Red & Blue

Notes on Obama's Speech

2009-01-21T22:41:00.002-05:00

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 The rhetoric of Reagan about government being the problem rather than the solution is no longer valid in today's world, and conservatives and liberals alike must realize that we should worry more about application than theory in our current situation.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?

2008-11-22T12:23:00.002-05:00

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

2008-10-29T01:41:00.003-04:00

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!

2008-10-27T01:32:00.005-04:00

Coming SOON!

And the Negativity Continues...

2008-10-10T20:02:00.003-04:00

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

2008-10-07T16:51:00.003-04:00

"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?

2008-10-03T16:15:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-23T19:49:00.002-04:00

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?

2008-09-08T20:42:00.004-04:00

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

2008-09-07T09:26:00.003-04:00

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

2008-09-06T11:54:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-29T13:58:00.007-04:00

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

2008-08-29T00:51:00.003-04:00

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

2008-08-28T00:47:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-24T20:09:00.003-04:00

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?

2008-08-23T18:24:00.003-04:00

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?

2008-08-14T01:46:00.003-04:00

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

2008-08-09T11:22:00.002-04:00

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

2008-08-06T21:38:00.005-04:00

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

2008-07-22T00:33:00.005-04:00

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

2008-07-12T13:03:00.004-04:00

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?

2008-07-11T14:19:00.004-04:00

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?

2008-07-10T12:20:00.006-04:00

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

2008-07-09T20:10:00.004-04:00

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

2008-07-09T18:40:00.005-04:00

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

2008-07-09T11:00:00.001-04:00

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

Republicans Ready To Fight

2008-07-08T01:40:00.007-04:00

I will be the first to admit that I have been one of Senator Obama's greatest supporters throughout his entire struggle with Senator Clinton and the ongoing war of words with Senator McCain. But with that being said, I will also be the first to acknowledge that a candidate has made a mistake. Lately, it appears Obama has been waffling on core liberal issues and values. Maybe I have just been watching too much CNN, but seeing as the Senator's blog has been littered with negative commentary the past few weeks, I do not believe I am the only one who sees it.

For example, the Iraq war. One of Obama's key principles has been that if elected, he will have all American soldiers pulled out within the first 16 months of his presidency. We have heard it thousands of times. But lately, all of this has been called into question. Senator John McCain said that Obama's remarks on Iraq "have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." But, despite the growing concerns, Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

We all know that whenever a Democratic nominee makes a seemingly innocuous comment on a key issue, the Republican hounds come out in full force. Instantly, the Republican National Committee sent out a chain email stating that Obama was attempting to back out of his own policy of withdrawing troops within 16 months. But ex-presidential nominee John Kerry, who himself know a little something about the Republican Machine (anyone remember Swiftboat?), was there to back up Senator Obama:

The Republicans, and John McCain specifically, are trying desperately to get away from the reality of John McCain's position, which is that he has a plan for staying in Iraq and Barack Obama has a plan for getting out of Iraq...[Obama's position] has not changed whatsoever in his fundamental determination to end the war.

In the end, I have come to the realization that I overreacted. At some point, Obama would have to change from the saint that he was once viewed as to a true politician, and this has been a difficult transformation for me. But even if Obama does add a few months to his 16 month withdrawal, anything is better than McCain's plan for 16 years or 16 decades or even 16 lifetimes.

The Anticlimax

2008-07-06T22:14:00.002-04:00

When Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee back about a month ago, you could feel the excitement in the Democratic party and its supporters. It was one hell of a race between Hillary and Barack, but it had finally come to an end. That was the starting point of the battle between John McCain and Barack Obama – a race, mind you, which was supposed to be unique.

However, sitting here about a month later, I'm wondering what's so different. Yes, Barack is black, that's definitely something incredible, but I'm talking about the issues. Taxes, the economy, war plans, haven't we already heard this before? What I'm trying to get at is so far, this race between Obama and McCain has been the ultimate anticlimax. What do you think?

Instant Runoff Voting

2008-07-04T14:09:00.003-04:00

I'd like to take a minute to tell you all about what I think is a great idea: Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. It's a type of electoral reform, and to sum it up, everyone ranks the candidates by their preference, instead of only voting for one. If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. But people who voted for them are not forgotten: whoever they ranked as their number two pick gets their vote. This continues until a candidate gets the majority.

Why do I like this idea so much? To give you a bit of background on me, I am a big fan both of electoral reform and of third parties. And using IRV for the presidential election would be a victory for both of those. The main idea is that you can vote your conscience without any fear of losing your voice. I'm constantly torn between supporting 3rd party candidates that I like a lot, such as Ralph Nader (Nader just as an example... people who know me know that I greatly prefer Kucinich), or the mainstream candidate that I like more than the other, which is Barack Obama. So if IRV were in place, I could vote for Nader, and put Obama as my number 2 pick. That way, if Nader doesn't win, then my vote will still go to a candidate that I would like to see in office.

Now, people may say that this idea is useless because third parties never win. But if this were in place, maybe third parties in the USA would become a bigger force than they are (not necessarily electing presidents, but perhaps mayors and governors). People will be empowered to vote for who they really believe in, without fear of being discounted by the broken electoral system. And I'm not saying that I think Nader, or Barr, or any non-major party candidate could win the 2008 election, even with IRV in place. But I think that they would definitely get a larger amount of votes, and that is what is important to me. People should be able to express that they like a candidate, and really believe in her or his ideas, rather than holding their nose and voting for whoever they dislike the least. It will at least let people know that there are alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and that there are lots of people who support them. If we had IRV, I don't think NAder would win, but I think he would have a lot more than 6% of the vote.

Some resources to learn about IRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Counting_the_votes
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
http://instantrunoff.com/

An Unavoidable Conclusion

2008-07-02T17:06:00.001-04:00

Recently The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual's rights to own a firearm for protection or gaming purposes. This was the first time that the court ever officially interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that. For years and years we have assumed that that's what it meant, and in practice, it has, but now the Court has made it official.

When this came to the Court, there was really no other decision that could have been made, despite the 4 opposing votes. If the Court had ruled that the 2nd Amendment didn't protect the right for an individual to own a gun, things would have been absolutely chaotic. Suddenly, every gun law or statute in the country comes into question. What would the government do about those who already had guns? There's the possibility that despite the Court's ruling, Congress would refuse to implement any legislation to deal with the problem, thus creating a Constitutional crisis that not even the Court could solve, since they would be part of the problem. The Court HAD to make the decision they did, if not for any other reason than to keep their position as the defining authority of the Constitution within the United States.

There will always be the question of whether this case should have come to the Supreme Court at all. The case was based on a Washington D.C. statute that banned guns within the city. Obviously when they granted the case certiorari, the Supreme Court decided that it was important enough for people to own guns that it is a constitutional issue, which in many respects, it was. The D.C. gun ban seemed to go against the 2nd Amendment, and so the Court was well within their jurisdiction to decide the case.

What I find funny is that Conservative Justices like Antonin Scalia will preach about "original intent" and strictly following the words of the Constitution, unless they are trying to protect something else that they believe in. If they were to follow strict constructionalism all the time, they wouldn't be able to strike down the D.C. gun ban, because the Constitution definitely doesn't clearly say that individuals can own guns. They also would have never intervened in 2000's Bush v. Gore case, but since it was something that they believed in, they changed their tone for that case, just as they did for this one. That's the only thing I have wrong with this decision. If the conservative wing is going to protect the original intent of the framers when making decisions, they should do it full time, not just when it's convinient for their causes.

A little consistency never killed anyone. A lack of it might kill hundreds in D.C. when guns are let into the city in upcoming months.

Alex Severin- Election 2008 and The Supreme Court

2008-07-02T16:30:00.004-04:00

Many times during the course of the last year, I have been so caught up in the constant party bickering, the back and forth jabs, and the speculative, “Fox News Style” rumors, that I have completely disregarded what this election means for the future of the Supreme Court.

