Did Colin Powell Endorse Barack Obama Because He Is Black?

I find it a bit interesting, but hardly surprising that former Secretary of State Republican Colin Powell recently gave his endorsement o Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. He has confirmed what I have thought all along.

In general, Black people, at least in the U.S., tend to stick together.

Don't believe me? I've been thinking this for a long time now, even before the primary season started. During the Democratic primaries, it proved my point - there are States that Obama won, primarily due to the overwhelming (and I mean overwhelming - like 90% or higher) support of the Black electorate. Poor Hillary Clinton - sure, Bill was popular amongst Black voters, but what other alternatives were there? It's pretty much been White males ever since we could remember.

I suppose one can argue that Blacks generally vote Democrats, so it is coincidental that Obama, a half-Black man, is garnering all this support from the "Black community." Maybe. Plus the true test would have been to see what would have happened had, let's say, some serious Black, well known Republicans like Condoleeza Rice, or better yet, a person I highly hope is on the Republican ticket in the future, Alan Keyes, was on the current Republican ticket, and say, Hillary Clinton or John Edwards (well, not anymore) would have been the Democratic nominee. I am willing to bet that Rice or Keyes would capture a lot of the traditional Democratic vote.

Come to this another way, consider the following - can you think of any Blacks who are vehemently supporting McCain? As you may know, I am Asian, and I tell you, I get lots of weird looks as I wear my McCain / Palin shirt, hat, button, or whatever else I decide to don outside the house. I think that people have this really bad impression (fueled by the pro-Obama media) that minorities are supposed to go to Obama. But of course, you're thinking with your feelings here and not with your head. It is the same stupidity that causes White people to reject a qualified Black candidate solely due to race. I know it happens. But Blacks are now doing the exact same thing in supporting Obama, but the difference is, they don't admit it.

When Oprah Winfrey came out to support Obama, was anyone surprised? Here is a very liberal celebrity who, despite her supposed diverse viewership, still has more of a resonating effect among 1) women and 2) Blacks. Men usually don't give a rat's ass about what Oprah things, and they shouldn't (which should be said of most celebrities).

Rush Limbaugh got in supposed hot water for making these suggestions recently. People don't like Rush because he speaks his mind and speaks the truth - which of course, make the relativistic general populace not comfortable. He is right - when was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced White Democrat for anything? I suppose one can make an argument that Powell is just trying to screw over the Republicans who embarrassed him by forcing him to go to the U.N. with bad intelligence to push for the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Maybe this plays a factor, but I think that you can't overstate the race card. Powell is not exactly a young guy, and I'm sure as a Black Republican, has for many years felt out of place, or have felt the indignation of racial stigma and bigotry. I respect Powell for his military service as well as his contribution to the Republicans - but I think that he's letting the personal pride of seeing a "fellow brother" get elected get to him. A lot of people support Obama seemingly to be part of "history", that they can tell their grandchildren that they put the first Black president in office. A lot of the younger voters have fallen for the slick speeches and warm and fuzzy image of Obama, in today's media-frenzy environment where sound bytes and technological marvels dazzle - style over substance.

I also think these younger voters, as with many young people today, reject anything that is considered "old", including people. They don't view McCain as experienced, simply as old.

Back to the point here - I have lost count of how many interviews with Black voters I have read, or heard or seen, in which they say with such pride how they look forward to putting a Black man in office. Hey, don't get me wrong - I can understand the pride, especially when only 40-50 years ago, segregation still ran rampant. But is that really a good reason to vote for someone?

Proof that it's more about race and celebrity status - a U.S. poll amongst random Black voters asked certain questions such as, "do you agree with Obama's opposition to embryonic stem cell research." General answer was yes, even though the question is deliberally wrong factually. It also asks, "do you agree with Obama's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate?" General answer is yes. I mean, do people even read these things? I suspect not, but they see "support Obama" and they vote yes.

