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.

Electoral College- Editorial

We hear certain phrases all the time nowadays. Phrases like "red state" and "blue state" are thrown around casually by pundits and radio commentators all the time. Pretty much everyone knows the meaning of them, too; if your state is branded "red," it is leaning towards the Republicans, and if it's "blue," it's going to the Democrats. Even after all of the states have been categorized individually, the pundits start grouping entire regions together. Who that's reading this hasn't been lead to believe that the South is one single Republican voting entity?

So the question that many people eventually come to is reasonable. If my state or region is already pretty much decided, then why should I bother to vote anyways? People realize that because of the electoral college system in Presidential elections, no matter how many votes a candidate wins by in any particular state, they still win the same number of electoral votes.

Due to this system we use, people in "safe" states feel that their votes don't even matter. There are certain reasons that the electoral college was created in the first place. James Madison argued that the system kept in line with the Federalist nature of our country, giving some electoral power to the people and some to the states, while some at the Constitutional Convention feared elections would become too volatile if left completely to the states, with each delegation always voting for a "hometown" candidate. Both are legitimate arguments, but in my mind both seem outdated.

As we've seen numerous times, the Constitution is a living document. The reason people like Jefferson and Madison included ways to modify it serves as enough example that they knew it wasn't perfect. It was meant to change with the times, to a certain degree, while still retaining the same core principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There are plenty of arguments against an Electoral College, and many legislators are beginning to listen to the complaints of angry voters. The system we have now makes the national popular vote irrelevant. At face value that might not sound like a bad thing, since nearly ever single winner of the national popular vote has also become President. Yet in the elections of 1876, 1888, and most famously, 2000, the person with the most total votes was not elected.

The irrelevance of the national popular vote is bad, but not as bad as the different situations the electoral college creates amongst the states. If you're a candidate, and you already know that you're going to win a certain state, since it has always voted for people like you in the past, why would you campaign there? Why would you pay special attention to their interests? You would most likely pay the most attention to those "toss up" states that we hear so much about, giving those states much more influence in Presidential elections, thus betraying the federal nature of our constitution.

So if you ever hear your parents saying they aren't voting because "my vote doesn't matter," don't be so quick to assume they are apathetic to the election in general. It is quite possible that they are at least partially correct. The electoral college discourages voter turnout in states like Connecticut. The Supreme Court has held that each American is entitled to one vote, equal in value to any other American. It's a shame it doesn't always seem that way.

Sarah Palin's Experience?

As you all know, Sarah Palin has been chosen as McCain's running mate. As you also know, one of the main things that McCain is running on is his experience. He claims Obama is bad because he is inexperienced. I didn't know much about Palin until recently, while Biden is a seasoned member of Congress and very experienced. This is the experience that Palin has brought to the Republican ticket.

First off, Sarah Palin is currently the governor of Alaska, which the McCain campaign is quick to point out is "the biggest state in the country." Yes, but it only has a population of about 670,000. To compare, my home state of Connecticut has about 3,510,000. So yes, being a governor is a hard job, but Palin only had about 1/5 of the citizens that Jodi Rell is responsible for. Also, she has only been the governor for less than two years (20 months, to be exact). Before that, she was the "Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission" for a year, which I know little about, but it is definitely not executive experience. She was on the town council of Wasilla, a town with about 8,000 people in it, for 4 years. She then became its mayor, which she did for 6 years.

How do these things qualify her to be a vice president? She has no degree in anything to do with politics (she majored in journalism), has never been involved in national government, and has zero foreign policy experience (and no, FOXNEWS, being near Russia does not count as foreign policy experience). What is it that she is helping McCain to do? Is this just an attempt to consolidate the Hillary Clinton supporters who went over to the McCain camp after Obama won the nomination? McCain's reasoning is material for another blog.

And yes, it is important to question Palin's experience. Not because experience is important, but because it is what the McCain campaign has been preaching this entire election season. If they can't hold up to their own standards, whose standards will they follow?

PS thank you to Connor Mullen for providing a lot of the info.

A Real Unifying Move

Both John McCain and Barack Obama are claiming to be presidents who will reach across the aisle, nonpartisan, more loyal to their country than their party, or even "mavericks." They also both claim that Washington is broken, that they will get rid of partisan gridlock and get the nation moving again. It sounds like they both have the same goal, to keep Congress from being stuck in a non-productive rut.

