Seems that Obama is ready to divorce himself from his former pastor Jeremiah Wright after his display on what he rally thinks of the United States.
But do you think this divorce came just a little late?
It would seem that Wright is Obama's toughest obstacle to overcome in his campaign for the Oval Office.

Obama claims he doesn't share the views of the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years. The title of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a Wright sermon.
This is the reason that I can't buy into this man's political retoric., but it is true that politician will say anything to get elected to the office that they are vying for.

Yesterday Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," in Wrights words.

No Democrat can win the nomination outright so they need the support of the superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who can vote their preference.
Wright's outburst may have driven a nail in Obama's chance to get the nod for the big show in November.
Democrats may wonder about Obama's electability in the general election.Wright said that criticism of his fiery sermons was an attack on the black church.

Obama has never shown me anything except deception, this is what I see in this man, and I also believe that his condemnation of Wright and his beliefs are just another deception!

RACE:
The jury is still out on whether a black man can overcome America's original sin and be elected president.

About one in five Pennsylvania voters said the race of the candidates was among the top factors in deciding how to vote, according to exit polls, and white voters who cited race supported Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

Results from all the primaries suggest that whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Clinton as Obama
An AP-Yahoo News poll found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black president. The actual percentage is probably higher because voters are shy about admitting a racial prejudice to pollsters.

WORKING-CLASS VOTERS:
Obama can't win the presidency unless he starts connecting better with blue-collar voters.

The New York senator easily won among Pennsylvania voters without college degrees and those from families earning less than $50,000 a year. Gun owners, rural voters and churchgoing Democrats also backed Clinton.

These are the folks who Obama said "cling to" guns and God, an inelegant attempt to explain to San Francisco liberals how GOP operatives exploit Democratic voters in anxious economic times. He bowled (poorly) and drank beer in a feeble attempt to show a blue-collar touch.

FRIENDS IN TROUBLE:
The longer the campaign goes, the more questions Obama faces about his friends and associates.

He was forced onto the defensive by incendiary comments by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko faces corruption charges. And McCain is raising questions about Obama's relationship with former 1960s radical William Ayers, who has been quoted in an interview as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs" decades ago.

INEXPERIENCE:
It's true that Clinton has never run a government or a business, but many voters give her credit for proximity. They consider her experience as first lady preparation for the presidency.

By any measure, Obama is relatively inexperienced, having left the Illinois Legislature less than four years ago.

METTLE:
Clinton's backers love the fact that she fought Republicans — not to mention the "right-wing conspiracy" — during her husband's presidency. Many Democrats wonder whether Obama is tough enough, a charge that he should be putting to rest in this brass-knuckle nominating contest. But he hasn't.

Headed into Pennsylvania, the cash-strapped Clinton had to defeat Obama by a wide enough margin to stay in the race, raise money and eventually persuade a majority of party regulars — the so-called superdelegates — to side against Obama.

However my thoughts on the campaign is that many of the Clinton supporters wont support Obama in the general election, and I by no means am a Clinton fan, but I do think she has a better chance to defeat McCain in november!
Another factor is that the conservative media has covered Obama like a blanket, and in the early going they basically ignored the other candidates, because the wanted Obama running in the general election because they dont think he can win in november!