Now, one may suggest that it's not all about race here, since lots of Whites are voting for Obama. Very true, but you can't compare here, since we're talking specifically about the Black electorate. I think it would be much better to simply come out and say that they are voting that way because of his race, much like some McCain supporters are supporting McCain because he is White. Neither position is based on any amount of intelligence, but let's call a spade a spade here. Blacks want a Black president and will vote accordingly.

Great Speech By Sarah Palin At the RNC Tonight - RNC Day 3

You know, left wingers are so fickle sometimes. On some of the political boards that I frequent (some of whom are not overly conservative-friendly), a number of people criticized Republican VP Nominee Sarah Palin's acceptance speech tonight. I thought it was a fantastic speech, showed that she had the balls to fight with the big boys and that she was not going to be a pushover. Yet, these bleeding heart left-wingers are saying that she played dirty by bashing Obama, Biden, and the Democrats during the speech.

For Pete's sake, did they watch their own convention? Obama, Biden and company were not only spewing out snide remarks about the Republicans, but they ridiculed John McCain as well. So it's OK for the Democrats to insult and rant about their opponents, but when the Republicans address their criticisms and push back, it's now below the belt? Biden's "scrappiness" is generally considered a positive for him, yet if Palin provides the same level (if not more) of being aggressive, it is now wrong? Give me a break. For all the liberal whining about double standards for men and women, let me tell you that they should practice what they preach for a change.

Palin showed in her speech tonight that she wasn't afraid to scrap, and while I will admit, Obama and Biden have been muted in their comments on Palin, I suspect it was because they wanted to tread carefully for fear of sexism, to handle the initial response to her delicately because she is a woman. I seriously believe had she been a man, they would have torn into her at the outset. But Palin is not afraid to call a spade a spade, which may not win her friends, but like everything else, honesty and integrity will earn respect. That doesn't mean everyone will agree with you, but it means that they know where you stand and that you are consistent.

Critics will say that Palin did not provide much detail about her plan and provide solution specifics - that is true. I don't know if she has a good grasp of McCain's vision, after only 5 days or so of being chosen as his running mate, but whether she did or not is beside the point - I think even if I had McCain's plan committed to memory, I think it would not be proper for the VP candidate to spell out the plan - after all, that sort of takes the limelight away from the presidential candidate, who happens to be making his speech the following night.

Calling her McCain's attack dog is demeaning - it implies she can't think for yourself, and you know, for her to be mayor and governor, those aren't exactly jobs that allow for decision delegation. As I said earlier, she is exactly what McCain needs, to balance out his more quieter demeanor. I think that Palin's presence and her personality will fire up people who think and vote conservatively, but are afraid to let their voice known. I think McCain made an exception choice in choosing her over, say, Mitt Romney. Case in point - my wife, who was watching the speeches with me, indicated that of all the speeches, she absolutely detested Romney's (well, the Hawaii governor's speech was the worst in terms of monotone delivery and lack of excitement and frequent unnecessary pauses). My wife thought Romney sounded too slick and was the caricature of a slimy politician. I don't think that she's that off there. Romney (who was one of the folks on McCain's shortlist for VP) - could you imagine him as the VP candidate - no one would believe anything he was saying - in fact, folks in the crowd were not even paying attention.

I thought Palin's speech really brought out the fact that she was just like everyone else, with her own set of challenges and joys and disappointments. I think she did a good job in introducing herself to the masses, but not spending the whole time in doing so. She highlighted her experience and wasted no time in punching back at the criticisms leveled toward her so-called "lack of experience" that the media and left-wingers seem to be happy dishing out.

Now, speaking of which, my thoughts on the rest of the speeches...or least what I caught starting at around 8:30PM EST.

Carly Fiorina - well, didn't think much of the speech. Didn't draw me at all. Being the former CEO of any company doesn't impress me much - knowing that they got millions of dollars of severance on termination doesn't sit well with me. So I don't have much to say about former eBay CEO Meg Whitman's speech either (I am hating eBay more and more every day and the direction it's going, away from auctions). Mitt Romney's speech I could have done without - he said nothing substantive, and that freaking grin on his face annoyed both my wife and I.