And what is one of the major factors that keeps Congress from getting anything done? The presidential veto. The president can block a bill, agreed upon by Congress, from becoming a law with a simple signature (or maybe he draws a big X through it. I'm not sure about the actual technique of the veto). Congress is theoretically able to override vetoes with a 2/3 majority vote in the House and Senate. This requires more debate, time that could be spent on other issues. OVerrides are very hard to accompish, and only 4% of all of the vetoes in history have been overridden (source). Vetoes may not be the only thing keeping Congress from getting anything done, but they are definitely a factor.

This whole practice of partisan vetoes started with Andrew Jackson (correct me if I'm wrong). Before him, the veto was only used if a bill was deemed unconstitutional by the president. But Jackson vetoed anything he didn't agree with, starting the practice that continues to this day. George W. Bush has made a total of 12 vetoes, including 2 bills that would re-authorize an existing children's healthcare program, 2 that would allow more stem cell research, and 1 that would ban waterboarding.

To me, Congress represents the people much more than the president, and that the president shouldn't block bills that Congress has decided upon unless they are unconstitutional. The partisan veto has been a non-issue for far too long and it deserves to be talked about in the mass media. How about one of these "mavericks" changes the course of history and promises not to use their veto power for partisan agendas? That would really set them apart as willing unify the country and get it moving again.

Overkill in the Defense Budget

Alright everyone, I'd like to show you all a video I came across. Yes, it's a cartoon. Yes, it stars one of the guys from Ben&Jerry's ice cream. Yes, he uses Oreos in it to represent spending. I won't deny that it's quite simplified.

But simplification is what we need for the issue of the budget. It's so gigantic that he has to use one cookie to represent TEN BILLION DOLLARS. The Pentagon receives 40 cookies, or 400 BILLION DOLLARS per year. Just watch the video to see how much other things get.

And for all you people who believe that we shouldn't completely shut the Pentagon off of all federal funds, which I assume is most of us, you'll like his solution. He doesn't say to take all of the Pentagon's money, or half, or even a quarter. He proposes that we simply take 5 "cookies" (50 billion dollars, or 1/8 of the Pentagon's budget), to help schools, feed every hungry child ON THE PLANET, and even more. I don't see why the country has to spend so much on "defense" when we have more problems than that.

Check out the video and comment on what you think about it.

And just to tell everyone, I'm not basing all of my beliefs on this one video that I've stumbled upon. It's short, it's cute, and it's informative. But it definitely doesn't replace reading up on the subject, which I have done. Here's a great book I'm currently reading about American militarism and how ridiculously high Defense spending is:

http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805070044

BREAKING: John McCain Chooses Sarah Palin as VP

From McCain's official Website: U.S. Senator John McCain today announced that he has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate and to serve as his vice president.

Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.



Analysis and more information to come.

Obama Caps Off Democratic Convention

Red & Blue would like to include a transcript of Presidential hopeful Barack Obama's convention-ending speech for everyone to read and digest. We will do the same for Senator McCain's speech at the Republican Convention when it becomes available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation.

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest -- a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Bill Clinton, who made last night the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next vice president of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next first lady, Michelle Obama, and to Malia and Sasha -- I love you so much, and I'm so proud of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story -- of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart -- that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for 232 years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women -- students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments -- a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W. Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

We're a better country than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for 20 years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the people of America, to Democrats and Republicans and independents across this great land -- enough! This moment -- this election -- is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look just like the last eight. On November 4, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and our respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time. Sen. McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives -- on health care and education and the economy -- Sen. McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this president. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisers -- the man who wrote his economic plan -- was talking about the anxieties that Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud autoworkers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and they give back and they keep going without complaint. These are the Americans I know.

Now, I don't believe that Sen. McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under $5 million a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy -- give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is that you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. You're on your own. No health care? The market will fix it. You're on your own. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps -- even if you don't have boots. You are on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America. And that's why I'm running for president of the United States.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was president -- when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of go down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off and look after a sick kid without losing her job -- an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great -- a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business or making her way in the world, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

Now, I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped my life. And it is on behalf of them that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States.

What is that American promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, to look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves -- protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America -- the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am president.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

You know, unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I'll eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will, listen now, cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95 percent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East. We will do this.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and by the way John McCain's been there for 26 of them. And in that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil that we had as the day that Sen. McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest $150 billion over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy -- wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and 5 million new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. You know, Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American -- if you commit to serving your community or our country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their job and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have the exact same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F. Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility to provide love and guidance to their children.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility -- that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keepour promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next commander in chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Sen. McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. You know, John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we are wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice -- but that is not the change that America needs.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and each other's patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America -- they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose. That's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. But this, too, is part of America's promise -- the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what -- it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the naysayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's about you. It's about you.