It's no longer enough to live a greener life — now people are being encouraged to be environmentally friendly when they leave the Earth too.
Cardboard coffins, clothes sewn from natural fibers, a burial plot in a natural setting. Green funerals attempt to be eco-friendly at every stage.
"People are trying to think about what's the best way to live and with that, what's the best way to die," said Roslyn Cassidy, a funeral director for Green Endings, which provides eco-friendly funerals.
Britain has been a world leader in eco-friendly funerals for years and a source of green burial products and ideas for countries like the United States, where the trend is just starting to catch on. Over the weekend in London, those in the business showcased their products and services at the Natural Death Center's Green Funeral Exhibition.
Some may expect green funerals to be as cheap as a do-it-yourself project, while others might brace for price hikes similar to those fair trade food.
But, funeral directors say green funerals — like any — run the gamut.
"It's about choice, not price," said Fran Hall, marketing director for Epping Forest Burial Park.
For a concept aimed at saving the Earth by going back to basics, an eco-funeral can be more complicated than it sounds. The Natural Death Center provides a handbook that suggests environmental targets for cemeteries.
"You can take any funeral and make it greener," said Michael Jarvis, the center's director.
In a green funeral, bodies are not embalmed and are dressed in pure fiber clothes. Green campaigners say refrigeration or dry ice is a good alternative to formaldehyde, which can seep into the water system.
Biodegradable coffins also differ from the traditional mahogany. Coffins on display included one made from wicker and decorated with flowers.
One visitor, Linda McDowall, admired another coffin bundled in a beige, leaf-adorned felt shroud, saying it looked comfortable.
"Cozy and warm are not words you associate with death," said McDowall, a 48-year-old German and French translator.
Cardboard coffins — which are as thick as their wooden counterparts — can be decorated by family and biodegrade within three months.
"The trouble is, they are a bit ungainly to use," said Oakfield Wood burial ground director Oliver Peacock. "They're not terribly easy to handle and if it's wet, they don't look their best either."
Particular care is taken in how coffins are buried at eco-friendly graveyards like Oakfield Wood, Peacock said.
The cemetery was a pasture when it opened in 1995. It is now speckled with more than 1,600 trees that mark plots along with a wooden plaque.
Marble tombstones are frowned upon. Jeremy Smite, a funeral director at Green Endings, notes that shipping and mining produce carbon and that marble is not a renewable resource.
For cremations — which account for 70 percent of British funerals — a person's ashes and the remains of the eco-friendly coffin are placed in bamboo, glass or ceramic urns.
New legislation in Britain requires reductions in the mercury content of plastics and treatments used in coffins starting in 2010. All biodegradable coffins meet the new standards.
Cassidy said small details are important for green funerals, such as using smaller cars instead of limousines in funeral processions.
"What people are wanting is to know that they're doing the best they can both for their loved ones and for the environment," Cassidy said.

Food prices spark protests

I just watched a documentary on the Hisory channel on Dr.Martin Luther King, and while watching I wondered if there are anymore men, or women left in this country that has the passion, or for matter integrity that this man had.his deeds were for the good of the people and not for a political party, as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act was used for.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was introduced in Eisenhower’s presidency and was the act that kick-started the civil rights legislative programme that was to include the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Eisenhower had not been known for his support of the civil rights movement. He never publicly gave support to the civil rights movement believing that you could not force people to change their beliefs, such changes had to come from the heart of the people involved, not as the result of legislation from Washington.

However, he did push through during his presidency the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Cynics have stated that this was simply to win the ‘Black Vote’. Up to 1957, and for a variety of reasons, only 20% of African Americans had registered to vote. In the South plain intimidation and official apathy and obstacles meant that very few African Americans registered their vote. Those that did not disqualified themselves from voting.

The 1957 Civil Rights Bill aimed to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote. It wanted a new division within the federal Justice Department to monitor civil rights abuses and a joint report to be done by representatives of both major political parties (Democrats and Republicans) on the issue of race relations.

However, the final act became a much watered down affair due to the lack of support among the Democrats. The Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a Democrat, and he realised that the bill and its journey through Congress, could tear apart his party as it had right wing Southern senators in it and liberal west coast ones.

Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee which would examine it for flaws, controversial and unconstitutional points etc. This committee was led by Senator James Eastland - senator for Mississippi. Committee heads have great powers in changing bills and altering them almost beyond recognition. Eastland did just this especially after Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states, thus weakening highly protected states rights of self-government as stated in the Constitution. He was most critical of the new division which would be created within the Justice Department

Johnson had other reasons for taking his stance. No civil rights act had been introduced into America for 82 years. If this one went through successfully and had support from both parties, it wouldn't do his position within the Democrats a great deal of good as he had plans in 1957 to be the party’s future presidential candidate. If he could get the credit for maintaining party unity and get the support of the South’s Democrats for ‘killing the bill’, then his position would be greatly advanced. If he was seen to be pushing through the first civil rights act in 82 years he hoped to get the support of the more liberal west and east coast Democrat senators.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 maintained the mood of the bill - it aimed to increase the number of registered black voters and stated its support for such a move. However, any person found guilty of obstructing someone’s right to register barely faced the prospect of punishment as a trial by jury in the South meant the accused had to face an all-white jury as only whites could be jury members.

Political support and public confidence for the Act had been eroded when Eisenhower publicly admitted that he did not understand parts of the watered down version Eastland presented.

In 1964 passage of the act was not easy. House opposition bottled up the bill in the House Rules Committee. In the Senate, opponents attempted to talk the bill to death in a filibuster. In early 1964, House supporters overcame the Rules Committee obstacle by threatening to send the bill to the floor without committee approval.
This bill was virtually the same bill that was produced by Eisenhower's Attorney-General.

How the voting went
By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (84%-16%)