Click here for more videos from Vote For Change

Dear History,
For too long have I pondered your meaning, memorized dates of battles, years of servitude, decades of injustice, named eras after movements, mourned the extinction of species, cursed founding fathers, worn vintage suits and cloaked myself with references of your hold on me.

I have walked through museums wondering how it is that greatness had lived and died all before my time. Parts of me feared becoming great because it seemed to include a price of death and a postmortem glory that my memory could never resurrect. I’ve stared at paintings dying to catch glimpses of the painter, closed my eyes to listen to songs that drunken ghosts dance to, and all the while I’ve fought to FREE the present to BECOME.

In 1995, I stood with poets in the middle of the Brooklyn Bridge, barking metaphors at the new moon of the summer solstice wedging words into it’s craters, sewing seeds through nightly wind.

In 1996, I forced the ocean back with words, fathered planets, climbed pyramids, and began to decipher the sirens song to conjure the dream-filled Children of the Night.

In 1997, I stood with prisoners in our nations capitol bending bars with the power of thought as wordsmiths served sentences and Hip Hop diddy-dandified itself: stealing golden calves from the Old Testament to smuggle into the lavish crib of Pontius Pilate for it’s birthday party

In 1998, I swallowed fear and sun-danced on film reels, projecting a me that had not been into a me that ever shall be.

And HERE I stand, ten years the difference and witness to changing hands.

Dear History,
I beat you. I stand a generator of generations bearing witness to a world that we are holding accountable for past actions. Me and my friends, we’re changing our diets, re-inventing marriage, check-mating capitalism, re-defining ethics, replacing cruelty with compassion, and have sworn not to re-elect the sins of the father.

We are casting our votes for so much more than a lesser of evils, but for change, and greater insight, for wisdom out of the mouths of babes, for races that bleed into ONE.

Dear History,
You are behind us and we are no longer looking back. We are standing on the threshold of new times, new days, new worlds, and charging forward without battle cry or trumpet, while cynicism, apathy, and cowardice take their place beside you, behind us.

Dear History,
We no longer believe in you. We have invested our our thoughts and dreams into the present moment and opportunity to shift our reality into one that does not resemble your dog-eared books.

We stand on the shoulders of those who have dared to dream and on the necks of those who have wasted their time and ours proclaiming a past past its prime.

Dear History,
Blitz! It’s my turn now. You can have your mounds of flesh, leather boots, cannons and sabers, nooses and guillotines, warships and fighter planes, trails of tears and blood, genocides, dungeons and dragons, ghost stories and fairy tales……….

Come on guys! Help me out! ~ Saul

Democratic presidential hopefuls strapped on their political gloves once more for the next round of debates. The 90-minute bout, a relatively clean fight, was not without a few jabs. Topics of the February 25th debate held at Cleveland State University addressed healthcare, the war in Iraq, and NAFTA.

The unpopular free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico was a major topic of debate. Many blue-collar workers are widely opposed to the agreement and their votes weigh heavily in Ohio democratic primaries.

Clinton stated, “I will say to Mexico that we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”

Obama accused Clinton of playing both sides of this matter, indicating her position on the issue changes to accommodate the particular audience. “This is something I have been consistent about,” Obama stated regarding his opposition to NAFTA. Interestingly, neither candidate stated they would withdraw from the agreement if elected.

Both parties criticized the Bush Administration for the poor choices surrounding the war in Iraq. Both Clinton and Obama ensued in a short debate disputing who is more opposed to the war. Clinton initially voted to authorize the war in 2002.

In light of the controversy surrounding the mass mailings distributed by both campaigns, the topic of negative campaigning also took center stage.

Sen. Clinton appeared up in arms a week ago when, in an off the cuff press conference, Clinton declared, “Every Democrat in Ohio ought to be outraged. Shame on you, Barack Obama.” Clinton went on to issue a challenge to Barack stating, “Meet me in Ohio. Let’s have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”

Around the same time of the mass mailings, a photograph of Sen. Obama appeared on The Drudge Report’s website alleging Clinton staffers provided the image. Sen. Obama’s camp stated the distribution of this photograph was an effort to incite “fear mongering.”

