By William Chamberlin
The Guardsman

Osama bin Laden released a new tape March 24 promising that the day the United States makes a decision to kill Khalid “Hero Warrior” Sheik Mohammed is the day bin Laden will order the execution of all American hostages.

Bin Laden often starts his messages in the name of Allah and peace, then proceeds to proclaim his will is that of the righteous, and that the U.S. is a vile oppressor unjustly tyrannizing his people with its support of Israel. He delivers them in a soft and confident tone, reassuring the listener that he deeply believes what he speaks.

In a tape released earlier this year, addressed to President Barack Obama, bin Laden begins by saying blessed are the followers of peace. The followers of peace?

Bin Laden holds no regard for human life. He professes godliness while subscribing to racism in the same sentence. He feels that U.S. support of Israel’s Palestinian occupation offers him spiritual immunity on all grounds. In his mind he is acting in the name of what is right.

He has followers who definitely believe in him. The temptation to be called apart from the rest of humanity — to have a greater purpose in life — is tantalizing. The promise of this purpose appeals to core elements of human nature: to be a part of a coalition, to have brothers in arms, and to make the world a better place.

But the reasoning behind threatening to kill all American hostages if a man who organized the death of thousands of innocent people is brought to justice, is so skewed it verges on madness. Bin Laden believes he can do no wrong.

What should have taken place is a prompt response upon delivery of the Fűhrer’s newest mandate: that every single American hostage be released and we will just give Mohammed life in prison (period). Let Mohammed rot in a cell instead of killing him, if it saves the lives of our families and loved ones.

Bin Laden has complained we mistreat his soldiers. To that, we can respond that his people wouldn’t have ever been in our custody had he not taken it upon himself to escalate this war in the Middle East by bringing it into the daily lives of U.S. citizens.

The situation with bin Laden is that he hates the West. That’s it. He’s got a blame-thrower and a bad case of trigger-finger. There is no reasoning with this man who, in his eyes, lives a righteous life.

The best response to this newest bin Laden tape is to capture him and hold him accountable for his crimes at all costs. Bin Laden is good at tying all these separate issues together and rallying the troops for a war. He’d probably be an amazing used car salesman. Perhaps another radical leader — one who opposes violence and hatred — could pick apart bin Laden’s reasoning for bringing more bloodshed to this planet.

Maybe there is no way to end this global issue aside from taking down the organizers of this war. In that line of reasoning we would need to hold Mohammed accountable in the most severe manner. We need to understand that submitting to bin Laden’s demands ensures that he keeps making them. It is time to make a serious counter offer: release the captives and Mohammed’s life will be spared.

Let’s put the ball in his court.

By Matt Gomez
The Guardsman

Health care was reformed last month, and while the effects may not yet be evident, benefits for students could be great in the future.

Although this reform does not bring the country closer to a universal, single-payer system or include a public option, it will make necessary changes to what many consider a corrupt handling of people’s health.

Children of policyholders will now be allowed to stay covered under their parents’ insurance plan until the age of 26. This means there will be less of a financial burden for those who may have been told not to get sick because they don’t have insurance.

It also means, students will be able to focus more on school if they aren’t constantly concerned with either paying for their own insurance or risking their life by having none. When jobs are scarce and school alone is hard to pay for, one less bill, or the assurance of access to medical care, is appreciated.

The bill was also bundled with reform that concerns the student loan program. Instead of private banks lending government loans to students, the government itself will loan the money, essentially eliminating the middle man who wasn’t necessary in the first place.

This will save taxpayers some $68 billion. President Obama plans to re-invest the savings into education. His re-investment will increase Pell Grants, help students pay off loans and upgrade community colleges.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, this reform will cost about $950 billion over the next decade, but will lower federal deficits by $148 billion.  It will also extend coverage to 32 million previously uninsured people.

Republicans in office, who hope to see the reform fail, are calling this bill the Democrats’ Waterloo.

Democrats, of course, see this as their greatest victory in a long time.

Each side hopes to prevail, but the victory of this reform is owed to the people of this country – the people whom both Republican and Democratic congressman are elected to represent.

The U.S. is not the superpower it once was and it will take time to regain that status. That can’t be achieved by constant bickering between two parties who dislike each other solely because they hold different ideals.

The Democrats compromised a lot for this bill to become reality. Now that it is, both parties need to take every possible step to see this opportunity is not wasted because some grown-ups in Washington want to be able to say, “I told you so.” $1 trillion is still $1 trillion.

