When asked tough questions, it’s best to become agitated, refuse to answer in a coherent manner, ask “Is this a joke?” and then impose an absurdly stifling restriction on the outlet responsible for the challenging interview (make that two outlets).  Because banning journalists who ask tough questions is exactly what our democracy needs, right?  Wrong.

But, I suppose we cannot blame Biden, alone, for his childish reaction.  Until now, the press has continuously stated and restated its love and adoration for the most liberal candidate in history to seek the American presidency.  So, after months of the media doting all over Barack Obama and company it’s no wonder Joe Biden was surprised when he was confronted with journalistic integrity.

So, for the sake of brevity I must give Barbara West of WFTV the William H. Hallowell III Journalist of the Year award for actually doing her job.  Journalists are supposed to challenge candidates, not ignore their inconsistencies and blunders.

Perhaps the most perplexing issue at hand is not Biden’s absurd reaction, rather it is the hypocrisy that stems from the Obama camp concerning transparency and access.  After weeks of criticism from Obama and Biden over the McCain campaign’s shielding of Gov. Sarah Palin, we’re seeing a side of Obama that is pretty opaque.  And it’s utterly ironic.

After all, isn’t this the man who promised to air our national laundry in the most public of all forums (don’t get me wrong; I’m all for transparency, but I am of the opinion that Obama is more about instilling pathos in his followers than he is about taking action)?

The rest of the transparency community might be duped, but I’m not.  Sure, the McCain camp shielded Palin from the media and that was a catastrophic mistake, but to literally prevent certain outlets from interviewing campaign officials – that, my friends, is communistic at best.  This isn’t China.  Someone better get Obama and Biden the memo.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have issued lofty statements regarding their efforts to reduce the influence that lobbyists have on the hill and throughout the American political system. But, while the candidates often speak candidly of reducing the impact that special interests have in Washington, there are still a number of unaddressed loopholes. Despite the incessant rhetoric spewing from both sides of the aisle, little has been done to regulate the donations that have been pouring in for the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

Both candidates want to be perceived as reformers. Unfortunately for both McCain and Obama, true change is all encompassing. Touting one’s status as a reformer does next to nothing if all regulatory measures have not been considered. This is the subject of Fredreka Schouten’s piece in the USA Today entitled, “Donors Pick Up the Convention Tab.” According to Schouten,

Political action committees (PACs) of unions can give only $5,000 directly to a candidate for a primary or general election. Individuals are limited to $2,300. There is no cap on how much any union, company or individual can give to a political convention.

While individuals and PACs are reasonably restricted on the candidate level, large labor unions, companies and wealthy individuals have an unregulated playing field through which they can disseminate limitless funding to the Republican and Democratic conventions. Forget the loop; this hole is gaping.

Schouten points out recent — and might we add astronomical — donations from The American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Both institutions donated nearly $500,000 to the Democratic National Convention. Additionally, Quest Communications “…has committed $6 million in cash and in-kind support to both conventions.” Even though companies are restricted from donating directly to the candidates, they, too, may provide funds for the conventions.

Beyond the fact that these donations still illicit influence over the parties and their respective candidates, there are other ramifications to consider. In addition to companies’ and unions’ potential fiscal influence, some organizations and corporations are also planning a physical presence at the conventions.

Last week, Bill Alliston, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, penned a piece that focused on special interests and the flagrant lack of regulatory measures that surround various convention activities. According to Alliston,

“Lobbyists wine and dine party insiders and elected officials, big donors feast with the party insiders who depend on their deep pockets, and corporations with business before the federal government pick up most of the tab.”

After scouring event lists released by a top Washington lobbying firm, Sunlight discovered a number of corporate-sponsored events. In sum, there are some 370 planned parties that are to be sponsored by large companies and organizations. According to Alliston, this revelation comes even after new ethics rules brought about via the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 have restricted lobbyists from throwing parties in honor of specific lawmakers.

While Schouten points out that Obama doesn’t take monies from PACS or from federal lobbyists and that McCain does not allow lobbyists on his paid campaign staff, one wonders why neither candidate has attempted to restrict the influence of unions, companies, and wealthy individuals and institutions that are currently infusing both parties with unregulated monies.

True reformers? Not entirely.

“Hope.” “Change.” “A new kind of politics.” Barack Obama’s promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing — especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do “hope” and “change” actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama’s promise to ignite a “new kind of politics” is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues?

From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign.”