For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us -- that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it -- because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. Because I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, where we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorist.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and the young at heart, those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day even though they can't afford it than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

You know, this country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit -- that American promise -- that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours -- a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that 45 years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead -- people of every creed and color, from every walk of life -- is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise -- that American promise -- and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think? Leave your opinions.

Time to Put up or Shut Up

With the DNC rolling to a close, there have been quite a few rousing moments over the past couple days. Perhaps most thrilling for Hillary Clinton supporters was seeing their favorite girl get up there and deliver one of the best speeches of her life. Many were left crying afterwards, wondering and wishing that things could have turned out differently for Hillary. There's no denying that the Hillary supporters are a hard working bunch. During the primaries, they put in countless hours to get their candidate elected. They put their hearts and souls into the Clinton campaign, and just like that, it was all over.

That's certainly not easy to deal with, and it's something you can't really describe unless you experience it. Even so, the time has come. It's time to either put up or shut up for the former Clinton supporters. Many (up to 33% according to some accounts) have been reluctant to offer their support to the Obama campaign. Some figure they just won't vote at all in November, others are so angry that they're seriously considering voting for McCain.

What I would ask them, and what any other sensible person would ask them, is what does that prove? What would voting for McCain prove in November? That you as a voter are incapable of making informed decisions based on the issues? That you are too emotionally attached to one candidate, to the point that it blinds your political perspective? That the democratic party knows nothing about loyalty, nothing about values? That the Republicans can capture the White House for another four years by doing absolutely nothing but sit back and watch you come to their side?

Hillary Clinton was a fabulous candidate, but her campaign is over. That is what all of the former supporters need to realize. She WILL NOT be elected President in 2008, no matter who you do or do not vote for. But that doesn't mean she's dying. Hillary Clinton remains as strong a political dynamo as ever. Some Clinton supporters are outraged over the fact that Obama didn't select Hillary to be his running mate. But even that outrage makes no sense. When you think about it, would you rather have Hillary employed in an advisory capacity to Obama, or pushing her own legislation and Obama's legislation through Congress right on the front lines? She can help the country and her party so much more if she is in the Senate, and quite frankly, I think restricting her to the VP position would have been career suicide for her.

If Hillary plays her cards right, she can make a strong run for the White House in either '12 or '16 depending on how Obama does (she wouldn't run against a successful Obama incumbency in '12). So don't act like she's dying. Its time to emotionally detach yourself from the situation if you are one of her supporters. If you believed in her during the campaign, if you've ever believed in her during her years in the Senate or her entire life, believe her when she assures you that "we must elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States."

It's time to put your pride aside. It's time to stop cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's time to prove to the world, and to the rest of America that the Democratic party isn't continually doomed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If you truly believe in what you claimed to when you supported Hillary, you realize what's at stake. There would be no greater tragedy than to suddenly abandon that and vote for a man that goes against everything your candidate worked for. It's time to listen to what Hillary and Bill so vigorously stated during the convention. Never give up. It's time to support Barack Obama.

Mainstream Media Manipulation

I confess. I am a political junkie. Similar to an addict, I am always looking for my next fix. But in the past few weeks, I have noticed something alarming; the amount of trivial, unimportant news that the mainstream media has been reporting. These trivial stories have been amplified by the buzz surrounding Presidential candidate Barack Obama's Vice Presidential pick. Watching the entire CNN staff eagerly awaiting a text message from the Obama camp instead of reporting the newest developments in Georgia or covering the latest advancements in Iraq makes them and the entire network appear extremely pathetic.

I ask at what point is it too much? As Steve has addressed previously, the media, more specefically CNN, MSNBC, FOX (although FOX is an extreme stetch) were created in order to report important happenings in the United States and internationally unbiasely so that the American people can make their own decisions on the top stories of the day. But lately, I have been increasingly frustrated by the amount of insignificant "breaking news" stories that many of the top networks have been airing. I understand that you can only cover so much within a 6 hour "Election Special", but placing cameras at the Biden residence and feigning "breaking news" when Joe Biden drives off to go get coffee is absurb and distasteful.

Yes, the Vice Presidential pick is an extremely important time in the life of a Presidential campaign, but to cover every movement of their lives is egregious and outrageous.