As many may know, in 2005, President Bush nominated 53-year-old John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. On September 29, 2005, Chief Justice Roberts assumed office. While most of the justices are in there sixties, seventies, and even eighties (with the exception of Justice Samuel Alito, who was also nominated by President Bush), the President nominated a younger justice in hope that he would command a conservative court for decades to come. Quite intelligent, don’t you think?

Overall, the Conservative wing of the court is significantly more cohesive than the liberal wing. As a result, oftentimes they are able to win that crucial swing vote from Anthony Kennedy and therefore carry many 5-4 decisions. With the impending departure of some of the older Liberals, including John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the next President will be in a position to either uphold the balance of the court by appointing two liberal leaning justices, or provide for a guaranteed conservative victory on nearly every vote of political importance.

Here is a breakdown of the Justices, with their age, and the President they were appointed by.

Clarence Thomas, 60, George H.W. Bush – Thomas is a very Conservative member of the court. An article that appeared in the New York Times recently showed that Thomas and Justice Scalia, another recognized conservative, voted together 100% of the time in 2007-2008. Thomas is in favor of capital punishment, upholds free speech a majority of the time, and has an favorable view of the Bush Administration.

Antonin Scalia, 72, Ronald Reagan– The rock of the conservative base. Scalia is one of the most outspoken members the Court has seen in recent times. He is in favor of judicial restraint, and isn't afraid to make that well known, appearing on 60 Minutes this past year to defend his role in the Court. He is the justice behind the majority ruling in 2000's firestorm case Bush v. Gore, which ended up deciding the election.

Samuel Alito, 58, George W. Bush– Appointed to the Supreme Court on January 31, 2006, Alito is considered a generally conservative juror, but not to the extent of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. During confirmation hearings, democrats characterized Alito as a mold of Scalia, but Alito states he “would act as an impartial referee.”

John Roberts 53, George W. Bush– The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he is also the youngest member of the court and is generally allied with the conservative wing of the court. He voted against Guantanamo detainees having the right to go to federal court to challenge their detention and upheld that the individual right to own a gun for personal use is protected by the Second Amendment, along with the entire conservative wing.

Anthony Kennedy, 71, Ronald Reagan – At a certain point, Justice Kennedy was deemed so important to the Supreme Court that the Court was called “The Kennedy Court”, and even today he plays an extremely significant role. Although known as a swing voter, he tends to lean toward the conservative side, which gives the republicans a 5-4 advantage on every ruling. He voted with the conservatives on the issues of gun right but against the conservatives when it came to the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, Bill Clinton – Ginsburg is considered to be one of the most liberal members of the court, and she is also one of two (along with Justice Stevens) justices who may need to be replaced in the next eight years.

John Paul Stevens, 88, Gerald Ford – Stevens was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford and is known as the leader of the Liberal movement in the Court. Stevens generally supports students’ right to free speech in public schools, voted for the use of the death penalty in the United States (except in certain situations and when dealing with juvenile offenders). Stevens is the other Justice who will not make it through the next presidential term. I believe recently, he has just been holding on until a democrat can take office to replace him.

David Souter, 68, George H.W. Bush – Souter is one of the most interesting cases in the Court right now. He was appointed by Republican President George Bush Sr., but primarily votes in a liberal fashion, although not always. He is seen as one of the more moderate on the court.

Steven Breyer, 69, Bill Clinton – Breyer is currently known as an intellectual leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and is seen as a counter to the conservative justice Antonin Scalia. In the past he has voted in favor of abortion laws. In describing his interpretive philosophy, Breyer has sometimes noted his use of six interpretive tools: text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences of competing interpretations.

This election is extremely important. With the imminent departure of Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, the new President will have at least one chance to sway the court in his party's direction. All we can do is wait and speculate. Isn’t that unfortunate?

Written By Alex Severin

Daily Congressional Roundup, July 1st

2008-07-02T16:14:00.003-04:00

H.R. 5690- To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization

Status: Signed into Law by President Bush

Commentary: The U.S. Government keeps a terrorist watch list that includes organizations all over the world who have caused unrest in their home countries or fought against an active government. Inexcusably, the African National Congress, which was led by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Nelson Mandela, which fought against Apartheid in South Africa during the late 80's/early 90's was included on this list. Our government was wasting resources keeping track of a nobel peace prize winner as a possible terrorist threat. This really just shows how indescriminant the war on terror has become in our country. This bill was introduced to remove all former members of the ANC from the terrorist watch list, and it was passed easily by both houses of Congress this spring and signed into law by President Bush immediately yesterday, July 1st. It's good that this finally got straightened out, but it's sad that Congress had to waste time debating this and ultimately passing it. If you ever wonder why we have gridlock in government, it's because they are wasting time fixing things that never should have happened in the first place like this.

"Blood and Oil" Review

2008-06-30T20:23:00.008-04:00

Somewhat recently, I read a book called "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum" by Michael T. Klare. To be honest, it was a couple months ago and I have really procrastinated in writing this review. But now that it's summer and I have time on my hands, I'd like to showcase what I think is a great read.

As you may be able to infer from the title, the book is about oil. And about blood, meaning the wars fought over oil. The reason for this is that Klare wrote a book, "Resource Wars" (which i have yet to read) which argued that wars are fought mainly over resources. But Klare later realized that oil was a much larger factor than any other resource. But why is this? Why does oil create more conflict than any other resource, whether it is gold or diamonds, food or water, stone or wood?

Everything in our modern society is based off of oil, which is why everyone feels the crunch when oil prices rise. Shipping, and therefore the prices of every good you buy in a store, is affected by fuel costs. The list goes on, but Klare is a much better linguist and scholar than I, and explains oil's importance in the introduction to this book.

Because of its importance, which is really the main point of the book, is that oil is the one resource that has been deemed a matter of national security. Due to this, the government can use oil as a reason to use the military wherever it sees fit. Putting aside the obvious relation to the Iraq War (which is not the focus of this book, which I liked), the United States supports many countries, namely Saudi Arabia, due to oil. But I will not go into a summary of this book, which you could probably find on sparknotes. All I would like to say is that this book has a great balance between history and current events to be both nonpartisan and interesting.

To give my own opinion, this book is a must-read. Before I read it, I never understoof why people always claimed that the Iraq War was started over oil. But now I now understand the argument, and whether or not you agree with it, this book will show you the reasoning for it. But I think that it was quite nonpartisan, criticizing FDR just as much as George W. Bush. And most importantly, Klare does not merely say that the current situation is bad, but he actually produces some ways to fix it. Klare explains his points well, with intelligence and articulation. The bibliography is huge, and it contains a nifty index. I'm definitely going to read some more stuff by Klare, or on the subject.

Here's where you can buy the book (I bought it at Barnes & Noble for $16):

http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Oil-Consequences-Dependency-Petroleum/dp/0805079386/ref=ed_oe_p

What Democracy Means

2008-06-29T19:34:00.001-04:00

Recently I brought myself around to seeing Michael Moore's controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, for the first time. Released in 2004, a little over a year after the invasion of Iraq, the film examines the first three and a half years of the Bush presidency, beginning with the election controversy in Florida, and moving into September 11, 2001 and its aftermath.

I won't try to say that Moore's account is fair and even-handed, or that there is no liberal bias here. If you want the straight facts to make up your own mind on this issue, then go somewhere else first, or be sure to find an equally conservative source.

That said, this documentary was not necessarily made with the objective of scrupulously reporting all of the facts. It focuses on the facts that support the liberal position, while downplaying those that support the conservative viewpoint. (If you've seen it, did you notice that it features interviews with people opposed to the war, but uses brief soundbites from those who support it?) This movie was made to support a point of view.

