeming to ignore the problems facing average American citizens on a daily basis.

Families with insufficient financial resources to feed their families do not benefit from whether or not Obama wears an American flag on his lapel.

In addition, widows who lost their husbands in Iraq do not benefit from whether Clinton had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia.

What all Americans benefit from is the unity that initially surrounded Obama’s campaign and the hope that this country could come together after eight polarizing years of the Bush administration.

The ability to bring all Americans together despite their differences and the ability to repair America’s reputation overseas is what Obama needs to rely on, not the same old Washington politics of the past, if he is truly dedicated to change.

“It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics; the bickering that none of us are immune to, and that trivializes the profound issues—two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril,” Obama told a crowd in Evanston, Ind. “But that kind of politics is not why we’re here, it’s not why I’m here and it’s not why you’re here.”

It is important the Obama remember it is not how he got here as well.

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men

No one currently in the United States Congress has the guts and might to say what is truly on his mind except Harlem’s own Charles B. Rangel. A member of Congress since 1971, he unseated the legendary Adam Clayton Powell to represent Harlem in Washington D.C. Charles Rangel, the heart and soul of the United States Congress stated in August 2006, that he will resign his seat if the Democrats did not take the House in November. The mid-term elections in November are so important to our country. The elections have been termed as a “cleaning of house” in which many hope that the Democrats will regain seats lost in Congress back in 1994. Well they did and the Dems came back with a vengeance passing important policies within the first 100 days of the 110th Congress.

As a native New Yorker, and as a past member of Mr. Rangel’s office, I feel a personal obligation to talk about him with the dignity and respect that he deserves. He taught me a lot, and his teachings have carried me to my present situation in life. When the Democrats took control of Congress in the election, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) became Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. There was no way we could have possibly lost him without having felt his absence across the nation. No one has spoke out so adamantly against the miscalculations in Iraq or the Bush Administration’s economic policies, which he feels favor the rich over the poor.

Mr. Rangel is not afraid of saying what he feels is important and necessary. In response to remarks made by Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez at the UN general assembly on September 20, 2006 and implying that Bush was the devil, Rangel said, “I want President Chavez to please understand that even though many people in the United States are critical of our president that we resent the fact that he would come to the United States and criticize President Bush… you don’t come into my country, you don’t come into my congressional district and you don’t condemn my president.”

Do not get the impression that Mr. Rangel is strong supporter of our President or his policies, but he values a certain thing called respect. In 2005, Rangel compared the President to Bull Connor, the former Public Safety Commissioner for Birmingham, AL, “George Bush is our Bull Connor.” In response, Vice President Dick Cheney during an interview said “I’m frankly surprised at his comments. It almost struck me; they were so out of line, Charlie was having some problem.

Charlie is losing it, I guess.” Rangel shot back, “The fact that he would make a crack at my age, he ought to be ashamed of himself…He should look so good at 75.” That tenacity and energy is what we need on Capitol Hill and our country is in a better position now that Mr. Rangel runs at least some of the show.

Mr. Rangel is needed in the Congress, a champion of the people he is fourth in Seniority in the House only after Rep. John Dingell, Rep. John Conyers, and Rep. Dave Obey. The Co-Founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, he has been fighting for many years and his absence would have been felt across this country. Let’s take the time to appreciate this fighter and to make sure he sticks around for many more years to come.

Todd Smith is the web master for Regal Mag The preeminent Online Magazine for African American Men.