Simply needed to air some frustrations.

What Effect Will Joe Biden Have?

Waking up at 10 AM after a fitful night of sleep, I quickly sprinted to my Iphone cradle, anxiously anticipating the fateful text message. "Text message from 622-62". This was it! "Barack has chosen Senator Joe Biden to be our VP nominee." I rejoiced. Obama also seemed extremely excited at the prospects of an Obama/Biden '08 ticket. "Joe Biden is what so many others pretend to be – a statesman with sound judgment who doesn't have to hide behind bluster to keep America strong," he stated in front of an energized crowd in Springfield, Illinois, the same place where, 19 months ago, he announced his candidacy for President of the United States. So, the choice for VP has been made. Months of anticipation have finally ended.

But who is Joe Biden and how will he effect this election?

Biden has an unparalleled passion for politics. He was elected to the United States Senate in 1970 and has served ever since. Recently, he ran for president against Barack Obama in 2008, dropping out rather early because of low support levels. He has overcome great tragedy to be where he is today. Shortly after being elected to the US Senate in 1972, his wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident. But through all the adversity, Senator Joe Biden has never lost his desire to serve the country for the public good. Standing next to Senator Barack Obama today, he seemed poised to overtake the Republicans and take back the White House for the Democratic Party. Considered one of the least wealthy members of Congress, Senator Biden has great appeal to the working class.

Quickly flip to MSNBC, CNN, FOX, or NBC and you will see just how much coverage of this story is monopolizing the media, not unexpectedly. This greatly aniticipted and major decision will be reviewed and analyzed continuoulsy by Democratic superdelegates, Republican strategists, talk show hosts, as well as the American people.

Biden is a seasoned veteran and has been around Washington for more than 30 years which has been viewed as both a negative and positive trait, so let us review the pros and cons of Obama's decision.

Con #1: The McCain camp says it best: “Biden has denounced Barack Obama’s poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be President.” Shortly after Obama announced Biden to be his running mate, McCain introduced a brand new ad, showing a short clip of Senator Biden claiming that Obama lacked the experience to handle the Presidency. What the McCain camp fails to address is that Biden was also running for President at the time and that a candidate will say whatever is necessary to be elected. We must also remember that it is very common for a President and Vice President to scuffle in the primaries. Take for instance the 1960 Presidential Election. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson battled in the primaries but when it came time to unify the party in the general election, they ran an extremely successful ticket and ultimately succeeded in beating Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge. As Democratic superdelegate Robert Zimmerman pointed out on CNN, most President and Vice Presidential candidates will squabble before the general election.

Con#2: Biden has been known to speak before he fully thinks out what he is saying. This has gotten him into trouble at times. But, as the Vice Presidential candidate, I expect his approach to be more measued and that he will assume more of an "attack dog" approach towards McCain, one that Barack Obama has shyed away from throughout the entire election process. He began during his speech today: "Ladies and gentlemen, your kitchen table is like mine. You sit there at night...and you talk, you talk about what you need. You talk about how much you are worried about being able to pay the bills. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a worry John McCain has to worry about...He'll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at." He passionately repeated the words "we literally cannot afford four more years" of the same Bush-McCain White House.

Pro #1: Biden could help ease some of the tension among senior party members who are still uncertain about Barack Obama. Party members who may not have been so sure about who Barack Obama is and what he stands for will be calmed by the enormously well respected Joe Biden.

Pro #2: Biden can help stop the Republican claims that Obama is rich and elitist (although last I checked McCain's net worth was near $40 million while Obama had not broken the $1 million mark). It is bewildering that McCain is worth more than 40 times Obama, and yet the McCain camp endlessly attempts to convince the American working class that Obama is the one who is elitist.

Pro#3: Most importantly, Biden can help fill the holes in the Obama campaign; the American working class voter, the Hillary Clinton supporters who are still tenative about fully supporting Obama. Polls still show that over a quarter of Clinton supporters say that they will be opting towards McCain in November. Although I think many are still bitter about the defeat and have not completely cooled, this number is still head-turning and could cost the Democrats if not dealt with efficiently and immediately. This is where Biden comes up huge for Senator Obama. As stated previously, Senator Biden is not the typical rich, manipulative politician that we have tolerated in Washington the last 7 1/2 years. The "American dream under eight years of Bush and McCain, that American dream is slipping away. I don't have to tell you that. You feel it in your lives. You see it in your shrinking wages, and the cost of everything from groceries to health care to college to filling up your car at the gas station. It keeps going up and up and up, and the future keeps receding further and further and further away as you reach for your dreams," Biden passionately declares. The Democratic Party is hoping that Biden's "straight talk" to working class voters will help secure victories in key swing states such as Ohio and West Virginia.

