I used to watch Saturday Night Live religiously and there would always be a presidential comedy bit about some situation that you just knew would never happen. Funny thing is that nothing beats reality.

Seriously, are die hard McCain fans still around???  I know many think that his VP choice was a bad decision, but another bad decision was picking Tucker Bounds to speak on behalf of his campaign.  I find it hilarious that the Republican mantra is to deflect any questions that you cannot answer onto something negative about your opponent.  This guy could not answer one question in a straight forward manner.   So does this mean that Tucker is just unprepared (With the stage of the Republican National Convention in the background)? Or does this support the idea that McCain shot himself in the foot by picking Palin?  If McCain is making bad decisions well before being elected into office, I’m scared to see what happens if he even makes it to office.

I really believe that he and his campaign are more prepared to face the issues of the campaign trail as well as the presidency. Check out this hilarious SNL skit CNN interview!

I’m sitting here thinking to myself that, maybe I just don’t get it.  I spent all of last week glued to the blogs, news reports and debates between the political analysts trying to gather a wealth of information from which to draw my own conclusions about the Democratic convention.  It was my first time being so involved, but I concluded that it was a great and exciting week.  Much of it included the dreadful political rhetoric that most have grown to hate, but as I sifted through the sand there were many gems to be seen.  This convention was historic because it climaxed with the nomination of America’s first African American presidential candidate by a major party.  It was even more exciting because the political dynasty of the Clintons ultimately gave a public approval of Barack Obama.  I really thought things were on the up and up for what America was potentially about to experience…. but maybe I’m wrong.

I have to admit that I am saddened by the fact that Black people are consistent to severely criticize  Barack Obama on issues to which we have never seriously challenged any other President or elected official.  Case and point – John Lewis.  This guy has been in Congress for over 20 years and hasn’t done much of anything, but most years he runs un-opposed.  It’s almost like he gets a pass because he walked with Martin Luther King.  Anyway, the point I’m making is that a lot of African Americans refuse to support Barack Obama because he isn’t running on a “Pro-Black” platform.  I think it is important to note that anyone that runs on a “pro-ethnic” platform on behalf of any ethnicity would surely be committing political suicide.  It’s like the Black community is upset because he’s not outlining his plan to make Blacks an elite ethnic group.

Maybe I’m just speculating, or maybe I just don’t get it.  I noticed how most of our “leaders” from the Civil Rights era opposed his presidential bid in the beginning stages, which baffled me because it seemed as if this would be the ultimate success story for them.  Now these same leaders, and other social mouth pieces, are the ones most critical of him, instead of embracing him and sharing our concerns with him, or lobbying on behalf of the interests of our community.  Barack has said that he would like to do right by all of America, not just one race – which means that he shouldn’t or wouldn’t outline an agenda specific to one race of Americans.  For a people that has suffered oppression for so long, it seems like we would support a candidate that seeks to unify America and at least try to have us live out our creed.  I have often heard that the oppressed often take on the mentality of the oppressor.

I don’t know, maybe I just don’t get it.  Am I a bad person in the eyes of Black America because I’m not pro Black Power.  Do I deserve the same criticism because I support Barack’s total view?  Somebody help me understand.

I can’t help but wonder if CNN is flexing its Media Muscle right now. A lot of African American oriented blogs and radio talk shows are discussing the motives and validity of the network’s ambitious adventure to provide the world insight into our culture. The general consensus seems to be that this was truly a missed opportunity to provide a substantive cultural look at Blacks in America, although other people feel that indeed some purpose is served because somewhere the light bulb is going off in someone’s head.

Not only is this presentation being heavily covered in almost every aspect of the African American society, mainstream media has also given great attention to the topic. A frenzy has been created that has encouraged everyone to watch (Hey, American Idol’s over right?) and prepare themselves for the next day’s water cooler conversation. I can’t turn my head or radio station without some mention of “Black In America”. So now that CNN has our attention, what is the real purpose behind this documentary? I feel that they truly missed the mark on the goal they purported to fulfill, but what I’m not sure of is whether or not this was done with an underlying mission in mind. Yeah, it’s time for the conspiracy theory talk… just feel me out for a moment.

Just shy of about two months ago CNN was dubbed the “Clinton News Network” because many people asserted that it’s presentation of Democratic Primary related events were unfairly biased towards the Clintons. For whatever reason there seemed to be a very sincere loyalty to the Clinton campaign, and CNN’s unbridled media flex muscle, strong enough to shape the opinions of its faithful demographic and others, was working to tilt the election scale undeniably towards the Clintons. From this premise, can we assume that the network’s news was not fair and unbalanced, and this loyalty that was so strong would last even beyond a candidate selection by the Democratic Party? If so, then a special such as “Black In America” would be very timely.

It is very well possible that the Nation may have it’s first African American president, but media slip ups continue to plague honest campaign efforts. Is it any coincidence that even though Obama professes to be a Christian, the media continues to sew the ideas of a connection between him and fundamental Islamic extremists? Is it by chance that The New Yorker created a “satirical” cover reinforcing these stereotypes when I’m sure those guys are more than smart enough to understand that there are many people that will simply believe what they see with no absolutely no personal interpretation? I won’t even get into that Jeremiah Wright fiasco that the media birthed. With all of this preceding “Black in America”, why can’t one believe that as Obama gains momentum against McCain, a major network would market and present the world a contemporary view into life in America as a Black person and merely reinforce stereotypes and negative statistics that would otherwise been seen nightly on one of their news broadcasts? Great amounts of money were spent to create the attention this series has gotten. Was this to subconsciously cause a connection between the ills of Black America and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee? This could have a lot of social dis-associative power.

Many will read this and point out that it had been stated that this was done 18-22 months in advance and was done to acknowledge the 40th year anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Can we consider that yes, this footage could have taken close to two years to shoot, but we’re dealing with a network that runs a 24 / 7 news machine that edits on the fly to keep up with a fast paced world. It could be that commentary for the show was recorded a few different ways so that they could adapt this documentary to the message that was to be sent in the social climate of the time it aired. I’m just speculating.

Forty years later and Blacks in America have made significant positive strides, but this show doesn’t accurately reflect so. Obama is currently making unprecedented advances in his current trip to Europe, The UK and The Middle East, trying to repair and strengthen relationships with the leaders of this world. He is very peaceful and respectful in his approach and has been very warmly received. What better way to commemorate the 40th year of King’s assassination than to fairly present the potential of the ultimate dream come true. Why continue to focus on the negative? Unless there are some ulterior motives…

What do you think?