Notes on Obama's Speech

First of all, I would like to offer my congratulations to finally-president Barack Obama for a successful inauguration (despite the Chief Justice's mix-up). I'd also like to say I am very thankful for the job that security did in preventing any disturbances during the ceremony, as I must admit I was a bit nervous during the proceedings.

I'd just like to talk a bit about a few details of Obama's inauguration speech, and add a few bits of personal commentary on them. Please feel free to respond with your own thoughts.

Early in his speech, Obama said that Americans have “a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.” Yet I can't help but think that our its decline is inevitable. No, we aren't going to be destroyed in a war or a giant depression, but there is not way that we are going to remain the sole superpower and deciding force in global politics for long. The best way I have heard it explained is that America is not falling, but many other nations are rising, causing a more level playing field. I think this is a positive development in American attitudes, just as teenagers eventually learn that they are not invincible and begin to live a bit more responsibly. We as a nation have to realize that we are not the only country on earth with power, and that if we do not act responsibly there will be resentment on the part of others. I agree with Obama's assertion that we must not lower our sights for the future, but would like to add that a bit of humility on the part of America would be a positive change.

Later on, Obama said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Some may see this as an excuse to have a big, overbearing government, but I see it as a truth. The government is designed to serve the interests of the people, and the people want results. I really don't care if we downsize government or expand it, as long as positive change is made. The rhetoric of Reagan about government being the problem rather than the solution is no longer valid in today's world, and conservatives and liberals alike must realize that we should worry more about application than theory in our current situation.

I loved one line of Obama's in particular: “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” It feels good to know that the new president does not view America as an essentially Christian nation, and that he wants to include everyone, even nonbelievers (even though he said “God bless the United States of America” at the end of his speech, but he would be trashed by conservatives if he didn't). This is just a small representation of Obama's worldview that will guide this nation's domestic policies in the right direction, towards tolerance and compromise.

The only problem I had with his message was, “We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.” This sounded a bit like Bush to me, taking an aggressive stance on foreign affairs and placing all of the blame on our enemies. Of course, it is wrong to kill innocents in attacks. Yet there is a history of the West taking advantage of Middle Eastern countries for centuries that we cannot ignore, and we cannot avoid all of the blame. Obama's messages of humility and peace, while being conscious of how we use the world's resources, gives me hope in this area, that perhaps we won't continue being so domineering on the world stage. But the most I can do is wait and see.

I'd just like to finish off by saying that Obama made a wonderful speech, as usual, and that he is already working hard as President and fulfilling many campaign promises. I wish him the best of luck, as it must be extremely difficult for the world to have such high hopes for your presidency, and we definitely do.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

According to Obama aides, Hillary Clinton is going to be selected as Obama's Secretary of State. Let's get one thing straight: I think Hillary Clinton is great. I've been to a rally of hers, and I would have been happy with either Clinton or Obama as president. I admire Obama's pledge to make a Lincoln-esque cabinet full of both friends and rivals. But I'm wondering if Clinton should be the new Secretary of State.

As you may know, the Secretary of State is the head of foreign policy. And if you had watched the primary debates and speeches, foreign policy is one of the few things that Obama and Clinton did not agree on. Obama was elected under a promise to talk with our enemies, compromise in order to progress, and promote a better image of America on the world stage. But Hillary Clinton, aside from all of her virtues, is not a compromiser. We saw this when she refused to drop out of the race, potentially hurting Obama in the general election. Her health care plan as First Lady never worked because she would not budge on her points. She voted “yes” to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. As Secretary of State, will she carry out the goals of Obama, or will she go contrary to his messages of understanding and compromise?

In respect to Obama's selection of rivals rather than yes-men, I think that it applies to most but not all cabinet positions. Should Obama really want someone who disagrees with him to be representing the United States to the world? Most of the other jobs are more about decision-making rather than representation, such as the Secretary of Education or Labor. Obama could easily override their decisions if he felt they would hurt the country. But the Secretary of State meets with representatives of other nations, and could hurt our image with her uncompromising and strong personality. Maybe she will be a good Secretary of State, as she will have to stay in Obama's favor in order to keep from being dismissed. Hopefully she will serve the country, not her own political aspirations.

My best wishes go out to Hillary Clinton, and I hope that Obama is making the right choice. But I suppose we will see next year whether Clinton will serve Obama or follow her own view of how foreign policy should be carried out.

What do you think of Obama's newest pick? Feel free to leave a comment or email me.

The Power of Third Parties

Let's take a trip back in time. The year was 2000. Now President George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore were in one of the most heated elections that the United States has ever seen. The race boiled down to one state: Florida. With the pressure of butterfly ballots and Democrats crying foul about voter suppression, both parties were in an intense deadlock for the White House. But on November 27, Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris officially certified George W. Bush as the "winner" in Florida by 537 votes. Florida has a total of 18,000,000 people, and the election boiled down to 537 votes. Incredible if you ask me. But we are not talking about who won in Florida.