What do you think? Leave comments and I will do my best to reply to them and answer any questions that you may have.

Where Do We Fit In?

There's been a lot of talk about the Georgia-Russia conflict lately. Some of it has been pretty scary. Some political commentators are drawing similarities to the Cold War, others are warning that a global conflict is only one nasty incident away. What started off as a fairly regional issue certainly has exploded over the past week or so. Of course, the world's focus on International Relations and the Olympics as of late certainly doesn't help the firestorm that has emerged.

Even with Russia issuing a cease fire in the past day or so (almost immediately after the United States virtually demanded one) there are signs that military action is continuing in Georgia. The conflict started over a few separatist regions in Georgia with very close ties to neighboring Russia. In Georgia's attempt to regain control over these regions, they angered the Russians, who felt the Georgian military had overstepped its authority.

Now we see the Russian military doing the exact same thing. They ruled into Georgia with their tanks and jets and infantry, and even after the separatist regions have been dutifully protected, they continue to bomb and destroy Georgia and its military. Even after claiming that they would stop, they continue to "punish" the Georgians, who can't hope to defend themselves against the far superior Russian army.

The United States has taken a pretty firm stance on the issue. President Bush immediately returned from the Beijing Games and stated that the United States condemns any Russian military action outside of the disputed region, and said that the Russians had been using an inordinate amount of force.

Now with the Russians seemingly ignoring the cease fire they had agreed to, the United States is offering aid to Georgia and its devastated people. Many will begin to ask whether we should be putting ourselves in harms way by doing so, and in my opinion, we absolutely should. If the Russian Government (and even more importantly, ex KGB operative and omnipresent Russian leader Vladmir Putin) get the feeling that they can start rolling into neighboring countries without any resistance from the World community, they will. Especially if they feel they have a good reason to, as in the Georgia situation.

I don't think that this situation will ultimately end in military confrontation between the US and Russia, because I believe at the end of the day, both countries are still afraid of what the other is capable of. The United States can afford to take a hard stance against the Russians, we can afford to offer aid to Georgia, and we can afford to publicly call out the Russian government, because the last thing they want is a fight with us. They can ignore the cease fire, ignore our statements, and ignore everything else the world community is telling them, because the last thing we want is a fight with Russia, and they know it.

It's a standstill. Two immovable objects. Both flexing their muscles for everyone to see, showing the other (and possibly themselves) that they've still got the guts to stand up to the other. In the end, its just sad to see a formerly progressing country like Russia fall into old habits, and even sadder to see President Bush have the chance to face another crisis, right when we thought he was pretty much done.

Olympics Kickoff

A few months ago, I had never thought of the Olympics as a political event. In 2004, I didn't pay attention to the news, so all I knew of the Olympics was the swimming, gymnastics, and other sporting events. But this year, especially since China is the host, the Olympics have taken a very political tone.

Of course, there were the numerous protests when the torch was carried across the globe, calls for the United States and other countries to boycott the Games, and even scattered riots. But this was not an attitude taken only by the people, but by the leaders as well. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, did not attend the opening ceremony of the Games, along with many other leaders. NBC, the station I watched the opening ceremony of the Games on, portrayed these other leaders as boycotting the Games and trying to set their nations apart from China. NBC also cast Bush, who did attend the opening, as a man who wants to bring China and the US closer together. But what NBC briefly mentioned was that Bush was the first sitting president to ever attend an Olympics held in a foreign country. Ok, so Bush was definitely trying to send a message of unity or at least tolerance of China. But what NBC did not admit was that this same tradition exists in many other countries as well, including Britain. Brown said that he "never planned to attend the opening ceremony and was not boycotting the Games." Of course, the American media tried to make our own leader look virtuous and the other countries' leaders divisive, while that was clearly not the case.

I definitely believe that the Olympics are meant to unify all the countries of the world, and that no nation should boycott them. They're meant to let everyone forget their differences for a short while and compete peacefully. But NBC's commentators were divisive themselves by portraying Bush as superior to other leaders for attending the opening ceremony.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7339580.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26107919/

"Why We Fight" Movie Review

I just finished watching the film "Why We Fight," a documentary by Eugene Jarecki. I wasn't sure what to expect going into it, as I noticed that it had interviews of both John McCain and Chalmers Johnson, and followed the story of a man joining the army, and of a veteran who now forbids her children to join the armed forces. All of this made for a very balanced and nonpartisan look at what makes our nation go to war.