During the debate, Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with the publication of the photograph to the best of her knowledge. Obama addressed the matter by stating, “I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo.”

Senator Clinton once held a significant lead over her opponent but now, various polls show Clinton and Obama to be running a very tight race.

With primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island quickly approaching in the next few days, political analysts suggest Clinton must do exceptionally well in Texas and Ohio if she’s to remain a contender. Texas and Ohio are both high delegate states.

As we enter the second month of the year the road to the presidency is now down to the final four. Super Tuesday is within days and America will announce their choice of who will continue on. Debates for both the Republican and Democratic parties both proved interesting. Unlike the pot shots McCain and Romney threw back and forth, Clinton and Obama chose to lay out their strategic differences. The two hour debate aired live from the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, California revealed to viewers that the two political history makers have far more in common than previously thought.

The topics discussed at length included healthcare, national security, immigration, and the economy. While both candidates agree that change is necessary in order to turn the nation around, there were significant differences in their approach to effecting that change.

Both candidates agree that illegal immigrants employed in the U.S. drives down wages and that a comprehensive immigration reform must be put in place to tackle the issue of the 12 – 14 million people that are illegally in the United States today. Senator Obama emphasized the need to crackdown on employers hiring illegal immigrants as did Senator Clinton. Both candidates believe a “pathway to citizenship” to those already here should be established and expressed that fines be imposed on those persons who entered the country illegally. Senator Clinton expressed that back taxes should also be paid over a period of time as well as mandating non-English speakers learn English. Once all these steps have been taken, then the illegal immigrants would have to “wait in line” like everyone else for their citizenship. While these feelings were mutual between both parties, there was discord with the matter of issuing driver’s licenses.

Obama’s position supported issuing licenses to illegal immigrants so as to avoid the “hit and run” scenario where persons fearing deportation flee accident scenes. Clinton stated, this would only serve to “further undermine the problem.”

Healthcare, the War in Iraq, and the present state of the economy were also addressed. With an estimated 16 % of the nation’s citizens uninsured, proper coverage was a heavy debate. Senator Clinton favors a universal health plan whereas Senator Obama favors a voluntary approach. Under Clinton’s proposed healthcare solution, citizens with existing healthcare coverage would remain unchanged. Uninsured or underinsured persons would have the Congressional insurance plan available to them. Obama, while emphasizing his proposed healthcare plan would be voluntary, advised that even if adults opted not to carry insurance, it would be mandatory for children to have coverage (up to age 25).

Overall, the debate was party friendly as the brunt of the force was directed at the Bush Administration and the Republican candidates. Questions asked were received from users of www.Politico.com, a fairly new site dedicated to covering Capitol Hill politics as well as lobbyists and the politics of the presidential campaign.

As the candidates are whittled down to the final two and the race for the presidential seat begins to quicken, 2008 has already proved to be historic. Following the results of Super Tuesday and finally the election in November, if a democrat is elected to the presidency, regardless of which candidate, history will be made

2007 will definitely go down in the history books as one of the most politically controversial years ever. As the War in Iraq continues, along with mounting tensions between the U.S. and Iran, one thing has never been witnessed more clearly before than it is today—the power of the presidency.

Earlier in the year, Bush assured the American people he would tackle the issues of Social Security and Immigration. Those matters took second chair to the War in Iraq. Bush brandished his executive powers time after time during 2007 as he vetoed bills and locked horns with Congress over several major issues such as by passing the judicial system to eavesdrop and the newly controversial issue of simulating drowning to force prisoners of war to divulge intelligence information—a torture technique supposedly no longer used.

How much power is too much power? Congress pressured Bush to adhere to a timeline for troop removal from the Middle East in which Bush emphatically revoked. One could certainly venture to say there has been a serious abuse of executive power during the past two terms of this presidency. Yet, the matter goes unnoticed by the media. America is in crisis—economically, politically and socially. So when do the American people declare “enough” and begin to demand change?