However, as I watched, I noticed that there was an entirely separate message that transcended politics. One of Moore's most frequent accusations was that people simply rolled over and allowed the Bush administration to accomplish its agenda unhindered. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the American people as a whole put their trust behind the President, without questioning any of his actions. One scene featured Brittany Spears saying to do just that. The press was accused of not scrutinizing the administration. The Democrats, now well known as the party that wants to leave Iraq as soon as possible, largely supported Bush's initiatives, including the Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution, without even reading them. Because of this willingness to entrust President Bush with our national security five-plus years ago, we find ourselves in a conflict in Iraq with no visible end, and no clear way to extracting ourselves without further damaging our position. Ladies and gentlemen, don't let this happen again.

I'm not saying you can't support a war, or a politician, or a cause. I'm not saying you can never trust a politician to make the right decision. What I'm trying to say, and what this movie helps to clarify, is that the decision to do so must be made on you own. Don't simply think that having a leader means you no longer have to think about or analyze an issue.

This goes for everyone--liberal, conservative, Socialist, Libertarian, or whatever you happen to be, no matter how much you love your elected officials, don't simply elect them so you don't have to think anymore, because that's not your job as a citizen. We closed our eyes on Bush after 9/11, and this is where we got; it could be so easy to allow this to happen again. When a politician says something, don't nod your head in approval like a brainwashed sheep, think about it. Research the issue, make up your own mind. Tell your politicians to do the same--the Iraq war resolution passed with the support of more than half the Senate Democrats, many of whom now claim that they were opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning (including Hillary Clinton). And yes, the Democrats are as much responsible for Iraq as the Republicans and the Bush administration, seeing as they sat on their hands as the executive branch produced its evidence that al-Qaeda was connected to Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein had and could use weapons of mass destruction.

America is the oldest democratic nation in the world, and democracy is based on the ability of the citizens to partake in the political process, and blindly trusting an elected official is simply not consistent with partaking. So my message to you, America, is to do your job as Americans, and join in the political process. Vote if you are old enough. Pay attention to politics and make your own mind up--don't listen to what Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly say about an issue and think that because they think that, you should too. Don't believe for one minute that the President automatically knows what's best for the country and leave it at that, and that includes our next president, whether he be John McCain or Barack Obama. It's time for America to start paying attention to the issues again.

But don't take my word for it.

Slick Barry

2008-06-20T02:07:00.003-04:00

So in an expected move, Obama has officially decided to forgo the 85 million dollars in campaign funds from the Government and continue to run on his own money that he is raising from supporters. It sounds really great when he gets on TV and talks about how he is "breaking free from a broken system," and it sure looks awesome when on his website, under his "donate" button, it says "declare your independence" from the public financing. But here's one supporter thats none too pleased with this decision

Months ago, when Barack wasn't the clear front-runner, and wasn't raising astronomical sums of money, he was all over the campaign trail talking about how public financing of campaigns is important, and how he would take the money. Keep in mind that at that point in time, 85 million probably wasn't looking so bad. Had the primaries ended there, who's to say he wouldn't have taken the money right on the spot? I guarantee it would have.

Now, however, he is a rock star. He's raising millions like its nothing, and 85 million is chump change compared to what he could probably raise on his own, and he knows it. Should he accept the public financing, he can't spend any of his own raised money, so taking it would make no sense. Except, of course, if he wanted to keep his word.

Now he's changed the rhetoric. He's going off about how "the system is broken" and how taxpayers shouldn't be financing general election campaigns. Because he's not accepting the funds, now he can pour as much money as he wants into this campaign....substantially more than McCain, especially if McCain chooses to take the 85 million, which I don't think he will now that Barack has chosen not to take it.

It becomes an issue of trust. Barack had said in the past that he was open to taking the public funds, but now that he suddenly has more money on hand, the entire message has changed. Now he's acting like the system is archaic and wrong. I think that the 85 million cap for public financing is a GOOD thing. It keeps the playing field even, and keeps the negative campaigning to a relative low. Lets see how Barack chooses to use all of this extra money that he will have. I don't suspect he will be running McCain off the air with negative campaigning, but I do suspect he will be using it to buy influence in areas he can't reach. It may end up buying votes, and thats the largest crime at all.

He has created a great talking point for McCain, who can try to paint him as a flip-flopper, which is pretty much a death sentence for a young democrat in today's electorate. Obama needs to work hard to make this a non-issue, or something that he thought would help could end up coming back and biting him in the...well it seems appropriate to say "wallet-area."

The Florida-Michigan Resolution

2008-06-01T11:38:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee finally decided just what would happen with the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which as we all know had their delegates stripped by the party for holding their primaries too early in violation of a party rule. The decision? Their full delegation will be seated, but each delegate will only have half a vote as a penalty. Also, the results from Florida will be counted as they were in the primary, but the 44% of Michigan ballots that chose "uncommitted" were counted towards Obama, whose name was not on the ballot in that state. Clinton earned 55% there.

Finally, a resolution that compromises both sides in a very difficult situation. Now can we please stop making a big deal out of this? I'm talking to you, Hillary Clinton! This decision only gave her a net of 24 votes at the convention, and while it is a fair decision that recognizes the interests and arguments of both sides, it does not bring here anywhere near Obama, or being able to make her case that she is more electable with any sort of credibility. He remains nearly two hundred delegate equivalents ahead of her, and now needs to garner just 67 more to reach the requisite 2118, adjusted from the previous 2026 to account for the Florida/Michigan delegations. This changed almost nothing, except for laying Obama back some twenty delegates. And here's the thing--the primary season ends this Tuesday, and with three remaining contests, she has no chance to close the gap without going to the superdelegates, who are expected based on recent behavior to support the majority of pledged delegates and back Obama.

Now Clinton and her supporters are complaining about this decision, ostensibly because they want their votes counted, but in reality it is because this changed absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, she is (as a practical matter) no closer to catching up with Obama than she was at the beginning. But her supporters have turned seriously ugly because of this, even going so far as to say that they will vote for McCain if Hillary isn't nominated or booing Obama, the presumptive nominee.

The party will unite after the convention, Hillary? Really?

Because what we are seeing in your insistence to keep running is going to destroy the party. Florida and Michigan, your last great hopes, were resolved in a way that is fair to everyone, and you are no better off because of it. What happens after Tuesday, when the superdelegates begin to announce their allegiance to Obama, and he finds himself with a majority of the convention's delegates? Are you going to keep fighting until the convention itself, as you and your supporters have hinted? Because if you do, and even then fail to get the nomination, the Democratic Party that leaves Denver will be even more fractured than when it entered. It's over, Senator. The people have chosen, and shouldn't that be enough for you? Or do you really not care about the people, and are only so egotistical to believe that you deserve the nomination no matter what they say, willingly sabotaging your party's chances of winning in November by deepening the rift between your supporters and Obama's? Way to...umm...unite the party?

Cluster Bombs Ban

2008-05-29T16:38:00.002-04:00

So you may or may not have heard about the recent dispute about the banning of cluster bombs. If you are like most people and don't know exactly what a cluster bomb is, it's simply a large bomb that is launched (from the ground, or more often dropped from a plane) that breaks into many tiny "bomblets" before it hits the ground. These spread out and cover a large area, and from the military point of view, they are very useful for "taking out dispersed ground targets," in other words, killing a lot of people who are standing far apart from eachother.

The controversy lies in the fact that a large amount of cluster bombs, from 10 to 40 percent, do not detonate when they are supposed to. They merely land on the battlefield, then are forgotten in the heat of conflict and left there. Years later, they can be set off by being touched, which is a huge risk to civilians, particularly children who don't know better than to pick up a bomb. You could just google image "cluster bomb victims", and there will be hundreds of hits. I didn't include any pictures because I didn't want to force anyone to look at the reality, but if you aren't squeamish, just look at the pictures and see how horrible the weapons really are.

This debate draws a parallel with the prior controversy over landmines, which many countries agreed to ban with the Ottawa Treaty, which took effect in 1999. But guess which country is not a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, and has already shown resistance to the recent effort to ban cluster bombs. That's it, the good old US of A. The American urge to have the world's strongest military, no matter the monetary or moral cost, is yet again keeping us from banning a weapon that does serious harm to civilians, many years after a conflict is over. An estimated 300 people die every year in Vietnam from cluster bombs that were dropped by the United States. I'm honestly not sure whose decision it is to ban them or not, if it's just an executive call, or if something must be passed in Congress, or what. But I would like to know who it is that is keeping our country on the list of those who continue to use weapons notorious for harming civilians.