The backbone of this film (and many other looks at the modern military) lies in Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, in which he warns the American people of the rising "military-industrial complex." For those of you who are not familiar with the phrase, it is the loose organization between Congress, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. This association is the recipe for the expansion of the military: Congressmen want jobs (from defense contractors) in their home districts to help their own careers, the Pentagon wants more strength and freedom (in the form of new equipment, more bases, and looser rules), and the defense contractors want more money (in the form of government contracts to make weapons of war). The movie investigates the military-industrial complex, and how it affects both the decision-making process in Washington, the media's portrayal of events, and the public's opinions.

Most importantly, Jarecki warns against the United States taking the same path as Rome, changing from a small republic, into an empire, into a superpower and oppressor. To me, this is a nonpartisan issue, one that all Americans can rally around. We do not want the government to be able to take advantage of our patriotism, our love of freedom or our families, and scare us into supporting a war against a non-threat such as Iraq. The documentary also follows the path of Wilton Sketzer, a man whose son died in the World Trade Center, who goes from hating the terrorists and supporting the war in Iraq to realizing that the government lied to support the invasion. I hope that, like Sketzer, people who watch this film will realize that obeying the government isn't the same thing as loving your country. We have to think independently about all government decisions, or else there will be another Vietnam or Iraq, both of which the government blatantly lied the public into supporting.

New York Times Rejects McCain Iraq Essay

The New York Times, who many believe to be a liberal newspaper, has recently rejected an essay that Senator John McCain wrote defending his Iraq War policy. The piece, a lengthy critique of Obama's positions in Iraq, most notably his 16 month timetable, as well as an outlining of his own plans for the future of Iraq, was in response to an Op-Ed article from Barack Obama that was published in the newspaper last week. 

But before the right-wing media starts their inevitable criticism of the "biased, unfair" left-wing newspaper, let us first look at why the article was rejected. In a statement released today, The New York Times said that it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission." So, before we jump to a falsified conclusion, it simply appears that Senator McCain's article was not rejected, merely handed back for another revision. This assumption is confirmed by the New York Times, who stated, "We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past."

My question is, at what point is the New York Times crossing the line of mere publishing and unjustly stepping into the realm of assisting these two candidates in taking public potshots at each other? Senator Obama's July 14th essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of their own country. Now, just a week later, McCain has attempted to retaliate with his own Op-Ed piece bluntly criticizing Obama, saying, "[He] seems to have learned nothing from recent history." I ask again. Is The New York Times encouraging this public squabble between candidates? Food for thought. But I digress.

Ultimately, only time will tell if The New York Times will publish Senator McCain's Op-Ed piece. In my opinion, it is only fair. I may not agree with the Senator on the issues, and I most certainly do not in most cases, but if the newspaper allows for Senator Obama to write a piece that is critical of Senator McCain's policies as well as his handling of key issues that are essential to victory in the November Presidential Elections, it is only right that Senator McCain has a chance to refute the points that Senator Obama presented.

I like to call that the Straight Talk Express. 

The Passing of Tony Snow

Former White House press secretary Tony Snow passed away early this morning at the young age of 53. Snow, who had been undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of colon cancer, left his job at the White House on September 14, 2007. 

Snow was best known for cheerfully sparring with reporters in the White House briefing room in his short year and a half stint as President Bush's press secretary. He explained how his previous job as the host of the television news program "Fox News Sunday" between 1996 and 2003 mentally prepared him for the pressure that he had to face in the press room. 

Speaking about one of the toughest jobs in the world, Snow would later say that in the Bush administration he was enjoying "the most exciting, intellectually aerobic job I'm ever going to have."

Red and Blue's thoughts are with Tony Snow's wife Jill and their three young children.

Question of the Day: What's More Important?

There has been a firestorm over the last couple days over Barack Obama's choice to vote for a bill in Congress. The bill will give communications companies that complied with President Bush's request to illegally wiretap terror suspects immunity from lawsuit. It is an update of FISA, the federal surveillance bill that has caused all the controversy dealing with Bush's wiretapping following the 9/11 attacks in order to keep track of terror suspects within the United States.