Clearly, the door has been opened for presidential leaders who succeed Bush to follow suit and wield executive power in the same manner. If the checks and balances are not afforded the ability to do the job in which they were meant, could the democracy in which our government so adamantly wishes to spread globally be at the mercy of a new form of imperialism?

As the countdown continues towards the 2008 election, presidential hopefuls are diligently pounding the campaign trail. While the candidates circulating heavily in the press stand to possibly make history as the first woman or first African American come as no surprise, there is another hopeful in which you may or may not have heard of that stands to do the same thing.

He’s seasoned, conservative, Republican, and Black. His name is Alan Keyes and he is vying for your vote. People may be surprised to learn that Keyes is no stranger to government. With a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard, Alan Keyes served as Assistant Secretary of State for more than 10 years, United Nations Economic and Social Council ambassador, and founded the National Taxpayers’ Action Day. But where does Keyes stand on the issues?

Keyes can best be described as “Pro”. He is Pro-life, Pro-family, and he believes the war on terror is something we must address but more effectively. Keyes is a true conservative whose main focuses are rooted in morality. Unlike the traditional song and dance the general public receives from those desiring to be politically correct for the sake of sustaining popularity and perhaps securing votes, Keyes is not the typical politician. His convictions are deeply rooted in the traditional ways and Keyes stands firm in his beliefs of what he feels are solutions to today’s economical crisis, educational pitfalls, and social demise.

Alan Keyes may prove to be a worthy opponent but only time will tell. With his belief in abolishing income tax and implementing a national sales tax in its stead, Keyes just might be the fresh face and wealth of ideas needed to put the U.S. back on course.

“The challenge now is to practice politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.”

Those were the words spoken by Hillary Rodham-Clinton upon completion of her undergraduate studies at Wellesley College. The Yale School of Law graduate was first introduced to the state of Arkansas as the First Lady during the 12 years husband Bill Clinton served as governor. She would go on to become the nation’s First Lady and in November 2000, Hillary Rodham Clinton became New York Senator where she continues to serve.

Today, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now hitting the campaigning trail in hopes of making history by becoming the 44th U.S. President and this nation’s first female President. Much of the issues Senator Rodham-Clinton addresses have received much scrutiny and at times, it’s been suggested that she straddles the fence on most topics.

Senator Rodham-Clinton, like her fellow candidates, has not offered a definitive date or timeline on when U.S. Troops will be able to return home but she has offered some definite opinions on plans in other areas such as Roe v. Wade, stem cell research, health care, and more. Surprisingly, as the 2008 presidential hopefuls are debating and making television appearances to discuss their goals for America’s future, matters such as the slow redevelopment of the residential areas of Katrina stricken areas such as New Orleans are not mentioned. One topic that has long been consistent with Senator Rodham-Clinton is the matter of women’s rights. She has long advocated for a woman’s right to choose and has pushed for more job opportunities for both women and minorities.

So, does Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton have what it takes to tackle foreign policy, the War in Iraq, and to successfully lead our country out of its current great divide? Clutch would love to hear you weigh in on the subject.

As 2007 winds down the political party trains are traveling to a town near you. Attempts to gain support for the 2008 election are vastly underway and all eyes are on the key players, party affiliations are aggressively working to rally public support in hopes of securing a win. Most people when asked will proudly declare their party affiliation – Republican, Democrat etc. How much does anyone really know about their party of choice? In this month’s edition of Politics As Usual, Clutch is providing some little known historical facts on both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

One of two major political parties, the Republican Party traditionally supports a laissez-faire capitalism, conservative social reform, and low taxes. Its origins can be traced back to the 1850s and is frequently referred to as GOP. The Republican Party uses an elephant for its logo. Supporters of states’ rights, the Republican Party advocates reduced taxes, oppose gun-control, and favor increased government regulation in the private sector.

