Has Barack Obama Left the Primary Season Unaffected?

What won me over about Barack Obama from the onset, and even before he had officially announced his candidacy for President, was how he came off as an honest person, one who wouldn't play Washington's game, but was getting involved to make a genuine difference. Certainly, this was the crux of his second, most recent book, The Audacity of Hope. Obama expressed a deep desire to get involved in politics so that he could turn it into what it was supposed to be: a representation of the governed. This is why I did not vote for Hillary. In every aspect, her goal has always seemed to be to "make it". It always feels like she's just trying to prove what she can do, and trying to get the glory that she feels like she so rightly deserves. I couldn't vote for somebody who is in the contest for the sake of being a winner, instead of for the sake of making the world a better place.

Over the past six months, though, I have begun to get the feeling that many of Obama's insiders have been encouraging him to make a point of saving face when being attacked by his opponents. I feel that instead of claiming ignorance Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial sermons, he should have stood against the attacks and stated that Barack Obama is not Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Regardless of what church Senator Obama attends, Rev. Wright is not the man running for President, nor can the people should not hold Obama accountable for Rev. Wright's opinions, regardless of how the media feels like portraying it.

Going further along the same vein, a member of Obama's team resigned this weekend after it came out that he had received special treatment from Countrywide, the nations largest mortgage lender and one that nearly lost everything in the subprime debacle, having been deeply involved in the issuance of subprime loans to unworthy, and sometimes unaware, borrowers. James A. Johnson, the man in question, had been CEO of Fannie Mae before joining on with Obama's team as the man in charge of finding Obama a running mate for the election in November.

When the subject first came up on Saturday, June 7th, Obama pointed out that his only job in Obama's campaign was to vet his potential running mates, and that he was neither making important decisions for Obama, nor getting paid for any work he was doing. At first, Obama did stand against the media's (and John McCain's) attacks, but on Monday, Johnson resigned from his volunteer post with the Obama campaign. Obama accepted his resignation and his campaign issued a statement.

I am at least glad that the decision seems to have been made by Johnson, instead of by Obama himself, however this is just another example of Obama stepping out of the way of the media to keep from getting burned.

Now I do not mean to imply that Obama should accept any sort of defamation for having been involved with Rev. Wright or with Jim Johnson, but rather that he should stand up against the media and his opponent and say, "I will not let you do this." These attacks are the exact types of things that Obama promised to change, yet instead he is starting to play the game by saving face.

One might say that he and his staff simply realized that he couldn't make it through the election if he didn't start pointing out the faults in his opponents instead of just promising change, but my question is, "Why not?" That is what he promised to do: to show the country and the world that you CAN succeed in changing this country without playing the Washington game. And I certainly hope that, in the end, that is what he will have done.

Even if he does become greatly changed by the electoral process, and finds himself unable to return to the Barack Obama he once was, he will still get my vote. In my opinion, he is a far greater candidate than any of the alternatives, real or presumed. But I pray that he realizes what is beginning to happen and breaks the restraints that have started to keep him down. If he does, we will finally know that it is possible to win the Whitehouse without playing the game.

Free Speech -vs- Fake Child Pornography

I have no desires to argue that the production of child pornography represents free speech, nor do I believe that those involved in the spread of child pornography deserve any leniency. I do, however, find this recent Supreme Court decision a bit interesting, and somewhat in error.

As the New York Times reports, The Supreme Court ruled in defense of a portion of a child pornography law that essentially states that it is illegal to promote legitimate, adult pornography as child pornography, usually referred to as "fake child pornography". This goes against a 2002 decision in which the court said that legislation cannot ban pictures of adults posing as children, or essentially cannot ban pictures in which there are no REAL children present.

So, one would be led to interpret these decisions just as the editors at the New York Times have: "Fake" child pornography is legal, but it is illegal to market it as such.

No I guess I can see the reasoning, being that those who sell it might be misleading their customers, but that is not an issue for a Child Pornography Law, but for a business practices law. At any rate, how can this act not be considered free speech as well?

I could understand a person saying real child pornography is just as much free speech as is your typical convenience store pornographic magazine, if it were not for the fact that this is a terrible offense against the children involved.

In fake child pornography, no children ARE involved, however, I'd be worried about the persons who involve themselves in the receipt of this type of pornography, and what desires it might produce in them, as well as what ends might result.

Supreme Court: Guantanamo Detainees Have Right to Appeal in Civilian Court

Things make me so mad sometimes. Let me begin to explain by reiterating that I voted for Bush on his second term (yes, I know... I do apologize to the rest of you for that). I probably should have done some actual research before casting my vote (not that I would have voted for Kerry, but hey.)

I've read many news stories regarding the treatment of Guantanamo detainees, and have always felt that our military has claimed more power than is rightly theirs. I'm sure there are a number of people being detained who actually are serious, serious threats, and who might have taken any number of lives had they been free all this time; however, I feel that the behavior (or potential behavior) of those who are guilty should NEVER infringe on the rights of those who aren't.

For this reason, I was glad to hear of today's Supreme Court Ruling that determined that Guantanamo detainees have the right to appeal military tribunal decisions in the US Court system. This has gone on too long. How can we say we have the right to prosecute a person internally, without affording them the rights of any other person who gets prosecuted? Why shouldn't they have presumed innocence? And where do Bush and Congress get off thinking they can write legislation that gives them free reign over any person they so much as suspect to be an enemy combatant?

Enough is enough, and I hope there will be no delay in re-writing the legislation that allows our military to treat their suspects the way they do. Call me disloyal, I just hope to be able to always consider myself fair.