Liberals within Congress and within public in general have accosted Obama for what they see as a "sellout" of his values. They accuse him of being compliant with what they see as illegal activities by Bush. They claim that the United States citizen's rights to be free and clear from federal surveillance is more important than providing better security.

The flip side of the argument is that with the wiretapping, the Government is able to have more intelligence on possible terror suspects and hopefully prevent another attack on the scale of 9/11 from happening. As President Bush explained, the bill

will help help us meet our most solemn responsibility: to stop another attack.

My question is, what IS the Government's most solemn responsibility? Should they be more worried about upholding the rights of the people and the Constitution or protecting the people from a possible terror attack. Should they worry more about keeping people happy or keeping people safe? Are those two ideas mutually exclusive? Do we really need to make a choice between safety and the Constitution? Has Barack Obama "sold out?"

Let me know what you think in the comments section.

Free Speech Repression or Simple Law Enforcement?

Checking out any non-mainstream media inevitably brings you to some stories about people who are being fined or intimidated for speaking their minds. I'd like to take a look at two stories that I came across, and talk about whether they are really free speech issues, or if they are just about people who broke the law and are falsely claiming that they were discriminated against for their views. The links are at the end of the article.

I'll start with the one that is a bit less controversial. A man had a sticker on his rear window that said, “No to Empire,” and was pulled over and ticketed for it. I suggest reading the article for the full story. But anyways, it was supposedly on the grounds that the sticker was obstructing his view. The Professor Ovetz, the man being fined, claims that there are tons of people with stickers from their college in the same place as his sticker, and that it did not obstruct his view. Now I know that my family has UConn stickers in the same exact place, and that it does not obstruct our view, and that we've never been fined for them. I've seen tons of people on the road with the same type of sticker. So, unless the laws in San Francisco are different than here in South Windsor (which they very well may be, I'm not being sarcastic), I think that the police officer was probably stretching the law in order to get Ovetz to take his sticker down.

The next one is more controversial, as it involves the flag. Dale Decker, of Wisconsin, flew a flag upside-down on his apartment patio. According to Decker, he talked to a police officer, who told him that he was breaking the law (without being able to say exactly which law) and should take down the flag or he would face fines or imprisonment. The police chief denies that he was threated with fines or imprisonment, and that he was merely asked to take it down due to a neighbor's complaint. Decker has also faced anger and death threats from other people in his community. The end of the story is that the apartment complex ordered all flags, even right-side up, to be taken down. Everyone, including Decker, complied with this. Now as I said, the flag is a lot touchier for people than a sticker. But it should be Decker's right to fly the flag upside-down if he so chooses. The apartment obviously wanted to get Decker's flag down to avoid conflict, but ordered all flags down in order to seem neutral. This was a good move, as it keeps them out of the ideological side of it. But they didn't order all flags down until Decker began to “disgrace” his, and the owners of the apartment complex said that they only had problems with “anyone showing disrespect.” Also, he was not breaking any law, merely a rule of the apartment. So if Decker's claim of what the police said is true, then we are looking at a case of the police using intimidation against nonviolent speech, which would be a much bigger deal. I just hope that the Decker was exaggerating, and that the police did not threaten him. This story has many more holes in it, and I'm much less sure about who was right than with Ovetz's case.

Now I'm not saying that I agree with Decker's flying the flag upside-down, or with Ovetz's sticker. I just think that they should both be allowed to express their ideas, without being singled out by police officers who twist the law to fit the situation. Also, the way that the community treated Decker was horrible. People should respond to his actions by flying their own flags right-side up, not by saying that, “If you keep up what you're doing, a vet is going to find you and put a bullet in your head.” Stifling free speech stifles independent thought, and that is what our country is supposed to protect. Feel free to comment with your own ideas about these articles, or if you find any articles addressing the same situations from different viewpoints. This country is about the free expression of ideas, I just expressed mine, now please express yours.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/mc070708.html

http://www.progressive.org/wx070408.html

The Bad News Bearers

After an arduous primary process, it appears that the Democratic vote is more split than previously thought. Despite Clinton's resignation from the campaign and her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, it appears that 43% of Democrats still say they want Clinton as the party's nominee. Even worse, a growing number of Clinton supporters have expressed that they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Barack Obama. It blows me away how anyone who proclaims themselves to be a true democrat can stay at home in such an unprecedented, significant election year. 