On the other side of the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. Democrats support organized labor, progressive reform, and ethnic minorities. The logo used by Democrats is the donkey. Modern day Democratic support is in favor of strong federal government possessing an ability to regulate business and industry, federally funded social programs, benefits for the unemployed, underprivileged, elderly, and also favors securing civil rights.

Presidential hopefuls such as Mitt Romney, Hilary Clinton, John McCain, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and more are gearing up to ensure the 2008 elections will be one to watch. With social and political issues such as the War in Iraq, immigration, sexual preference, and more, following the candidates to analyze their views on many of the nations’ issues will be crucial in determining which candidates have the nation’s best interest at heart.

Having armed our readers with some background on the two main parties, we thought we would leave you a few more facts to reinforce or perhaps even encourage you to take a closer look at your party of choice. Happy voting!

Fact #1:

The Republican Party is credited with the abolition of slavery.

Fact #2:

Four U.S. Presidents have been assassinated since 1865.

Fact #3:

The United States has had a total of 43 presidents since 1789 - 18 Republicans, 14 Democrats, 4 Democrat-Republicans, 4 Whigs, 1 Democrat/National Union 1 Federalist, and 1 with no party affiliation.

Fact #4:

Twelve of the U.S. presidents owned slaves and eight owned slaves while serving as president.

Fact #5:

Thomas Jefferson’s faction was knows as the Democratic-Republican Party.

Fact #6:

In 1792, the term Republican was adopted.

Fact #7:

The Democratic Party was formed in the 1830s and is an evolution of the Democratic-Republican Party.

Fact #8:

GOP stands for Grand Old Party.

Fact #9:

The term laissez-faire refers to the policy of governmental interference in economic affairs of individuals and society being limited to a minimum.

Fact #10:

Responsible for advocating sectional antagonism and formed in 1834, the Whig Party was considered a major party between 1834 and 1854.

Fact #11:

The Democratic Party can be traced back to 1792 and is the oldest political party in the United States.

In the wake of the tragic events that unfolded in Ohio last week where a very expectant mother was slain and buried, I felt it necessary to put official politics to the side and address a pressing community issue. As many around the country and perhaps even the world watched the disturbing details about the disappearance and ultimate murder of the young woman in Ohio, minds were baffled at who could commit such a heinous act of violence against someone so vulnerable and helpless (given her condition). When the headlines revealed the alleged murderer was none other than the father of the victim’s two-year old son and unborn child, viewers were outraged. And the question I came away with after all was finally revealed was simply this: What are we, as a community, doing to build and uplift our girls so they fully understand they do not have to settle for less? In this two-part series, we will address the two primary areas of how women compromise themselves.

Just to be clear, this is not an article to judge lifestyles or life choices. However, this is an article to bring much needed attention to the poor choices many of today’s young women are making when it comes to relationships. With all the controversy surrounding the rap industry and the way women are portrayed in both song and video, one has to wonder who is leading by example in the lives of our girls today.

No one ever said change wasn’t necessary but all change is not good. And while infidelity has always existed, never has it taken the front seat it does today. It is understood that in many of these cases, the women are not aware that the men they become involved with are married. However, there are many women who gladly admit to having affairs with married men and justifying the behavior by detaching themselves from the truth of the relationship. Is the current state of thinking it is okay to become involved with a man who is married the new trend? With all the milestones women have reached in today’s society, are we willing to set ourselves back for fleeting moments of affection?

I think it is high time we sit down and have a real heart to heart about this matter and more. Let’s get real. Men are like everyone else and will do and get away with whatever they are allowed to. Women can not leave it up to men to change their behavior. Our girls need to be instilled with a strong sense of self-worth and self-respect so as to avoid many of these pitfalls women have come to face in unsuccessful relationships. Many young women nowadays grow up without a father or strong male figure in the home and this may contribute greatly to that inner need for love and acceptance. Women have to guide that sense of longing in our young women so they don’t get caught up in the process of discovering love. Marriage is sacred. It is a spiritual bond between a man, a woman, and their God. It isn’t something to be entered into lightly or dismissed whenever an argument arises. By the same token, for those women who are single and searching, don’t make it easy for these men. Question them and find out as much as you can before you allow yourself to get emotionally attached. In the long run, you will save yourself a ton of heartache and disappointment. Ask yourself, do you really want to devote your time to a man who can’t fully commit to you? And for the woman who on rare occasion is able to successfully get a man to leave his wife and in turn marry you, do you really believe he’s going to be fully committed to you? Who is to say he won’t do the same thing to you with someone else?