The question is why did Gore lose in Florida? My personal opinion, held by a number of reputable websites after the election and by many Democratic strategists, is that Ralph Nader stole the election from the Democrats. Yes, Stole! Around 97,000 people voted for Nader in Florida, a majority of whom most likely would have voted for Gore if not presented with the opportunity to vote for a third-party candidate. So how do we allow third parties to properly express their ideas without granting them the power to somehow skew an entire election?

Although third parties rarely ever succeed in winning a political office, they do many great things for our country. They bring up issues that the top two parties may not have had their attention on. In other words, they allow for an increased focus on oddball topics and topics that aren't prevalent in mainstream society. But, as witnessed by the 2000 Election, we need to find a way to allow third party candidates to get their ideas and policies out into the political spectrum without ruining elections of the two-party candidates.

I recommend that we have specialized third party debates, or not really debates, but discussions. This could be a place where the top 3 third-party candidates could discuss what each one of them would do with the United States if they had the opportunity to govern. Although some of their ideas may be radical at times, they ultimately have many great ideas that get overlooked because of low support levels. If granted the opportunity to have media coverage of their ideas and to transmit their ideas to the American people on national television, third parties may feel much more content with how they are treated. 

Third parties are plagued by three main things: Low to no media coverage, little fundraising opportunities, and low support levels. If  the media actually showed any clips of Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, or even Ron Paul (all of whom I respect tremendously for their determination and hard work), they may have a greater chance of having their voices heard. But the media's monopoly on Americans minds and television screens does not allow for any third-party to have a chance.

What do you think? How can the American Party System reform in order to support third party candidates?

Leave your comments.

The Youth Movement!

Coming SOON!

And the Negativity Continues...

But not from who you think.

This week marked a new low for the McCain-Palin campaign. As of October 10th, Gallup tracking poll shows Obama up by 10 percentage points, FOX News shows Obama up by 7 points, and CNN's "Poll of Polls" shows Obama up 8. In order to combat these losses, the McCain campaign continues to put out extremely negative advertisements attempting to undermine Barack Obama's policies and speak about his lack of character by asking, "What do we really know about Barack Obama?" In the past, this worked brilliantly for McCain. But now, less than 30 days from election day, it appears that times are changing. Everyday, McCain falls farther and farther in the polls and nothing it seems can stop it. And now, supporters are letting him and Governor Palin know with fits of anger and complete rage at both McCain and Obama. 

After Palin's claim last week that Obama "pals around" with terrorists, she recently said about the relationship between Obama and William Ayers that she sees "a pattern in how our opponent has talked about one of his most troubling associations." One member of that crowd in Jacksonville, Florida crowd shouted "treason!" And at another rally in the state Monday, Palin's mention of the Obama-Ayers tie caused one member to yell out "kill him", to which Palin said nothing in response. 

At several recent rallies, Palin has stirred up crows by mentioning the "liberal left-wing media". Routinely, there are boos at every mention of the New York Times and the "mainstream media". 

Some audience members are even openly hostile to members of the traveling press core covering Palin; one crowd member hurled a racial epithet at an African-American member of the press in Clearwater, Florida. 

And at a McCain rally in New Mexico on Monday, one supporter yelled out "terrorist" when McCain asked, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" Like Palin, McCain did not respond to this horribly offensive, completely untrue and unfounded claim. 

To a certain extent, McCain and Palin's "rallying" words are at blame for the sudden outbursts or rage and racism that we have seen over the last couple days. But today, contradictory to what McCain has done for the last few months, McCain was forced to defend Obama after a woman at a town hall meeting stated, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him. He's an Arab." 

"No ma'am," McCain courageously replied several times, shaking his head in disagreement. " He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about." At another point, McCain declared, "If you want a fight, we will fight. But we will be respectful."

I will be the first one to say that I fundamentally disagree with the majority of McCain's policies, but to stand up against your own supporters and call Obama "decent", that is certainly admirable. Senator McCain, +1 for you. 

A Worthless Attack

"Palling around with terrorists" is the exact wording Sarah Palin used this past week. She was reffering to the fact that Barack Obama lives in the same Chicago neighborhood as Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weathermen, a domestic terrorist group from the 1960s and 70s.

There are three main problems I have with this statement. First of all, on the most basic level is Palin's word choice. I doubt that she seriously thinks Barack has been affiliated with multiple terrorists, but I don't doubt for a second that that is what she wanted listeners to think. Saying "terrorists" in my opinion was a blantant attempt to misrepresent the truth. Oh well.

Second of all, almost everyone has ooncluded that Barack barely knows the guy. They live three blocks away from eachother in Chicago, and thier kids go to the same school. Barack never knew Ayers when he was involved with illegal activity, which mostly occured when Barack was eight years old. Even now, the two don't talk, don't "hang out" and certainly don't "pal around." Obama is not denying that he's talked to the guy before, but to call them friends is rediculous, and to suggest that Barack has been hanging out with "terrorists" is even worse, considering Barack was 8 when the Weathermen were declared a domestic terrorist organization.