In addition to this, a CNN poll completed in early June showed that 60% of Clinton backers stated that they would vote for Obama in the national election. Recently, that number has dropped to 54%. What is shocking is how similar the two candidates were on the issues. Despite their constant bickering on who's healthcare plan covered more people (although both plans are eerily comparable), both candidates believed in the same essential liberal core ideas. That is what makes these recent polls that much more shocking. How can a Clinton supporter deny a fellow Democrat the White House based on his/her personal assumptions of Obama's character?

But most likely, Clinton's loss must be seen as a four step process:

1. First, there is denial. This was the most blatant of the four, with Senator Clinton proclaiming that she had won more of the popular vote than Senator Obama and her rally cry that the race would go all the way to the convention.

2. After the denial phase, Clinton supporters can expect to go through a grieving period. Seeing as recent numbers suggest Obama's poll numbers slipping amongst Clintonian Democrats, this is the phase that many are at at the present time. 

3. A short stage of depression and anger will follow. I believe that this may occur after Obama picks his running mate (who I believe will not have Clinton as their last name). If Obama were to pick Clinton, his message of change threatens to be muddled by her 16 years of hard work in Washington.

4. Finally, acceptance. After a long process of anger and grief, I believe that Clintonian Democrats will eventually succumb to Obama's wise words, hopeful message of change, and strong belief in liberal ideals. 

CNN political analyst Brian Schneider sums it up perfectly when he eloquently explains, "If he doesn't pick her [Clinton], a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance," Schneider says. "In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Senator Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk."

So please, if you are 18 or over, listen to Senator Clinton. This election is too important to stay home and not vote. And even if you are under 18 as I am, you can do your part by working for a candidate locally or advocating for the candidate of your choice. Either way, this election is too important to let slip away. Do your part!

Question of the Day: A Family Affair

Recently there has been a lot of attention regarding the candidates family. Media outlets have been arguing lately about whether the American public should factor in the candidates wives when they hit the polling stations in November. I've seen polls asking voters how they feel about Mrs. McCain and Obama, whether they would want to "hang out" with them, whether the people think they are "good wives" or "loyal confidants" of their husbands. Newsweek even ran a cover story on Cindy McCain a few weeks ago, with an accompanying article that examines who she is and if she's ready to be First Lady.

There has also been a lot of attention on the candidates children. Barack Obama has recently expressed regret at allowing the TV show "Access Hollywood" to interview his children. He said that he doesn't want the children to be exposed to politics or the media at so young an age, yet we now see those very same children being debated over on CNN and MSNBC.

So my question is, where do we draw the line? At what point does our vetting of the potential Presidents become too personal. Is it worth looking into their family situations when we are trying to make our choice as to who would make the best President, or is that irrelevant. Would a ditsy, ineffective first lady really be a reason to vote against a candidate that you would otherwise vote for? What role do the children play in all of this? I want to hear your opinions, leave a comment.

Connecticut Minimum Wage Increase

So, as you may or may not have heard, the Connecticut House has overridden one of Governor Rell's vetoes, regarding a law to raise the Connecticut minimum wage from $7.65 an hour to $8.00 an hour, taking effect on January 1, 2009. The vote was razor-thin, as 102-39 voted to override, and 101 were needed.

Now I'm not claiming to know much about economics. I don't know if this minimum wage increase is going to help the economy rebound by helping employees, as its proponents claim, or if it will hurt small business owners, as Rell and others claimed. I won't take sides on the economic theory side of the issue.

On the human side of the issue, I am very glad that this law was passed. From a personal perspective, of course I would be, because I'm a teenager earning less than $8.00 an hour, so this will increase my income next year. But on a grander scale, I think that this increase will help a lot of people. And no, I don't mean the teenagers working summer jobs so that they can have fun during the school year. I'm talking about the working poor of Connecticut. According to some state sites, there are about 65,000 people in Connecticut who earn less than $7.65 an hour. Adding to this the amount of people who earn less than $8.00 an hour, and will be helped by the increase, there are a substantial number of people earning minimum wage to try and make ends meet. Imagine trying to support a family, or even yourself on $7.65 an hour. We did the math in my English class last year, and even supporting yourself is difficult.

Whether or not it will help the economy as a whole, I am glad that this law was overridden by the House, as it will help a lot of individuals. However, please not that this has not yet been passed, as it still must be overridden by the Senate. But the Courant predicts that it will be, and I trust that their knowledge of our state Senators' voting tendencies is sufficient to assume that this will be passed into law.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/06/articles/legislative-issues/update-conn-house-overrides-veto-in-minimum-wage/
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0285.htm