Here's what you can do to help: sign online petitions. I'm sure there are many sites out there that have petitions going, but I'll only post the link to one. It takes less than twenty seconds to put down your name, zip code, email, and some other little bits of info. By adding yourself to the list of people against cluster bombs, you will help send a message to the world's governments that the citizens of the US will not stand for allowing the continued use of weapons that kill innocent people years after being dropped. And if you like cluster bombs or don't care, just don't sign. As always, it doesn't take any effort to keep things the way they are, it only takes work to change them.

To sign the petition:
http://www.clusterbombs.org/i-want-to-sign/

To learn more:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/19/cluster.bombs/#cnnSTCText

Faux News Strikes Again- Trotta Style

2008-05-26T18:01:00.001-04:00

This past Sunday, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta made some pretty shocking remarks regarding Barack Obama. While responding to Hillary’s now infamous RFK remarks, she made the following comment,

[...] and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama. Um, uh, Obama. Well both, if we could.

Trotta immediately followed this comment with laughter, as the host of the show mockingly asked her to “tell us how you really feel.” On Memorial Day, she made a half hearted apology, where she characterized it as a “lame attempt at humor,” and said she was “sorry to anyone I might have offended.”

Besides the fact that you know and I know she is not sorry for what she said, there is something bigger at risk here, much bigger. I have been noticing more and more that Fox News is beginning to bring people on air who regularly leave their position as objective news reporters to make their own personal commentaries on political issues.

The mainstream media is meant to provide information to the masses, pure, unbiased information that people can then take and interpret in their own highly personal ways. When big news sources like Fox continually put people like Liz Trotta on air, who seem to advocate the assassination of someone like Barack Obama, the media is failing as an institution. This is by no means the first time anyone from the media showed their own political colors, I’m just saying that as we near closer to November, this becomes a pretty big issue.

What I saw as I watched Liz Trotta on Sunday was not one lunatic political analyst making a monumental mistake, I saw a calculated attack on both Democratic Presidential candidates. I think that Fox may have tipped their cap at the violent hate filled tactics that we should expect as the election nears closer. They claim to be “fair and balanced,” but you and I both know that is a lie.

This is not an isolated event. You will see more of this, and of that I am sure. As it continues to happen, the other media sources will make a big deal for a few days, the talking head will be forced to make an apology, and then the media will find some other scandal to focus on, and the commentator will get off scot-free. Yet the message they implanted into millions of heads across the country will not fade so easily. The mainstream media still seems to find calling Obama “Osama” pretty damn funny, and until they stop, people across the nation will continue to believe he is Muslim, or even a threat to our country.
It needs to stop, and yet the only tool we have is our viewership. They control our information, and so we need them, and they know it. What can we do except turn off our television sets and deprive them of their demographic? Nothing, but in doing that, we become uninformed. It is a nasty little pickle we find ourselves in.

The only solace we can find is to only look towards sources we know that we can trust, such as The Washington Post, or The New York Times. If you are looking for political information, I suggest you look to one of those newspapers. If its on the TV, take it with a grain of salt.

That is my advice, do with it what you will. Or not, since I’m just some random guy writing on the internet.

Democratic Primary Season, day 144

2008-05-25T14:00:00.002-04:00

Well, it's been two months since I last wrote about the Democrats, but one would think that the only thing that's changed is that both candidates now have higher delegate counts, although Obama is now in much better shape. With only three contests remaining, he has a majority of pledged delegates attending the convention, a lead in superdelegates, and increasing media coverage labelling him as the presumptive nominee. He is now only fifty-seven delgates shy of the requisite 2026 needed to be nominated. Yet Clinton, who trails Obama by nearly 200 delegates, remains in the race, not because she has any real chance, but because she refuses to leave.
Let's face it, the only reason that Obama isn't already labelled the presumptive nominee by everyone is because no one wants to have to break it to the Clintons--and that includes Bill as much as it does Hillary. But as they become increasingly desperate to show by any way they can that Senator Clinton deserves the nomination, one wonders if it's time for someone to tell them to get out now with class than to drag this thing to the convention.

The thing is, Clinton doesn't have a clear path to the nomination. The logic employed by Clinton supporters to show that she should get the nomination over Obama's head is increasingly tortured, with ironies and contradictions that make the summer gas tax seem like a good idea in comparison. She claims that she will not leave the race until "every voice was heard and every vote counted," yet she claims she is leading in the popular vote by counting Michigan (where Obama supporters were not even given the chance to vote for him) and Florida, and by discounting the people in caucus states, because somehow their opinions don't matter (or is it simply because Obama has dominated the caucuses?) She claims every voice needs to be heard, and so the votes in Florida and Michigan must be counted, even though that didn't become important to her until she realized that her nomination was about to be "stolen." She says she wants the votes of Americans to be counted, yet is desperately making her case to the superdelegates to buck the pledged delegates and choose her over Obama.
Recently she went so far as to claim that the Democrats need to change their nomination process, because the current one "fails to represent the will of the American voters." I quote,

“I think that’s an issue for debate in the future because I believe we should have primaries everywhere, and everybody, as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote...We ought to group them so that nobody is at the tail end, so everybody has a chance to participate. But that’s all for the future.”

You know, I didn't realize Hillary was the champion of nomination reform until the current system gave someone like Obama the chance to turn over the establishment candidate. I mean, give me a break. Lets face it, if the primaries were all held on the same day, Clinton, with national name recognition and a convincing lead in polls, probably could have won the nomination outright. However, the spaced out nature of the nominating process allowed Obama to gain name recognition as he won contests, particulary his surprising win in the Iowa caucuses. Now, suddenly, it's not democratic to give relative unknowns the chance to win popular support?
What this comes down to is that Clinton feels that she deserves the nomination, and when the people chose someone else it was because of some flaw in the nominating system. Will it ever occur to her that the Democratic Party perhaps found someone they liked more? It's as if she's personally offended by this whole ordeal, and her arguments are tantamount to claiming that the votes of the people don't matter at all. Give it up, Hillary.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/24/clinton-democratic-nomination-process-needs-to-change/

How Kennedy's Situation Affects the Senate

2008-05-20T14:59:00.004-04:00

I'm sure most of you have heard by the time that you're reading this that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has been diagnosed with a malignant glioma (brain tumor) in his left parietal lobe. The prognosis for the condition that he has is anywhere from less than 1 year to live to five years to live (under the best circumstances). For a man of Kennedy's age, such a diagnosis seems to be fatal at some point.

Red & Blue's prayers go out to Sen. Kennedy and his family. Ted's oldest brother Joe died during World War II, and his two other brothers, John and Robert, were both assassinated in the 60's. This family has seen more tragedy than most, so we can only hope that they will be able to deal with this situation and stay strong at Teddy's side. Either way, it seems as though the Lion of the Left may be on his last legs.

Ted Kennedy has been serving in the Senate since 1962, which makes him the second longest serving member of the current Senate, behind President pro-tem Robert Byrd, who is 90 years old. Kennedy was re-elected to a new 6-year term in 2006 and won't be up for re-election again until 2012. So now we need to look at the question, what happens if he cannot complete that term?

If Sen. Kennedy retires or dies in office, Massachusetts law requires that a special election be held to fill the seat somewhere between 145-160 days after he leaves office. That means for a minimum of 145 days, his seat will be vacant. Under the current composition of the Senate, the Democrats and Republicans both hold 49 seats. There are two Independent Senators, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who both caucus with the Democrats. This gives the Democrats a VERY slim 51-49 majority within the senate, especially considering the fact that Dick Cheney, a Republican, would vote to break ties if there were a 50-50 split in the Senate.