This bill could be a Waterloo or a victory, it all depends on how the situation is handled. This reform isn’t a revolution and it still hasn’t granted anyone anything, but it does present an opportunity with the potential to change the lives of many citizens of this country.

One of the ugliest forms of manipulation occurs in the health insurance industry, which has grown at a severe rate to the point that it threatens every facet of this nation’s economy. Even the healthy suffer from this abhorrent example of free-market economics gone wrong. The industry turns a profit by exploiting fear, then invents creative ways to exclude people or refuses to pay when injuries and sickness occur.

America’s battered health care system effects both our domestic and international economies. Amid rising costs, hospitals find it increasingly difficult to keep their doors open, which hurts the domestic economy by endangering jobs. Sky-high medical bills force families into debt, which lowers the gross domestic product, contributing to unemployment and the recession as a whole. Global companies, such as the Detroit automakers, are crippled by an inability to compete with foreign companies whose governments pay their citizens’ medical bills.

This is the backdrop against in which the White House and Congress have undertaken our latest media buzz phrase — health care reform.

The Bills, or Lack Thereof

Neither Congress nor the White House have produced a bill, so there isn’t really anything to be for or against yet. Two committees in the Senate and three in the House of Representatives are at various stages of drafting legislation. Eventually, each house committee will draft bills, and the Senate will have the final chance to revise and earmark before sending the legislation to President Obama, who then has the opportunity to either sign the bill into law or veto it.

But Congress has a long way to go before that can happen, even though Obama stated he would like to see health care reform in place by the end of 2009.

Democrats can’t seem to grasp exactly what should be included in the final bill. Lawmakers must be careful not to alienate fiscally conservative, “blue dog,” democrats who have the numbers in Congress to block legislation. The president has expressed a desire for bipartisan support of health care reform, but contentious provisions like a government-administered public option and mandating end-of-life care have driven Republicans to unanimously reject the reforms.

The American Affordable Health Choices Act(s) were passed by narrow margins in the three house committees as well as in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “The Senate Finance Committee is where it really matters. That’s the bottleneck,” Representative Jim Cooper of Tennessee, a member of one house committee drafting legislation, told the New York Times.

Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has worked closely with the White House on the ambitious health care overhaul, but his committee has yet to produce any legislation. Whatever comes out of the finance committee will be the closest of all acts in Congress to the final bill. From a progressive standpoint, that bill will also probably be the weakest, as the finance committee has been striving for more bipartisan support, offering concessions to conservatives in the proposed public option.

Seeing Through Republican Rhetoric

Conservative attacks to health care reform are as tired and baseless as any in recent memory. This is a complex issue, which presents a perfect opportunity to muddle the important national debate with false information.

Health care reform is not socialism, as many angry town-hall goers have become so fond of shouting. America’s economy is a hybrid of purist capitalism with a pinch of social programs appearing mostly out of the early 20th century progressive era and FDR’s New Deal. This catchy and misleading attack stems from the government-administered public health plan which is included — in different forms — in most of the proposed legislation. Recently, the Obama administration and the Senate Finance Committee have been backing off from this heated issue, advocating non-profit cooperatives instead.

The second deceiving attack was best propagated by that lovable Alaskan pit bull, Sara Palin, whose power to oversimplify an issue to the point of dishonesty never ceases to amaze. In no way does the government intend to set up “death panels” to decide when a citizen is undeserving of medical care. That horror will be, as it has been, reserved for private insurance companies driven by profit rather than the public good.

Government taking a more active roll in providing health care is not really an option that is up for debate. “The federal budget is on an unsustainable path,” stated the Congressional Budget Office in a June 16 letter to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, “primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care.” The CBO projects — if left alone — health care costs to the federal government would skyrocket the national debt to 86 percent of America’s gross domestic product by 2019, a dire economic number not seen since World War II.

The Dems: Confusion in Congress While the White House Lets Us Down With Backroom Deals

Though all the acts being drafted in Congressional committees carry similar names — The Affordable Health Choices Act(s) –  democrats are having trouble agreeing on exactly what health care reform will look like. This confusion is at least partially due to the fervent opposition surrounding the debate. Defenders of the status quo will twist indecision into something the under-informed will fear, and a lack of cohesive leadership is one cause for confusion about this issue.