The last thing is the actual history of the Weathermen. Palin is using scare tactics, she wants people to believe that Barack Hussein Obama is spending time with Muslim terrorists that have been killing people all over the world. Obviously that is not true, and it isn't what Palin said, but that's what she was going for. The Weathermen started off as the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) a college group that wanted to protest certian actions by the Government.

At some point, they became the Weathermen and aligned themselves with organizations such as the Black Panthers, who were known to use violent tactics to accomplish thier goals. The Weathermen were headstrong, and misguided, but to think of them as terrorists in the colloquial sense is a bit much. That isn't to say I condone what they did, I think that the bombings they conducted and "days of rage" were idiotic and left an awful mark on this country, but at the same time, they weren't about hurting people. The Weathermen would always warn locations before they bombed them, and only one death has ever been attributed to the organization.

If Barack Obama said he sympathized with the Weathermen, if he was part of the group, if he knew Ayers when this was going on, if he wanted to kill people, I would understand. Since none of that is even close to being true, this entire attack by Palin is awful.

Possibly even worse, when cornered with almost insurmountable evidence showing that her position was not only a misrepresentation but also quite idiotic, Palin refused to back down, responding with "I think it's a viable topic to discuss" or something like that. I'm not sure if that was the actual wording, because I was trying hard not to listen to her. But either way, it shows that she has the same basic problem as President Bush, pride. She's wrong, she knows it, and yet she refuses to back down. She's going to push this issue until the McCain camp tells her to stop (which should be happening in 5.....4.....3.....2.....there you go.) They know as well as most strategists know that this is a non-starter. Anyone with any sense will realize she is misrepresenting the truth, and anyone willing to believe what she is saying wouldn't be voting Obama anyways. I don't get it....

I guess saying that "Barack Obama lives three blocks away from a washed up wannabe Che Guavara currently serving as a Professor of Education at the University of Chicago with a wife and kids" isn't as good a stump line.

Usually attacks don't get me this riled up (hey they make things interesting right?) but this one is just stupid.

That's all folks.

Better than expected? Really?

So after watching last night's VP debate between Biden and Palin, I've got a few things that I'd like to get off my chest. I'm going to try to keep this from being a rant, but if it starts straying into that territory, then I apologize.

There has been a lot of talk in the news today, I'm sure you've heard it wherever you are, that Sarah Palin actually did "pretty well" last night. Not many people (save for the 16 "undecided" voters polled on Faux News) are going so far as to say Palin actually won the debate, but there has been POSITIVE talk for once about her performance. People from David Gergen to George Stephanopoulos to Donna Brazile are all saying that Palin performed "about as well as she could have," and that they were "impressed" with how well she held herself together. Suddenly expressing the belief that Palin did "alright" has become the latest political fad, joining the pantheon of "we support Bush" following 9/11 and "Al Gore thinks he invented pants" during the 2000 election.

My question is simple. If you think that Palin did "good," what is your justification. Are you saying that she seemed more put together than she did in her interviews with Katie Couric? Are you saying that she kept that down home jargon that has endeared Americans to her so far? Are you saying that she didn't back down and spoke straight to the American people? Are you saying that she looked nice? Are you saying that she performed "better than you thought she would?" Either way, there is one thing all of those have in common. They are POLITICAL statements. Sarah Palin is a fantastic politician. Amazing, even. She certainly knows how to work a crowd, how to get people on her side, and how to win votes.

That being said, if you actually want to say that she did "good" in this debate, there is no way you can be saying it because of her actual answers. She seemed over-rehearsed (something Obama has also had problems with). She skirted nearly every question of any significance, and when pushed to give real answers, responded with "Well I may not be answering the way you or the moderator want me to." That is the exact kind of statement that will win voters but will destroy our country. This is honestly a woman seeking office just for the hell of it. It is painfully clear that more than 90% of the time, she has no idea what she is talking about, and even when she does, she can't come up with anything to back up her ideas.

The fact that her political skills are outweighing her lack of knowledge or experience is troubling to me. It is sad that people are able to look past the fact that she is clearly not qualified to hold this position because of the way she talks, or the kind of words she uses, like "Joe six pack American." It's possibly even more troubling that John McCain would select her as a VP candidate just because she might win him a few extra votes. It is just as obvious to him that this woman should never be on this stage, and watching him try to keep his cheeks from turning bright red with embarrassment during those Couric interviews was entertainment in and of itself. I'm not trying to bash John McCain, but it is disappointing to me that he would actually risk that woman (who he MUST not actually believe in) becoming President just to win an election.

The very notion that anyone thinks Palin has the experience or knowledge necessary to be second in command is ludicrous to me. It scares me that the media is focusing on her political talent and calling her performance "good" when a simple evaluation of the actual SUBSTANCE shows that she crashed and burned.

I'm not sure when "she's not that bad" or "she did better than I expected her to" became the vetting procedure of the American voter. I'm not sure at what point Republican voters need to stop trying to convince themselves she's the right person for the job and let their real feelings out. I'm not sure at what point I need to stop expecting Palin to be more than she is, which is a small town Mayor forced into an impossible situation. I'm not sure at what point America needs to wake up.