So, should Ted leave the senate, for 145 days, the Senate would be 50-49 Democratic advantage. They would keep the majority, but barely. If in the special election, a Republican wins the seat, the Senate will suddenly be split 50-50, and the Republicans will have the majority as long as a Republican stays in the White House.

The composition of the Senate is already shaky for the Democrats, considering the fact that one of the Independents they NEED to retain majority is supporting John McCain in the upcoming election, and seems to be showing even more Republican tendencies as time goes by. I am talking of course about Joe Lieberman. If he were to change his mind and caucus with the Republicans, the Senate would be split 50-50. It is almost assured this won't happen, since it would be political suicide for Lieberman in Connecticut, but the possibility remains.

Either way, Kennedy's situation greatly affects the Senate, and you can be sure people will be watching what happens to him very closely, especially President Bush. But Kennedy is a fighter, and considering his loyalty to the Democratic party, and how much his seat means to the party, you can be certain he won't be resigning any time soon.

Kyle: You have to keep in mind, though, that Kennedy represents Massachusetts, one of the most consistently Democratic states in the nation. Currently, all 10 Congressmen are Democrats, as well as Kennedy and Junior Senator John Kerry, and it is well known as a liberal bastion. It seems unlikely that a Republican would be able to win a Senate seat in this political environment, so I think the more serious issue here will be the loss of Kennedy as a leader in the Senate and in the Democratic Party.

Alex Severin- "Mr. Gore, choose a side!"

2008-05-07T18:46:00.002-04:00

Mr. Gore, Mr. Activist, Mr. Vice President, or whatever you would like to be called, your vote is an absolute necessity to the completion of this excruciatingly lengthy process. I for one, and I know I am not the only one, have grown extremely weary of the constant party bickering and underhanded attacks that are being leveled by both candidates (although Mrs. Clinton has been throwing more punches as of late).

The coveted endorsement is one that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are bitterly fighting for, and for good reason. Gore, who recently turned 60 years old, has been called the “party elder” and is viewed as a father figure for the Democrats. But Gore remains stubborn on the issue, justifying his indecision by saying,

“I’m simply watching and listening to the campaign. As a delegate to the convention I will cast my vote at the proper time. I haven’t ruled out making an endorsement prior to that time, but I haven’t been moved to do so.”

Others suggest, no matter how farfetched an idea, that Gore, not unlike John Edwards, may be waiting it out until a nominee is determined so he would be in contention for the Vice President spot again. To me this seems extremely unlikely, but intriguing in its own way. Gore has helped achieve magnificent things for this country (remember that he occupied the Vice Presidency during a time of grand economic prosperity in which the US government sat on a three trillion dollar surplus) and despite his increasing age, he could help increase environmental awareness in a country with the greatest ratio of hummers per square mile (sarcasm of course!).

No matter what Gore’s intentions are, the time is now! Mr. Gore, your vote is necessary in order for the presidential process to move forward. One thing is for certain, the longer the democrats battle without choosing a clear winner, the more time Republican hopeful John McCain has to run a virtually attack-free campaign. And no mater if you are a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter, allowing McCain to run free of criticism helps no one!

Written By Alex Severin

Thank You!

2008-04-21T23:37:00.005-04:00

Thank you so much to everyone who has been reading this site regularly and helping promote it across the web. I know things have been a bit slow lately, but we'll be back at full strength soon enough, so just hang in there.

New site with forum coming soon!!

Bonehead of the Week: Representative Don Young (R-AK)

2008-04-20T23:59:00.003-04:00

I don't know if you guys have seen the news lately, but apparently the Senate is launching a federal investigation into an earmark that was altered after it was passed by congress but before it was signed by the President. The earmark was originally part of a highway funding bill that was approved for one specific part of a Florida highway and was worth $10 million.

After the bill was approved by Congress, apparently Rep. Don Young (R-AK) changed the wording of the bill to send those $10 million to another part of Florida's interstate, "Coconut Road." His spokesperson said that "It was an error [in the bill]. It was originally supposed to say Coconut Road so he changed it."

Now, with all due respect to Rep. Young, and not even considering the fact that somehow he has enough money or even feels the need to hire his own representative spokesperson (hmm isn't he supposed to be a representative of the people) you can't just go around altering bills after they have been approved by Congress. You might be thinking that its harmless for a Representative to go in and fix an error within a bill, but its really not.

This isn't a matter of fixing a mistake, it's a matter of rules, customs, and what is fundamentally right and wrong. How can a congressman have enough independent authority to alter a bill before it reaches the President without anyone finding out. What if that representative had said "the bill was supposed to say $100 million, so I changed it." That congressman is then assuming that everyone would have voted the same with a $90 million increase, which is patently false. Who knows if this bill would have passed if those voting had known the money was going to "Coconut Road."

In essence this guy was acting as his own Congress. He took something that was passed, re-wrote it, then felt that he had the authority to then re-pass that legislation, all by himself. DUDE! YOU CAN'T DO THAT!

Sorry I had to speak in layman's terms there, but it's just so dumb that this guy could break the rules so blatently, and then not even feel as if he had broken the rules at all. What if someone did that and approved more money to fund the Iraq war, to fund a terrorist organization, to fund the KKK? He thinks he's "fixing" the bill, but I think he's the one that needs the fixing. Eh, whatever, we can't expect all of our representatives to have read the Constitution right?

righhhhttttt (sarcasm)

Bonehead of The Week: All of us

2008-04-12T14:28:00.005-04:00

Apparently the candidates and the media and the public in general have nothing better to focus on. By writing this story I'm part of the problem I suppose. The story in the news over the past few days has been Obama's comments regarding Pennsylvania voters, who he described as "angry" and "bitter."

"When I go around and I talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness. I want to make a point here. [Pennsylvanians are] frustrated and for good reason, because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas, they’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their pensions. They’ve lost their health care."

He was making a point, that voters are frustrated with the way their lives have turned over the past few decades. Did he say it the right way? No, probably not. Describing people who you are trying to win over as angry and bitter probably isn't the best strategy, and he knows it. He knows he screwed up, but what the heck is with the amount of coverage on these comments? Candidates make about 5-6 stump speeches per day. Slips of the tongue have to be expected, these people are absolutely exhausted.

For example, when Hillary said that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Well, if you count little girls reading you poems and handing you flowers as sniper fire, then I guess she would be right. She got caught in a lie, and she knows it, we all know it, move on. Candidates lie. I'm sorry to be the one to accept that, but they lie, and they always will. They're trying to prove that their the right person for the job, so they feel the need to bloat their own records a little bit. Is it right? Should it be happening? Absolutely not, but it is the product of the amount of attention we as Americans pay to elections in general. The candidates that simply tell it how it is are boring, they don't get any media attention, they don't get any votes. So how do we fix this? Can we ever really elect the "average joe" that we all claim to want in the White House? I'm not sure, give me your ideas in the comment section.

Anyways, we're all getting a little antsy before the Pennsylvania primaries. There has been a lull in the action, so you can expect more rediculous controversies like this on the news every night. FLASH: HILLARY CLINTON ORDERS PEPPERONI PIZZA IN PRIMARILY VEGITARIAN COMMUNITY. Ugh, give me a break. There will be more slips of the tongue as well. I'm sure if we analyzed every line of every speech these candidates give on a daily basis, we could find a reason to be angry or even bitter with all of them. Pun intended.

P.S. Sorry for the little break there in between posts, there has been a lot going on recently, and we're trying to get the new site up as soon as possible. Just know that we're working on it and the posts will be back on a daily basis starting today.

The Wright Affair

2008-03-28T16:24:00.005-04:00

So I'm sure by now most of you have heard some of the comments made by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments had anti-American flavor to them, and some were racially charged. Jeremiah Wright is a black man. He was the leader of a predominantly black church. He seems to harbor a lot of ill will against the United States for what it has done to black people throughout history. This was part of him now infamous "god damn America" sermon, in which he condemned the country for trying to play the role of God, and letting its black population down.