Although not a major story on the evening news, the dissolution of American families is growing at an alarming rate; so much so, that its current state of existence has taken many in society by surprise. Its image is no longer modeled after the traditional two-parent household of decades past. Today, single parenting is at an all-time high and children are forced early on to accept every increasing responsibility in lieu of typical childhood.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics, single parents accounted for 27 percent of American households in 2000. What’s more, the rate of single mothers leaped from 500,000 to over two million between 1970 and 2000. The act of single-handedly balancing family and career continues to rise and the challenges become greater.

So, what are the causes of these extreme changes in America’s family dynamics? Some argue it is due largely in part to women taking a more active role in the workforce. Others feel the transition of divorce is another contributor. Why are women choosing the workforce more now? Is it possibly because they can no longer afford to stay at home? Perhaps the increased rate of divorce and non-traditional families contributes to the cycle of women working outside of the home. In other words, it may not necessarily be by choice, but rather by necessity. And while both arguments may provide just cause, there is yet another element that often goes unaddressed – politics.

Over the past 30 years there has been a significant increase in the government’s level of involvement in American households. Many things, both inside and outside the home, have changed with regards to families. One of the most significant changes to take place is the lack of authority parents now have compared to decades past. Physical discipline is highly frowned upon today and can often lead to criminal prosecution. While no one would ever advocate abuse, is there solid evidence that proves spanking during child rearing has permanently damaging psychological and physical effects? How much effort is the government making to ensure solid families in our society today? It is more difficult to obtain state issued identification in some states than it is to obtain a divorce. Is remediation made mandatory? And while all marriages and/or relationships are not destined for a lifetime of togetherness, where children are concerned, should there be a lifetime commitment to ensuring they are provided an environment conducive to nurturing emotional wellness and stability? Perhaps it would be highly feasible for our lawmakers to take a closer look at this great decline. Family values are not only diminishing in the inner cities, but also the suburbs. Maybe, if political involvement in family structures were more proactive as opposed to reactive, the family unit just might redeem itself.

One of the most diverse groups in the United States, the African American community is complex, culturally rich and at times, clearly divided on key issues. While many social, economic and political concerns in the Black community are generally agreed upon, most of them go unresolved due to great differences of opinion and preconditioned attitudes from a time when separation was created by willful design.

One of the most recent events rendering truth to this is the current controversy surrounding Rev. Al Sharpton and Sen. Barack Obama.

An article in a recent New York Post suggests Rev. Sharpton is neither impressed nor eager to support Sen. Obama’s campaign based on “jealously.” It further asserted that the Reverend “has launched a ‘big-time’ effort to tear down” Obama’s chances of a strong run for the presidency.

Other articles circulating further suggest that Sharpton’s position is based on his feelings that Obama isn’t “black enough.” The Reverend has adamantly denied their being any truth to these reports and contends it is media hype created by the Obama campaign. What Sharpton does state is that he wants to “talk about a civil rights agenda as a priority…” and that he will not be “cajoled or intimidated by any candidate.”

In the wake of a nation embarking on perhaps one of its most historic presidential runs, attentions should be focused on the quality of candidates and what they potentially offer citizens of a post 9/11 era rather than harping on unsubstantiated tensions between Sharpton and Obama. One has to question the motive behind such media focus. Is the intent to provide the Black community with sufficient data that will lead to informed and educated questions and choices? Or is there an underlying objective aimed and building a greater divide?