I absolutely loved Mike Huckabee's speech. But that shouldn't be a surprise seeing that I supported him (financially) during the primaries. So for those who say that it's silly for me to comment on any of this being that I am from Canada, is hogwash. I can still contribute to their campaigns and being on several U.S. political forums, I can certainly "spread the word" as a foot soldier for the campaign. Anyway, Huckabee's speech, as usual, was full of animation, tons of humour, and ended with a very positive and moving story about military service and freedoms. Possibly one of the best speeches of the night.

Rudy Giuliani's speech - I'd say that was a good attack speech, but it did come out as a bit more negative and scare tactics. But you know, it's like if someone was insulting your wife or friend or family member - unless you had no balls, you certainly wouldn't take it lying down. I know I won't - and if I say something that ends up hurting someone's feelings - oh well. We need more people to tell it like it is, and less wussies who try to employ every sensitivity tactic in the sun. Not sure if the U.S. electorate would appreciate negativity like that. But I thought several parts were brilliant and funny at the same time, while speaking truth. But all that being said, I think you can be aggressive, but there are times when overdoing sarcasm may not exactly aid your argument. I suspect that the Giuliani speech was one of those times. Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, and Lieberman yesterday as well as others have all come to the defence of Palin, against the liberal media and Democrats who have been trying to bash her for the past few days. Good to see them standing side-by-side with their colleagues.

Worst speech of the night was by Linda Lingle (I think that was her name), governor of Hawaii. Yikes, what a bad speech - I thought she was the set up person for Palin - thank goodness she wasn't. Her speech about Palin was monotone, and paused way too frequently to expect applause - and the crowd was seemingly getting tired of the forced applause from this monotonous speaker who was very robotic in her delivery. I heard later that they had to cut out the video intro for Palin due to time, and this, I think, was a major mistake, since video intros are generally received well, invoke an emotional response and right then and there the candidate walks out. Give them credit - the Democrats executed this exceptionally well with the Biden and Obama intros. I only hope that they do one for McCain. But they should have considered Lingle's speaking style, what time of night she would have to speak, and then probably put her on a different day - maybe she was set to go on Monday's lineup, which was (rightfully) shortened due to Hurricane Gustav.

Tomorrow's speech by McCain will, I think, be the most important speech he will ever make.

P.S. I gotta say, the CNN coverage is OK, but man, they are so in Obama's camp, it's not funny. I mean, really, they screen their boards to only put through comments that either praise the Democrats or slam the Republicans. And their polling is biased as well - look at other news site polls - it shows Obama and McCain at a dead heat right now - CNN shows Obama with a sizeable lead - like, if you take your impressionable internet savvy generation and use them as a benchmark, after shoving Obamamania 24x7 on them, I guess that is what the polls will look like. I'm really disappointed how biased CNN really is. But it kinda sucks, since as we don't have cable, the online stream from CNN is really the only way we can watch the convention.

Barack Obama Is Like John Lennon - All Words, No Substance

You know, the more I think about it, the more I see parallels between U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, and the late Beatles frontman John Lennon.

Obama's whole message is about "change". He seldom, if ever, spends any time in providing specifics in how he will accomplish the changes, specifically in how he will fund the changes. In his speech last night to something like 90,000 faithful, packed into Mile High Stadium, he once again railed at McCain and proposed all sorts of stuff that he (thankfully) admitted that he would have to find a way to pay for, yet did not provide specifics, other than chopping government waste and reviewing the federal budget "line by line". These are fine cliche lines that politicians can use, but unless you actually turn on your brain, you won't realize that what he is proposing he will need to spend money to accomplish, and given the sucky economic times that we are in, there are only two ways for him to fund his proposed programs - reducing current spending, or increasing taxes. Now, as for the former...while I am no economist, I do know that conservatives in general are not spenders, but reducers. I find it hard to believe Obama can find that much more to reduce to pay for his programs. Yet, he doesn't address this, but instead, like Lennon, will simply ask people to imagine, to dream, and to hope.