At the same time, the White House is playing politics, allegedly circumventing Congress and negotiating a secret deal with PhRMA, America’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturers lobby.

An internal memo, leaked to The Huffington Post, outlined the deal, in which PhRMA would make concessions, mostly to do with medicare, saving the U.S. government $80 billion over 10 years. In return, the White House supposedly agreed to oppose importation of cheaper generic medications, restructuring of medicare making some specific drugs cheaper — costing PhRMA money — and not interfere by negotiating lower prices on behalf of American citizens.

If the memo is legitimate, we know Obama’s intentions are to leave decisions about American health care in the hands of the billion-dollar, profit-driven insurance industry (Remember the REAL death panels?). If it’s not true, it begs the following question: Why would PhRMA be launching a $150 million ad campaign in support of forthcoming health care reform?

Caring for Our Sick

“The United States spent approximately $2.2 trillion on health care in 2007, or $7,421 per person – nearly twice the average of other developed nations,” said President Obama during an August weekly address.

It’s obvious that we can do better. Our current system is a travesty, rife with deadly horrors of economic inequality. The rich can be healthy, while those who can’t afford medical treatment are forced to choose between watching themselves die or losing their dreams to unaffordable debt.

The “other developed nations” mentioned by the president — like Japan, Great Britain and Canada — have different forms of single-payer health care, which is a fancy political term meaning the government is the only health insurance provider. Single-payer systems ensure that every citizen is covered while the government pays health care providers for services.

This option, like the others being discussed in Congress, has its weaknesses. Citizens trade economic inequality in health care for higher taxes, and the rich actually see less access to health care than under private, employer-based systems.

But, unlike those other ideas, it’s not even being discussed. There will be an issue or a crisis, and it may not be health care, in which our current charismatic leader will have to sacrifice consensus politics — and probably votes, unfortunately — to pursue what human conscience tells us is really right. That is leadership, a separate concept from politics.

So far, the Obama White House has compromised on every contentious issue, distracting liberals with false promises and appeasing the right with watered-down results.

Let’s hope that he’s more than just a good politician when an emergency that calls for real leadership presents itself.

On Saturday, Apr. 18, the world learned of a farce called justice in Iran: the sentencing of Roxana Saberi, a journalist who has citizenship in both the U.S. and Iran, to eight years in Evin Prison for espionage.

Saberi’s press credentials were revoked by the Iranian government in 2006. However, the freelance journalist continued filing stories with the BBC and NPR. The Iranian government ignored this infraction until Jan. 2009, when she was arrested. Reports concerning the initial charge are conflicting.

Saberi reportedly told her father in phone call that she was arrested after purchasing a bottle of wine. Iran’s state news service reported the initial charge was for working as a journalist without proper press credentials. In early April, Saberi’s charges were suddenly expanded to spying for Washington.

Her one-day trial was conducted in secret and no evidence has been presented so far. Reza Saberi, the imprisoned journalist’s father, told NPR his daughter had been tricked — or coerced, to use an American legal term—into making incriminating statements. She was told she would be released if she confessed. Roxana Saberi is reported to have later withdrawn her confession, but that had no apparent effect on her case.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton have both called for Saberi’s immediate release, professing that she is not an American spy. Sadly, given the Bush administration’s lack of respect for due process concerning so-called “enemy combatants” imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, our new president’s pleas lack merit.

I suspect this crisis is only a preview of international relations to come that will find the U.S. on shaky moral ground. Bush’s legacy will be one of superiority and disrespect for the rule of law. It’s people like Saberi who will suffer the damage to this country’s standing abroad.

Saberi has been cast as an innocent pawn, larger political theatrics being played out here. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged prosecutors in the case to ensure Saberi a chance to defend herself. Ahmadinejad has also recently made optimistic statements about normalizing diplomatic relations with the U.S. and begin negotiations with President Obama concerning his country’s nuclear program.

Iran’s judiciary, however, represents a more “hard-line,” anti-Western philosophy, according to The Wall Street Journal’s Gerald Seib. He and several other columnists believe Iran’s judiciary is trying to use Saberi’s conviction to manufacture a crisis that will prevent Washington and Tehran from breaking a 30 year mutual silent treatment.

Political jockeying and international rights reputations aside, journalists, who simply and nobly strive to proliferate the truth, are too often victims of the stories they cover. The International News Safety Institute reports that 109 journalists were killed in the line of duty in 2008, and 24 more have died this year.