These comments have been reproduced and misrepresented completely. This is not a defense of what he said, because I feel that in his position of religious leadership, what he said was not only stupid but overstepped his bounds. I don't mean to convince you that the "mass media" has taken this story and purposefully mangled it to attack Obama. No, I don't subscribe to those common lines of thinking, that although popular, are conspiracy theories none the less.

This is simply an argument that Barack Obama should be left out of the matter completely. People in America are hearing these comments, and condemning both Wright and Obama at the same time. Obama is being thrown under the bus, his national poll numbers are going down, and he's being crucified by competitors for what his former pastor said. His former pastor. Give me a break.

To me, Jeremiah Wright can be accurately compared to that crazy uncle or grandpa that all of us have encountered at one point or another. You love that uncle or grandpa, because theyre family. Sometimes they might say something stupid, or racist even, but you never hate them. You don't hate them because you know that despite their flaws, they are good people with good intentions. You realize that just because they say something doesn't mean you need to believe it. You realize that you are your own person with your own beliefs, and you move on.

The same thing happened to Barack Obama. Jeremiah Wright was a close personal friend of his. Wright baptized Obama's children for gods sakes, the two were close. Now Republicans and fellow Democrats are attacking Obama for not trashing Wright and leaving him in the dust? I don't know about you, but I have more respect for Obama knowing that he wouldn't ditch someone he considers close to family just because of a few dumb remarks. Obama said that he didn't agree with Wright, but that he would remain with the congregation. Bravo.

What Wright said is no reflection on Obama's own individual character. It tells us nothing about how Obama feels regarding race in America, and it tells us nothing about the sort of people Obama associates himself with.

If we really need to spend this much time analyzing off color remarks made by a Democratic hopeful's former pastor, perhaps the degradation of this race is worse than I previously thought. America.....Im sorry I mean God, save us all.

Huh?

2008-03-25T17:39:00.003-04:00

Recently, a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) suggested a novel, new method of guaging success in the primaries--tally up the electoral votes in states won!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?fta=y

Is there anyone reading this who can explain to me the tortured logic that would lead people to believe that winning electoral votes in a primary (where they make no difference at all) translates to winning electoral votes in the general election? Obviously the candidate who wins the primary goes on to win the general election. In fact, all twenty-four Democratic and Republican primary winners went on to take the white house, excepting only the twelve who lost. So clearly, primary performance is an indicator of general election performance.

Take a state like Texas, for example. Clinton won (narrowly) in the popular vote in that state's primary election on March 5. So, obviously, she will win Texas in the general election, right?

Frankly, no. Stephen Colbert could not have been more accurate when he said that the winner of the Texas Democratic primary would win Texas "unless there's a Republican candidate." I'm sorry, but no Democrat is going to take Texas in the general election--so why is being able to win it in a primary such a big thing?

Primary performance is no indicator whatsoever of how a candidate will perform in the general election. For one thing, it represents only the wishes of people who are registered members of the party itself (except for some states that hold open primaries, in which one need only be a registered voter). For another, it doesn't take into account a candidate's appeal to moderates or the other party--something that Hillary is sorely lacking.

The only reasonable explanation for why she wants to look at the primary victories as if they were the electoral college is that she's getting desperate to appear the frontrunner, when she trails Obama in just about every other category--including delegates, which is the only one that counts.

So, Senator Clinton, stop whining because the Democrats choose Barack Obama over you. I know it's hard for you to accept that, but that is just how politics works. Stop trying to show that you won in the electoral vote so far, because it only highlights that you've come up short where it really matters--the delegates.

Tibet

2008-03-24T15:34:00.002-04:00

As many of you may know, history is in the making in Tibet. A huge movement for the secession of Tibet from China, with the Dalai Lama at its head, is currently protesting vigorously for the freedom of Tibet. China has replied to the peaceful protests with police and military force, trying to "put down" the rebellion and maintain a state of order.

Unfortunately, the unfolding events are difficult to get information on, due to China's control of its news sources. China has been blocking news reports referencing the conflicts from CNN and other non-Chinese stations from being viewed by its citizens. There has been a large amount of conflicting information coming from the area, where international news sources have not been allowed. There have been between 10 and 100 protestors killed (the Chinese government claims 10, members of the Free Tibet movement claim 100), and between 12 and 48 people were arrested at one time for blocking the entrance to a United Nations building (again, the discrepancies are from different numbers reported by the government and the protestors). Which numbers are right? Maybe neither. It's probable that both sides have either exaggerated or downplayed the numbers, but the true statistic definitely lies between the two.

What is this conflict about, you may ask? I asked the same thing when I first heard about it. Here's a simplified version of the issue, which of course is quite complex: The Tibetans want to be an independent state. The area is currently under Chinese control, and the residents say that the Chinese government has been oppressive and has violated their human rights. The government, of course, claims it is merely trying to maintain order and keep the peace. But this conflict's roots are not deep, and the movement is young. This is because Tibet was a fully independent nation up until the 1900's. China claimed Tibet as its own in 1914, saying that they were unified since they had both been under Mongol control in the past and therefore were homogenous. Tibet ignored the claim and continued to rule itself, until 1949 when China invaded. So it is not a surprise that the Tibetan people are chafing under Chinese rule, as they do not have the same interests and are a vastly different culture.

This issue is especially important now, as China is hosting the 2008 Olympics. It is necessary for the country to have a good international opinion. Also, protestors have threatened to interfere with events such as the running of the torch if China does not agree to go into talks with the Dalai Lama. This rebellion has cast a shadow over the Games, and it is in China's best interest to either come to terms with the protestors or beat them into line before the Games begin.

It is the spirit of America to support rebellion and popular opinion. Our nation was born in a bloody war, seperating from a government that it deemed oppressive and against its interests. If a group of people is fighting the same cause that we fought over 200 years ago, isn't it right to give them our support?

Support for the protestors can also be born from merely having sympathy for fellow people of the world. China is guilty of huge amounts of human rights violations, no matter whose statistics you go by. They rule with an iron fist and control countless aspects of their people's lives, all in the interest of the country. But shouldn't the real interest of a government be to protect and serve its citizens, not to improve the country's wealth and power at any cost?

If you support the people of Tibet, the least that you can do is take a few seconds and sign the following petition. Broad international pressure is required to make the Chinese government act humanely, and that pressure can be administered by a large amount of ordinary people like you and me.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/tibet_end_the_violence/32.php?cl=65739871

If you support the Chinese government, you don't have to so anything. Because if the world just sits by and watches, China will brutally force the Tibetans back into compliance like it has so many other discontented groups of citizens in the past.

"Sicko" Review

2008-03-21T23:28:00.004-04:00

So the other night, I watched "Sicko," the documentary about healthcare by Michael Moore. I was expecting a great documentary, due to the popularity of Moore and the number of awards he has won. And I got even more than I expected.

First of all, I would like to say that I supported a universal healthcare system before I watched the movie. What I was really looking for were some facts and statistics to back up my ideas, rather than the simple belief that healthcare is something that everyone deserves, no matter their income level, like education and protection by the law.

But the film was focused much more on individuals and their experiences with the healthcare systems in the USA and abroad, which were actually quite interesting. A lot of people have had bad experiences with the American system, including employees of big insurance companies. These accounts were quite moving, as they exposed how greedy and profit-driven the companies really are, as employees would get bonuses for turning down the highest number of customers' claims. There were also people who were victimized by the system, and had lost loved ones or been sent into poverty due to the greediness of the HMO's.

There were some statistics, however. A lot of them were interesting, such as that the USA has 50 million people (about 1/6 of the current population) living without healthcare. That the USA is ranked #37 in the coverage of its citizens, below small and poorer countries (France being #1). Some of the statistics were so outrageous that I did not even believe them, such as when Moore states that the US's infant mortality rate is higher than in most other industrialized countries. I looked up the fact later, and it is true that the US is rated below all developed nations but Latvia in the number of children who die in their first month of life.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

After I discovered this, I appreciated Moore's work much more. He showed some very shocking facts, which show how poor the health of our nations really is compared with countries with socialized health care. He also showed the perspective of Candians and British citizens and doctors, to refute the claims that socialized healthcare is poor, slow, or bad for doctors.

