Who Went Shopping Today?

Is Alabama Next?

America surpised many of us, myself included, when it voted a black man into the White House. But now another black man, Artur Davis, has the audacity to think he can be elected governor of Alabama.

Really? Alabama?

I like Davis, and he is one of the few members of Congress that I feel truly tries to know the issues. But is he smokin' weed or what?

Seriously, I'm only half joking here. Think about it, does he actually have a chance in Alabama or is it just wishful thinking? Are we asking for too much, too soon?

Score One For Fox News

"So are the all-powerful liberal media responsible for the election of Barack Obama?" Rem Rieder asks in the December/January issue of the American Journalism Review.

"I'm with Shepard Smith on this one," says Rieder.

"The Fox News Channel anchor was listening to a comedian named Nick DiPaolo start to go off on the dreaded Fourth Estate and how it was all 'in the tank' for That One when Smith went off a little himself.

"'Oh, please,' he interjected. 'The mainstream media reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn't drive this movement. The media didn't drive this movement.'"

". . . The truth is, the Obama campaign was well-organized, disciplined, virtually error-free. Obama was an inspiring candidate to many, a dazzling public speaker with an inspiring storyline.

"The McCain campaign, in contrast, was a train wreck, lurching from message to message. And McCain, who can be an immensely appealing figure, seemed angry and unfocused.

". . . McCain got his negative publicity the old-fashioned way. He earned it." "So are the all-powerful liberal media responsible for the election of Barack Obama?" Rem Rieder asks in the December/January issue of the American Journalism Review.

"I'm with Shepard Smith on this one.

"The Fox News Channel anchor was listening to a comedian named Nick DiPaolo start to go off on the dreaded Fourth Estate and how it was all 'in the tank' for That One when Smith went off a little himself.

"'Oh, please,' he interjected. 'The mainstream media reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn't drive this movement. The media didn't drive this movement.'"

". . . The truth is, the Obama campaign was well-organized, disciplined, virtually error-free. Obama was an inspiring candidate to many, a dazzling public speaker with an inspiring storyline.

"The McCain campaign, in contrast, was a train wreck, lurching from message to message. And McCain, who can be an immensely appealing figure, seemed angry and unfocused.

". . . McCain got his negative publicity the old-fashioned way. He earned it."

Change of Heart?

Virginia, which has some of the harshest policies regarding illegal immigration, is now softening its stance.

The state is now considering a host of services designed to help immigrants rather than penalize them, such as offering in-state tuition to those who meet specific criteria and creating an immigration assistance office, The Washington Post reported Monday.

Virginia officials credit the change of heart to a better "understanding of the state’s limitations on a largely federal issue and backlash at the voting booth," the Post states. They also say there is waning public interest in immigration in the face of a growing economic crisis.

The news comes a day after Gannet News Service reported that President-elect Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., reached an agreement that will make way for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration legislation.

The legislation, if it wins approval, would make some undocumented immigrants eligible for certain federal programs, including student aid, according to an interview the news service conducted with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

The Bush Administration tried to push through an immigration bill last year, but it failed amid partisan rancor and public outcry.

BREAKING: BOND STEPS DOWN AS NAACP CHIEF

From The Baltimore Afro American

Long-time civil rights icon Julian Bond announced he will step down as national board chairman of the NAACP. He will serve out his final term through February 2009 and not seek reelection.

“This is the time for renewal. We have dynamic new leadership,” Bond said in a statement. “The country has a new President in Barack Obama; the organization has a new CEO in Benjamin Jealous, and we’ll soon have a new Chairman of the NAACP Board. The NAACP and the country are in good hands.”

The NAACP said that Bond informed board members in a letter that, although he would not run for reelection as chairman of the national board, he will remain on the board and run for reelection to the board when his three-year term ends.

“It has always been my plan to serve until the Centennial which will be underway in February when my term ends,” said Bond, referring to the centennial celebration of the birth of the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization.
“I’m not resigning. I’m just not running for reelection.”

Bond was elected chairman of the board of the NAACP in 1998. But he began his career in the Civil Rights Movement when, as student at then Morehouse College in 1960, he was a founding member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNNC). From 1960 to 1963, Bond led student protests against segregated public facilities in Georgia.

In 1965, Bond was one of eight Blacks elected to the Georgia House of Representatives. However, Georgia state representatives voted 184-12 not to seat him because of his support of SNNC’s opposition to the Vietnam War.

But in 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Georgia House denied Bond his right to free speech and they were forced to seat him. He went on to serve four terms in the Georgia House from 1965 to 1975 and six terms in the Georgia Senate from 1975-1986.

Bond, 68, said it was time for him to step back from the rigors of being the organization’s chairman.

“Being Chairman has been a wonderful honor however; it has been more time demanding than anything I’ve ever done,” Bond said. “I’m ready to let a new generation of leaders lead.”

Alan Keyes Sues Obama To Prove Citizenship

Filed Under "Shaking My Head"

Remember Alan Keyes? The guy who keeps running and losing for public office.

Well Keyes is back again. This time the perennial black Republican candidate who lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate race, is now trying to sue Obama, claiming that the new president-elect was not born in the U.S.

Keyes filed suit this week in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to Obama until evidence is shown to prove Obama was born in the U.S.

Keyes was the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party in the 2008 election and was reportedly listed on the California state ballot. He has run for office several times before and never won.

"Senator Obama has failed to demonstrate that he is a 'natural born citizen,'" Keyes said in his lawsuit (see PDF file here). He argues that failure to grant his request "will cast a pall of doubt on the election process and taint the election results themselves."

The story is old news for the Obama campaign. A web site run by the campaign disputes Keyes's claim and posts an actual copy of the president-elect's birth certificate. Several news agencies have also discounted the story.

The Washington Post investigated months ago and debunked the non citizenship story. And FactCheck.org, an independent research project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, also proved that Obama is, in fact, a natural born U.S. citizen.

The rumor resurfaced just a few days before the election, and on October 31 the Associated Press tracked down the Hawaii Health Department Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, who confirmed the authenticity of Obama's original birth certificate.

-- The Daily Voice

Black-on-Black Crime, I swear.

To Bail Or Not To Bail... That is the Question

America's auto Industry helped create the black middle class by paying fair wages to working class Black Americans and providing the upward mobility at a time no other industry would.

Now some lawmakers are telling the automakers to toss out long-fought for labor agreements with unions, in order to receive help from the government. This is especially troublesome when already too many companies get away with not providing health benefits, hiring illegal immigrants to do menial jobs for little pay and no benefits.

Basically, the narrative that some are suggesting goes a little something like this: a bailout for the car companies is basically a bailout for part of the middle class, since many members of the middle class work for the auto industry. No place is this truer than in Detroit, Michigan.

In the end, it's the taxpayers who should decide whether to bailout the auto industry the same way we've bailed out the banks. Or, as some Democrats suggest, use some of that bank money to help the car manufacturers.

What do you think?

While you're pondering the question, here's a piece from a colleague's site about the auto bailout and how it is linked to the middle class.