“Killing the Messenger,” the title of the INSI’s report detailing the increased number of journalist casualties in recent years, couldn’t have a better title. It illustrates how reprehensible are those who would murder, or otherwise silence, messengers of truth.

Saberi’s case is a potential travesty that can be avoided. Human beings should not be bargaining chips in a sordid international game of seven-card stud.

Let Saberi go, or at the very least, present the body (habeas corpus), which requires more than a one-day show trial complete with fickle charges and secrecy.

If she is truly guilty of espionage, wouldn’t her case be a great opportunity to show the superiority of Iran’s national security to the rest of the world? If she’s innocent, wouldn’t freeing her show that Iran’s respect for the law outshines even our own?

I plead with Iran, and I hope others will join me: Don’t let Saberi, whose health has become precarious, according to her father, deteriorate inside the walls of Evin Prison. President Obama, make a deal, and release some of the prisoners the US has been holding for years without trial.

In the pursuit of stories, journalists need to be willing to place themselves in harm’s way. If they don’t, critical international stories will go unreported, allowing those who would commit atrocities to act with impunity and in secrecy.

The population served by dedicated journalists, like Saberi, owes them protection when the ground is suddenly and unjustly swept away. Our freedom is dependent on the information provided by professionals like her.

We are not separate; we are the same. And presently, we are imprisoned.

By Graham Henderson
MANAGING EDITOR

It’s been two weeks since Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States. Now that the confetti has settled, the First Family has moved in, and the hangovers have faded. It’s time to take a step back.

Yes, Obama is not the same as our past presidents. But his race, and all the history that comes with it, can only dominate the headlines for so long. Clearly, Americans demonstrated that race was not an issue by voting Obama into office, so it’s time race is pushed aside to make way for more substantive issues.

President Obama’s campaign message of change led him to a landslide victory, but looking back, we have little reason to believe it’s true. After all, Obama is a politician, just like everyone else on Capitol Hill. He launched his political career in Illinois, a state not exactly known for political integrity, as former Gov. Rod Blogoyavitch has made obvious. While it’s not fair to judge him simply on the corrupt acts of others, it still makes his message of change look more like campaign rhetoric than a real promise.

In fairness, Obama has done well with his cabinet appointments. By choosing centrists, he has done a good job of reaching out to the Republican Party. He even reached out to Hillary Clinton supporters by appointing her as secretary of state.

But his bipartisan efforts have been less successful when it comes to actual legislation. Obama’s economic stimulus package, his first major piece of legislation, passed through the House of Representatives without a single republican vote. While the democratic majority is large enough to push the legislation through in the House, Obama will not have the same luxury in the Senate, where democrats are short of the 60 votes needed to prevent a republican filibuster.

It would be almost too easy for Obama to go back to the same type of politics that he campaigned so hard against. He is a democratic president at a time when democrats control the House and Senate. Further, our country has finally realized that the last eight years have been disastrous. Let me be clear — this is a good thing, but Obama needs to realize that support for him is not blind.

Government works on checks and balances, but when one party controls so much of the government, it’s easy for the president to forget that compromise is important too. Democrats won’t have a majority forever, and Obama needs to be careful  not to burn his bridges with republicans before he needs them.

During the campaign, Obama achieved celebrity status before he ever made it to the Oval Office. In the next few months, he will have to step up and prove that he is more than just a celebrity, he needs to prove that he is a leader. I’m not convinced yet.

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama walk down Pennsylvania Avenue en route to the White House, on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, in Washington D.C. Doug Mills/POOL/MCT

By Graham Henderson, Lauren Tyler and Fleur Bailey
Managing Editor, Features Editor and Staff Writer

In front of an record breaking crowd, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on Jan. 20 in Washington D.C. He is the first black president in the history of the United States.

The President took the oath of office on the same Bible used to swear in President Abraham Lincoln 148 years ago. After some slight confusion while taking the oath from U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Obama launched into his inaugural address.

“On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord,” he said.

While the President chose not to go into specifics, he was clear about about the difficulties facing the nation. “Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time,” he said. “But know this, America — they will be met.”

Obama was also certain to note America’s diversity. “[W]e know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers,” he said. “[A]s the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself.”

As with his campaign, Obama was hopeful throughout the speech. “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

An estimated 1.4 million people braved the freezing temperatures to witness the historic event, including former presidents George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and outgoing-president George W. Bush.