And perhaps my favorite part of the movie was when Moore points out how many things in this country are already socialized. Americans' irrational fear of socialism, and how it will lead to *gasp* communism seems to be one of the main blocks of universal health care. But so many things are already provided by the government, such as police, firefighters, libraries, education, and the postal service. These are things that are deemed necessary for society and as rights for citizens, yet they could easily be privatized. So why is it that health care doesn't make the cut for the list of government-provided services?

The only negative I could find with the film was that Moore glorified universal health care more than it probably deserves. He made it seem as if it was a perfect system, praising Cuba for having socialized health care, and made it seem as if it was better to live in Cuba than in the US. As I said above, I support government-run health care, but I don't think it's a perfect system. Everything has some pros and some cons, and even if socialized health care is better than privatized, that doesn't mean it is perfect.

All in all, this is a great movie and I highly recommend it. It is quite depressing at parts, but it's both thought-provoking and entertaining. And as it is said in the film, this issue isn't a partisan one. Even members of the Conservative Party in Canada and Great Britain support universal health care, as it is a basic human right. If we can unite behind universal suffrage, equal protection under the law, and equal education, why not health care?

Governor Richardson endorses Barack Obama

2008-03-21T22:09:00.007-04:00

I'll try to keep this one short. Today, New Mexico Governor and former presidential candidate Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama. The endorsement was highly coveted by both the Clinton and Obama camps, as Richardson is one of the more influential figures in the Democratic Party who had yet to endorse a candidate.

My congratulations go out to Governor Richardson, for finally deciding he could not stand on the sidelines any longer, and solidly endorsing a candidate. Thus far, a number of the big name Democrats--former vice president Al Gore, Speaker of the House Nanci Pelosi, and recent presidential candidate John Edwards to name a few--have declined to take a position for Obama or Clinton, due to their desire to let the primary process play itself out. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic nominee will not be chosen by pledged delegates--the closeness in public opinion polls and primary results between the two has made it progressively less likely that one candidate would win enough pledged delegates to put them within a stone's throw of the 2,025 threshold. So, it has come down to the superdelegates and influential party leaders to choose the nominee.

Unfortunately, they have proven reluctant to do so, mainly because of the closeness of the race between the two Senators. This is unfortunate because as long as there is no solid coalition forming on the side of one candidate, the Democratic will leave the convention as fractured as it will be upon entering it. Its time for the party leadership to take a stand for one candidate, end this senseless feuding between two people with essentially the same beliefs, and start getting ready for what could be a tough general election. Democrats, it is time to make up your minds.

I could write another essay on this, but I promised to keep it short.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html?ref=politics

The Fight Goes On, and On, and On, and On....

2008-03-20T19:52:00.005-04:00

We've had a little break in the primary action as of late, and its given me a chance to take a step back and think about what's really going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Two very unique candidates are battling it out for the right to run for President, not the right to BE president, but just to have the chance to run. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars, making 4-5 speeches per day, traveling all across the country, giving countless interviews, and having their entire lives recorded by the national media. Why are they doing all this? Why would they subject themselves to such sucky conditions? Why won't one of them just give up already?

We haven't seen a primary election cycle like this in decades. These two really couldn't be closer right now, whether it be in the public opinion (Hillary now holds a small lead in national polls) or delegate count (which Barack currently controls). They both think that they have the people on their side, like they are what is right for this country. What they don't realize is that they are slowly destroying their chances at a victory in November, when it really counts.

As the democrats have been fighting it out for months and months in the primaries, in the media, John McCain has been rallying the troops, securing the base. The democrats are attacking each other and convincing America that the other isn't right for the job, while John McCain is convincing everyone that he is right for the job. All I've seen lately covering the race is negative press regarding each of the democrats, press that the American people are reading and keeping in the back of their mind, information they will remember in November.

The Republicans have the right idea. They came together and selected a candidate early, and now all he has to do is secure all of those Republican votes, with no one within his own party trying to prove he's an idiot, or incompetant. Even worse for the democrats, no one in the Democratic party is focusing on McCain either. They are devoting so much time to the primary election that they have lost sight of their ultimate goal, to put a democrat in office. And this isn't necessarily a fault of Democratic America, they just can't make up their damn minds.

It is time to make a decision. This needs to come to an end. If the American people can not choose between the two, then Democratic leadership must. It is time to act, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore. It is time to pick which horse you're going to ride into the fall and kick the other one out. Only the Democratic Party leadership can (through private conversation) nudge one of these candidate out of the race, and they NEED to do it, if the Party has any chance of winning in November. If it doesn't happen directly after the Pennsylvania primaries in April, McCain will continue to gather support, and the democrats will continue to attack each other.

There's a saying I heard one time that "The Democratic party has a strange way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Well, If the democrats can't make up their minds soon, this may be the case once again in 2008.

Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton

2008-03-20T14:16:00.016-04:00

You know, I am just sickened by the dispute in the Democratic party over the Florida and Michigan primaries. Remember back when the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early, and no one really cared? Seriously, I don't remember anyone complaining that the people in those states had lost their voice in the democratic process. But now, all of a sudden, people have realized that those delegates could have made the difference at the convention, and are all of a sudden complaining about the nullification of their results.

The facts are thus: in August of 2006, the Democratic National committee decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada would be allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before February 5, to slow down the packing of the early primary season. In spring of 2007, the Florida General Assembly voted to hold the primary on January 29, a week before the date set by the party. Michigan also set its primary for mid-January, due to the opinion that the DNC rule gave the four states unjust importance in the process. In August 2007, the DNC decided to strip Florida of its delegates within 30 days. It did not do so, and so the delegates were stripped. Michigan managed to keep their delegates all the way until December 1, when the DNC officially stripped its delegation as well. Following these decisions, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other candidates removed or tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, and tried to get off of the Florida ballot as well, in a show of respect for the rules of the party. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both decided to remain, to demonstrate respect for the people of the states. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state--including Senator Clinton.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaining about this whole mess is coming from the Clinton camp, which has found itself against a wall that it never could have foreseen last fall. Now, with the nomination getting further and further away from her, and ever closer to Senator Obama, she is getting desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206036634-4naVLUR96ihfinrGOTeHHg

Maybe I just read all the wrong articles in the, oh, seven months between the DNC's decision to strip Florida's delegates (only 4 months in Michigan), but I don't remember Senator Clinton complaining that they had lost their vote in those states until she realized that she probably will not get the nomination without them. (Her earliest opposition to this came on January 25, when the early primaries did not go as she had planned.) Now, however, her campaign has taken the position that "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process,"* and she actually went to the state recently to campaign to have the results from the January 15 primary count...even though her principal competitor, Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot.

Now, in Florida I can almost understand the desire to count the delegates according to the results of the January 29 primary. All candidates had agreed not to campaign in the state, and therefore no candidate had an unfair advantage, right? But what about all the eligible voters who decided they would not vote in this primary because it didn't count? Their voices would not have been heard anyway, so the only way to have a truly fair election in Florida would be to have a primary do-over (which would also be a bad idea--more on this later.)

But try as I might, I cannot find any justification for Clinton's argument that the Michigan primaries were fair, and should be counted due to the January 15 results, other than the fact that she knows that Obama would get no delegate because he was not on the ballot. How can you possibly claim it was a fair primary if the current front runner wasn't even an option, especially while saying that everyone has a right to their vote? What about all the ones who would have voted for Obama had he not decided to remove himself from the ballot, in honor of the Party's rules? Again, if you want a truly fair election, you would move for another primary in both those states.