When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.

And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:

“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: “Obama’s generosity comes at a price. … He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.”

Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.

But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:

“Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” if he were to win his party’s nomination.”

And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…”

I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.

Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.

Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”

Democratic candidates for the U.S. presidency are consistently supported by terrorists and renegades, yet many Americans fail to question these allegiances and their potential ramifications.  Barack Obama — the man who is known for his incessant and rampant use of the word “hope” — is the latest candidate to score terrorist support.   

Before delving into Obama’s current fan-base, let’s review what occurred back in 2004.  Just days before the presidential election, Osama bin Laden issued an October surprise when he attempted to appeal to the American people.  Aside from claiming that Bush had misled the public, bin Laden explained away Al Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 as the mere result of U.S. foreign policy:

“Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated” - bin Laden

What bin Laden failed to mention is that he’d like us to all convert or die.  Ironically, his perverted perception of God and religion were absent from his rant.

While Osama’s quasi-endorsement of Kerry proves intriguing, Obama’s enthusiasts are more plentiful — and more disconcerting. When considering Obama’s cringe-worthy endorsements one cannot help but wonder why these war-mongers, criminals and racists would want to see Obama win in November.  Clearly, something within Obama’s character or proposed policies resonates with them.

FOX News compiled an interesting list of individuals who voiced support for Obama.  In mid-April, Hamas advisor Ahmed Yousef was quoted as saying:  “We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections.  I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse.  I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principle.”  And if that’s not terrifying enough, Fidel Castro is enamored as well, as he has called Obama intelligent, while praising his work ethic.

And let’s not forget about Louis Farrakhan and Obama’s ties to Reverent Wright and company. 

Agree or disagree with me — whatever you’d like.  But the fact of the matter is that these individuals — persons who hold questionable and often dangerous word views — are endorsing a man who claims to stand for hope and a brighter future.  Yet the legacies of the aforementioned individuals are comprised of nothing more than pain and suffering (or in the case of Farrakhan and Wright — societal damage as a result of reverse racism). 

I’ll be interested to see who endorses Obama next.

I know that I’m a bit late on this, but I can’t resist commenting. Barack Obama has [finally] separated himself from his former father figure-pastor-confidant-spiritual advisor. In a speech that came approximately two months later than it should have, Obama called Reverend Wright’s media hoopla nothing more than a series of incomprehensible rants. If elected, let’s hope he’s quicker when it comes to addressing national security issues. Considering his vast political experience (cough, cough), I’m sure we have nothing to worry about. After all, Obama’s got more than enough hope and change to go around, right?

If Obama’s recent denunciation isn’t a sure-fire decree that his leadership skills need tailoring, I don’t know what is. Only now, when Obama’s numbers are slipping, has he decided to step forward against his bigoted former pastor. Not only do I find it reprehensible that Obama waited to long to disavow his mentor’s words, but it’s also laughably ironic. His supporters will say one of two things – either “Reverend Wright was right (no pun intended)” or “Obama is finally doing the right thing.” Both statements are shamefully incorrect.

Oh, but I almost forgot the third response – from those individuals who think they’re being fair-minded: “Well what does Wright’s connection to Obama matter anyway?” This response is quite possibly the most ridiculous of the three; I’d rather have someone agree with Wright than openly admit that a candidate’s allegiances don’t matter.

So, to address the latter of the three: Reverend Wright is a racist who preached divisiveness. Obama was directly connected to him, he heard Wright’s racist and anti-American rants and sat unshaken at the Trinity United Church of Christ, Wright married Obama and his wife, he baptized his children – oh, and Wright also inspired one of Obama’s books. That’s more than an allegiance. And it matters.

To address the first response, how can anyone actually believe that Wright was right? Sure, you may agree with the sentiment – that African Americans have had it tough in America, but to actually believe that what this man preached, the manner that it was delivered in, was right is also reprehensible. Don’t get me wrong – America still has her share of racial issues. While I believe that this nation needs to rectify its past skeletons, I also believe that we need to be realistic about our nation’s demographics.

And to address the second statement (that Obama is finally doing the right thing): Why the hell did it take so long?  The only logical conclusion centers upon the notion that Obama didn’t necessarily disagree with Wright.  Most logical human beings would run fast and far from a pastor who made such ferocious statements — unless of course they agreed.  This — to some degree — is indefinitely the case with Obama.  He knows that he has no chance of winning in a nation that is around 70% Caucasian if he doesn’t separate himself from Wright’s rants. 