Despite a few hisses and boos when Bush took the stage, the crowd was cordial as President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama escorted Bush and former first lady Laura Bush to a waiting helicopter after the inaugural address.

The President then signed his first bills to confirm his cabinet before making his way by armored limousine to the National Statuary Hall for a private luncheon.

President Barack Obama delivers his inaugural address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, Jan 20. CHUCK KENNEDY/MCT

Thousands gather at Civic Center Plaza

At 7 a.m. this morning, the sun had barely begun to shine when thousands in San Francisco made their way to Civic Center Plaza to participate in the local inaugural festivities.

For many in attendance, this inauguration was the most momentous. “In my opinion this [the inauguration] is the greatest one that has come along,” said John Makely, 70, of Massachusetts. “The whole world is watching.”

“I agree by far this is the most historic inauguration,” said Williams Mill, 43, of San Francisco.

The crowd slowly filed into the plaza in between the bare trees to get a glimpse of the screen placed in front of the steps of City Hall.

People waited anxiously during the seemingly slow processions in Washington. Many were looking among the crowd for friends or relatives. Others were making phone calls.

When former first lady Laura Bush and first lady Michelle Obama emerged from the White House the crowd at Civic Center burst into applause and focused their attention back to the screen.

When Dick Cheney appeared, pushed in a wheelchair, the audience’s reaction at Civic Center was quite the opposite.

The biggest acclamation came when Barack Obama and George W. Bush left the White House steps and made their way to the motorcade.

As the procession made its way down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, the sun made its way over the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium.

The crowd was delighted when Joe Biden took his oath.  Obama then took his, with a little stumble in his words. Couples kissed, parents kissed their children’s heads, and tears glistened on the faces of many in the early morning sun.

When Obama gave his speech the crowd listened intently to the words of their new president, occasionally interrupting with outbursts of applause.

As the speech ended, the crowd dispersed throughout the plaza.

Helen Barton of San Francisco said that there had never been an inauguration like this one, “This one was special,” she said with a tear-stained face. For the rest of the day, Barton was off to party. “I don’t drink I just want to be out and enjoying this day.”

Rebecca Rae, 35, of San Francisco, with an Obama shirt and black tutu said she felt this excited when Bill Clinton had won his first term but said, “I never sought out an inauguration party!”

‘Change’ rings at the Fireside Bar

It was mimosas, merriment, and babies with Obama buttons at the Fireside bar, at 7th Avenue and Irving Street, which was filled with neighborhood friends eager to watch President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

There was hopeful chatter and the word “change” rang through the air.

Rene Marquardt and Michael Lively brought their 5-month-old daughter, Harper, along to Fireside. “We want her to know that she was a part of this historic event. She went with me to vote for him [Obama] and now she won’t know a time when [not] any one could be President,” said Lively. Harper wasn’t alone as many proud parents brought their babies along to the bar.

Some were still skeptical as Obama began his speech. Tia Barnard, a former Chicago resident, has a wait and see attitude. “He’s still a politician but I think Michelle helped him through Chicago politics. I want to see what he does,” said Barnard.

“This is a historic day, which I hope everyone will follow Obama’s lead,” said Chinetta Kincade, 67, who is black. “We have come a long way and I am touched. I pray he’ll stay strong,”

Students witness history

Over 500 City College students gathered at Ocean campus early on this morning to watch the much anticipated inauguration of Barack Obama.

The event was broadcast at three main locations on the campus — the Diego Rivera Theatre, the Visual Arts Building and the Audiovisual Center at the Rosenberg Library, where it also shown in the foyer on three floors.

Stephanie Lyons, concert and lecture series coordinator for City College organized the broadcast of the inauguration at the Diego Rivera Theatre.

“We’ve been planning this since Obama got elected in November,” Lyons said. “I suddenly realized that we needed to make provisions for students and faculty to witness this moment in history. We were prepared to accomodate about 800 people. I am thrilled that we were able to do this for our students. It’s such a great moment in our history.”

The theater buzzed with electricity and excitement as students and staff piled into the auditorium at 8 a.m. to witness the momentous occasion.

“I’m really excited about this,” said Paul Abuan, 18, a culinary arts student. “I’ve become more and more interested in it because he’s the first black president.”

Silvie Hibdon, 28, a student from the Czech Republic smiled as a couple of hisses were heard when former president Bush appeared on the screen. “As long as Bush is gone it’s good,” she said.