This is fine if you don't think long-term. I mean, I can sit down with my wife and tell her, you know what, we all work hard, we are stressed, we need a break, we need a change, let's go on a month-long vacation to some tropical resort! Sounds great! We're excited. We would already be packing our bags unless one of us (or both of us) stops, puts a lid on the excitement level and logically thinks,

"As fun as this vacation may be, can we afford to do this?"
"Where's the money going to come from?"
"What effects will this have on our children and will they be coming with us and if not, who will watch them?"
"Is this the right thing to do, given that we still have a mortgage to pay, an uncertain job environment for me, and future college/university bills to address for our kids?"

You'll see in a way that these responses can be viewed as a killjoy of sorts, but it's facing reality. Obama needs to spend some time thinking about the implications of his promises. It's like people in general who have discussions about topics and complain about stuff. Someone will inevitably say, "someone should do something about this!" Of course, nobody does, because people realize that in order for them to follow through on that sentiment, they may actually have to get involved and put themselves at an inconvenience or risk.

Obama spends a lot of time talking in generalities. If you don't believe me, go watch any of his speeches on YouTube or something. You can never really nail down his position on something. So without knowing his true positions on things, but rather hearing the pie-in-the-sky philosophy that he constantly talks about, some people don't really have any concrete reason to vote against him, but that's starting to change now that many folks are starting to see him for who he is - a great orator who can give great speeches but has difficulty in delivering. Look at his voting record as a senator and how many "not present" votes he has. Look at what he has done/not done for his constituents in Illinois. When he became senator in 2003 or 2004, he already had aspirations to become the presidential nominee. Why else would he deliver a keynote address for the 2004 DNC in Boston that hardly mentioned John Kerry, the then-nominee for the Democrats. It was because even then, his ego was so large that he thought that he take the opportunity to showcase himself. Sure, I will grant that it was a well delivered speech, but if you watch it in full, it's really out of context, given the fact that he should have talking about John Kerry more and less about himself.

I find it interesting to see Obama talking about change and such all this time, and yet he picks a seasoned Washington veteran to be his running mate. Don't get me wrong - Joe Biden is a very good choice for him, given the fact that Biden helps to balance his zero experience in foreign matters - to me, that at least shows Obama is thinking logically at least part of the time. But Biden himself said not too long ago during one of the debates that Obama is not suited to be President due to lack of experience. Bill Clinton said the same thing. So did Hillary. I find it interesting now to see all three of them saying he's ready. Guess that's what happens when you get infected with the very contagious diseas Obamamania.

I find it interesting that despite what you may have seen last night, Obama hardly took the nomination in a cakewalk. The 18,000,000 (that's 18 million) voters that voted for Hillary obviously saw something they did not like in Obama, enough to not vote for him. Obama drew similar numbers. It is also interesting that Hillary's voters have not embraced him en masse - lots of them are leaving in droves to vote for John McCain - now, what's this saying to you? They'd rather jump party (and jump to the diametrically polar opposite political philoosphy) rather than vote for Obama. This, to me, is telling. While I have never been a Hillary Clinton fan and pretty much disagree with almost everything she stands for, I can at least enumerate her exact view on certain issues (whether I agree with it is a different story) - I can't say the same for Obama).

I find his "followers" to be very typical liberals. You know, the ones who will ride the bandwagon on any issue that seems to pique the public interest - like, oh, the environment. It's great to be Al Gore when you have the special interests groups proud that he is taking their position and you become some celebrity due to your support of "trendy" issues like the environment and climate change and human rights in China or whatever else that morons like U2's Bono or causes other celebrities attempt to champion.

Obama's premise is one that is not too far removed from the old days when we were all elementary school students - let's follow the outspoken popular kid. Yet if you look at how those quiet, studious nerdy types ended up, you'll see that they all ended up doing quite well in life, since people generally will (eventually) value substance and intelligence over style and oratal pizazz. John McCain is not the most outspoken and "go get 'em" type of person in the election - but he does have experience, knows that hard decisions made may not be popular, and is willing to stick to his guns. I am not saying Obama is a bad guy; just that he is ill-equipped to serve as the leader of the most influential country int he world.