Here is a snippet from some of Wright’s hope-filled words:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people…God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Race has never been an issue for me; I’ve always befriended individuals without considering their heritage as a deciding factor. I find it ironic that Wright can use those words and actually believe that they are part of the Christian doctrine. Instead of harsh and divisive words, would it not be more effective to share the plight of African Americans and other minorities who are downtrodden by a broken educational system and a history that has led to suppression? Instead, Wright tells white people what trash they are. If his methods are right, then I must be insane.

Was Wright also correct in his assertion that Farrakhan is one of the greatest voices of this century? Let’s hope not.

I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard from the Reverend.

What’s most perplexing about the 2008 presidential campaign is the unadulterated love and support Barack Obama has received from America’s young generation (and from American media, but that’s for an entirely different piece). While this support has brought Obama a long way on the seemingly never-ending path toward possible presidential supremacy, Clinton is hanging tough. While I am not a Democrat by any stretch of the imagination, I fluctuate between supporting Obama and Clinton (and by “supporting” I mean “selecting the candidate who won’t make me cry myself to sleep every night if my preferred candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain, happens to lose in November).

Luckily, on the Republican front McCain has officially been granted the candidacy. Instead of debating back and forth with vying party rivals, he can face the complexities associated with the general election, focusing the breadth of his energy on his upcoming battle with a Democratic contender – whomever he or she may be; this is a clear advantage that some Democrats may be underestimating.

When it comes to the overall political spectrum, one cannot help but wonder how the Democrats will possibly rectify the deep divide that the Obama vs. Clinton charade has manifested. With the Republicans losing out in 2006 – a prime example in political theory of “surge and decline” – mixed with an overall distaste for the Bush administration and its policies, left me more than concerned about the prospect of the Republicans losing out in 2008. Bearing in mind Bush’s unpopular status, one might say I had quite a bit to fear.  But, then — as it often does in politics — the sociopolitical climate changed.

While many talking heads spouted off about an impending civil war amongst members of the Republican Party, conditions seem to be turning around quite rapidly.  Sure, there have been spats and disagreements, but the battle for the Republican nomination is sealed and the focus of political fury has been placed upon the two Democratic contenders who have their hearts set on “making history.” While they’re out pledging to fulfill empty promises that they dress up with elaborate diatribes about “hope” and “change,” McCain is left alone to concentrate on better positioning himself among members of his party who still haven’t accepted him as the most applicable choice – and on the general election, of course. But the Democrats – they’re still battling one another and it isn’t pretty.

The gender and race cards are being pulled so fast that the deck is damn near empty. The other day I was in an elevator and I overheard an African American woman speaking with a man behind me. She was talking about how wonderful it was that a black man had made it so far in America (i.e. Obama). She went on to explain that this was the primary reason she’d be voting for him (assuming he receives the Democratic nomination).

Now, this is where my frustration over the Obama phenomenon reaches its max. While I truly love and value diversity, I would never support an individual on the sole basis of race or ethnicity. In fact, I think it is morally irresponsible to make such an important decision based primarily on an external factor that really bears no affect over the actual ability to lead.

If Barack Obama were Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice, I would be more than supportive (pending that the reason for said support was not based solely on ethnicity). I’m all for diversity, but merit should be based primarily on experience. Unfortunately, Barack Obama does not have the experience one would expect to find in a candidate in the running for the American presidency. Feel free to debate me on that, but it’s basically unarguable at this point. 

And don’t even get me started on Hillary Clinton. The last thing this nation needs is another Clinton in the White House – but I digress.  Supporting someone based primarily on race or gender is silly and unbelievably naive.  Real leadership comes from within (and from the experiences gained in the many instances that shape our hearts and minds).

And let’s not forget about “hope” and “change” – the weasel words that he and Hillary throw around so spuriously that one cannot help but wonder if they ever deviate from their scripted banter.

The fact of the matter is this: We need a president who is ready and willing to take on the complex issues that are stampeding our nation – and our world. While all three contenders are more than willing, are they ready?

The only candidate who has proven longitudinal experience coping with peace, war and the institutions that govern the American political schema is John McCain. Argue with me all you’d like, but the facts, the timelines and all other secondary sources of data point to his experience and willingness to reach across the aisle (something that is desperately needed when considering the level of stagnation that has been created by partisan politics in recent years).

Let’s hope Americans realize this unalienable fact before it’s too late.