But the room was full of applause and cheers for Obama. One student even shouted out “I love you!” when Obama approached the podium to give his speech. All eyes were glued to the screen throughout the entire ceremony with every ear tuned in to Obama’s words.

“They were an enthusiastic crowd,” Lyons said. “People applauded as if Obama could actually hear them. There were tears, it was emotional.”

The feeling of elation for this long-awaited day was not without a little apprehension from some. Student David Hato, 21, who watched the inauguration at the theater said he has high expectations for the Obama administration.

“I’m more hopeful than skeptical but I’ll believe it all when I see it,” Hato said. “[H]e’s got a lot to prove to me that what he’s talking about is true.”

John Gallo, 37, an oceanography student viewed the ceremony at the library. “I was already at school today but I came here to watch. I voted for Obama, this is a major historical event for our country,” he said.

Lyons summed up the general feeling that has been shared by many at City College, and all over the country.

“It’s a new start for all of us. It’s time for the cynicism to stop, to roll up our sleeves and get to work,” she said. “We need to recognize that the human family isn’t about differences or trying to make everyone be the same, but about just trying again to be more positive. Today we’ve got a new chance to start over.”

—–

Contributing writer Maahum Chaudhry, News Editor Ellen Silk and Editor in Chief Jessica Luthi contributed to this story.

DESMOND MILLER / GUARDSMAN

Obama will lead us to a brighter future.

BY PARREE FOSTER
CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The United States Constitution says: “…We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…;” the Declaration of Independence states: “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” and in the Redeclaration of Independence by Kentucky Patriot is written”…[A]nd are empowered by their Creator…”

These passages begin the manifesto of a young rebellious country of people who felt they could change the course of the human condition and bring freedom and enlightenment, not by terror of oppression by the strength of their bombs and armies – but by the moral truths of said manifesto.

Unfortunately, no sooner were these written that the seeds of their demise were planted in the politics of our new government: the practice of slavery and racial superiority, the marriage of industry and power, the distancing of Washington from the common man. Today, scarcely anybody, not only in the United States, but throughout the world, recognizes us as the nation who penned those words over 200 years ago.

In this world, where any country can pose a nuclear threat, a so-called “superpower” like the United States can be defeated by Third World nations like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. War can only mean the mutual destruction of all people. Our country needs a leader who can fulfill the ideas of the original manifesto to show the original promise to the people is not dead, but alive.

We need a symbol, a beacon. What better symbol to take us forward than a black man leading our country?

Black people have always represented American strife, struggle and various other aspects of our national identity. I believe we are not only ready, but we need to make a black man, in particular Barack Obama, the Commander and Chief, to facilitate the rebuilding of respect, stability and hope of our, once great, nation in our own country and as a sign for the rest of the world.

Yes, America is ready for a Black president!

BY LAUREN TYLER
STAFF WRITER

Aside from the liberal premonition of San Francisco, the United States embracing an African-American president seems far from likely.

Approval rates of McCain do not linger far behind that of Obama in a country who still does not know past the superficiality of their candidates.

Since the beginning of the presidential race McCain, without lifting a finger, has been inching his way toward the favorable light of Obama.

According to the August 25, 2008 poll on gallup.com, Obama and McCain both have a 45 percent approval rate.

Though nominees typically receive a five percent boost after announcing the vice president, Obama has found himself tied in the polls, a far fetched idea not long ago, as the election rolls on.

With racism and a fear of changing the rural blue-collar norm, an extra wrench is thrown into the political machine.

In an article from The Economist, “The Big, Bellwether Battlefield” from July 31, 2008, Obama has yet to appeal to rural “lunch pail” Ohio democrats.

In certain areas of the state signs read “Hell is real,” and “Repent!” along the highway. Obama “still has a problem connecting with the white working-class votes,” writes the Economists.

Many blue-collar Ohio democrats still ask “Who on earth is this guy?”

Obama campaigned twice as long as Clinton but still lost by 10 points.

Many Americans do not want liberal referendums to shake the foundation they were brought up upon.

Frankly, many feel Obama is just being audacious. MaCain might be in the same boat of audacity, but in the mouth of conservatism that is a bit more familiar.

Though both candidates had hopes for changing the system, on the “campaign trail, the system is winning,” the system of the rich, white man who say’s a lot while saying much of nothing.