Okay, so counting the votes as they happened on the original dates is out of the question. So why not have a primary do-over? Well, it's not that simple. First of all, another primary costs a lot of money, that frankly has better uses elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, it sends a message to all the states that if you break the rules of the party, it won't really matter. This will end up being a huge problem, as it will clear a way for future rules violations in the future, because if your votes will count anyway, why not risk it to make your own state a little more important? This year, with the delegate count so close, and all the media attention on Michigan and Florida, they would appear just as important as any of the first four states anyway. Not a great way to punish rule breakers--in fact, it ends up punishing the states that actually honored the party's decision. The way I see it is this: the DNC set a clear rule. Florida and Michigan chose to violate that rule, knowing that it would result in the stripping of their delegation. You're upset now that your votes don't count? That's called "tough love."

The third option is to divide the delegates from both states evenly between Obama and Clinton. This is by far the fairest option to the other 48 states, plus all the US territories, that obeyed the party rules and held their primaries on or after February 5 (unless they were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina). The effect on the delegate count is essentially zero--since each candidate has the same amount tacked onto their delegation, there is no net change in the difference between pledged delegates. This would, however, bring the lead candidate nearly two hundred votes closer to the 2,025 needed for the nomination, which would help that lead candidate to win over the support he needs.

Because, lets face it, this primary battle has gone on too long. We have as the current front runner, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Senator Clinton trails, but not by enough. However, her time is running out, and she will have to win big in the few remaining states (especially Pennsylvania). Unfortunately for her, it is looking less and less likely that she will win by enough to make the kind of gains in this area that will allow her to to say she's caught up to him (unless Florida and Michigan are counted as they stand...), and will thus be forced to rely on the superdelegate vote that will likely go with the candidate with more delegates--Obama.

I don't have a problem with Hillary herself. Whatever people say about her, I believe she is genuinely committed to the causes she fights for, particularly health care. However, she is behind, by a significant margin, in the delegate count, and it is very unlikely for her to catch up. So why is she staying in? She's close enough to Obama that the party leaders can't simply ask her to exit the race, with a fair amount of delegates not yet apportioned, and she is not going to drop out on her own because that's not how she is. She is becoming desperate for the nomination, and that is causing her to launch a progressively more negative campaign against Senator Obama. If she fails to get the nomination, her negative campaigning will come right back at Obama during his race with (presumptively) Senator John McCain. McCain himself is currently not clawing at others within his own party, who presumably share many of the same ideals, he is preparing for the general election. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are still attacking each other, and unless one drops, they will continue to do so right until the convention in August, where the superdelegates will likely be the swing votes.

I doubt that Hillary will be able to make up the gap in pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (although this is a presumption on my part). So, she will be going into the convention, behind in pledged delegates, but relying on the top Democratic Party figures to give her the nomination. What if they do? What if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, even if she didn't win the vote of the Democrats of America? She will be going into general election season as a tainted nominee, a nominee chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people. She will be going against John McCain, a strong candidate with great appeal to moderate voters. If this scenario occurs, and she loses the general election, the Democrats will have blown this golden opportunity, amidtst painfully low public opinion of George Bush, a tired war in the Middle East, and a deepening *recession,* to take the presidency and accomplish their agenda. This disastrous party infighting, the controversy over lost votes, and potentially a candidate who did not truly win will end up destroying the Democratic party. As one who tends to lean liberal, I, as well as many others, will be upset if the Democrats lose in November because of this fight. This is a glorious opportunity, but instead of rallying behind a candidate, the party is in the midst of petty squabling, between two candidates who have policies that are 95% the same. A lot of people will lose faith in the party, if it cannot rally now when so many Americans want change. This needs to stop now.

So, Senator Clinton, stop running against Barack Obama and start running for the Democratic Nomination. Stop viciously attacking the man who may well become the nominee, partly since it will hurt him in the general election, but partly since it will hurt you too. Stop trying to find a way around Democratic Party rules for Florida and Michigan, and endorse the wishes of the party you represent.

Because, as we all know, in the general election, there is no do-over.

*http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=promoted+the+idea+in+a+statement%2C+saying%2C+%22The+best+outcome+is&st=nyt

2008-03-17T22:09:00.008-04:00

You know, I always got the impression that the reason we created a separation of powers in our government to begin with was to encourage discussion and reasoned debate about issues before jumping to a decision. I always got the impression though that cooperation wasn't GWB's strong suit. However, I persisted in the hope that somewhere there were people who had his ear, who weren't simple yes men, and who at least had some sort of debate before a decision was reached.

Today, I finally lost that hope, as I read one of the articles in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/world/middleeast/17bremer.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all

In a nutshell, L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the top civilian commander in Iraq at the time of the invasion in 2003, announced to the President and his aides that he was completely dissolving the Iraqi army. This news was a surprise to most of the staff, and was not discussed with any of the President's closest advisers, with the exception of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Not even Colin Powell, the secretary of state, was consulted--a step that one would think to be very wise. Powell considers the order a large mistake, and when he asked GWB's national security adviser Condi Rice for an explanation, she responded:

"I was surprised too, but it is a decision that has been made and the president is standing behind Jerry's decision."

There was no more debate on the matter.

I am going to be honest. I am ashamed that something like this was allowed to happen, that the president can surround himself with subordinates who value loyalty to the president than to their true employers, the people of the United States. His advisers failed to act in any sort of advisory capacity, and this has possibly changed the course of the Iraq war for the worse over the past five years. Admittedly, much of the blame resides with Dubya himself, for putting his agenda before his duty as president, but I personally would have expected his advisers to take a more active role in his policies, and prevent him from making blunders of this degree.

Was dissolving the Iraq army a mistake? Ostensibly, the purpose was to rid the country of the remaining Baathist institutions, as a sign to the Iraqi people that America was committed. However, this has turned out to be a colossal misjudgement, as it placed the security of the entire country in the hands of American soldiers, while the infrastructure of the Iraqi army was destroyed, leaving our troops quite alone. Now, faced with the prospect of withdrawal, the United States will soon be struggling...to create an Iraqi army...

What thought process lead to the notion that this was a good idea? It can be easily argued that the more the United States did to shake up that region...well, the more shaken up it would become. (In math terms, this equation looks something like 1=1.) Anyone with common sense could have seen this coming! Whats more, if Bush had taken the time to consult important people before agreeing to this, then the army might never have been dissolved, and we could have been working with the Iraqis from day one to crush the resistance. (This is not to say that invading in the first place was the right decision. It wasn't. However, once we had stormed in, you would think that the president could make the effort to run the war right.) Here's a bright idea--why not use Iraqis to rebuild Iraq? Because they were part of an institution begun by Saddam Hussein? Sorry, George, but next time plan it out before risking American lives.

Fortunately, with less than a year to go, and the Democrats in control of Congress, there won't be a next time.

LIke President, Like Cabinet

2008-03-14T08:11:00.020-04:00

Alphonso R. Jackson, the current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has been under criticism the last couple of days, jepordizing his leadership as a cabinet member. It is said that Jackson secretly channeled hundreds of thousdands of dollars of government money to personal friends in New Orleans and the Virgin Islands. This is just the icing on top of his cake of corruption.

As if this were not enough, Jackson and other senior HUD officials exchanged emails in which they talked about taking away federal aid from Philadelphia housing chief Carl R. Greene. Senators such as Christopher J. Dodd and Bob Casey, as well as myself, are disgusted with these actions that undermine the public's faith in government officials. It seems that from the beginning of the Bush administration public confidence in our government has been greatly decreasing, mainly due to bad decisions and shady dealings.

These actions only restate the obvious: the fact that we need someone to bring change in the next election. So to Bush and all his cabinet members, being lame ducks, don't try anything fancy in your last couple months in federal office, like redirecting federal money away from helpless Katrina victims to your personal friends. What you did Jackson, is quite shocking, but like I said, like president like cabinet.

Surge in Oil Prices-- When Will it Stop?

2008-03-14T08:11:00.015-04:00

Has anyone besides me felt as if oil prices have just kept rising? Let's take a look at the facts. Back in 2003, oil was under $25 a barrel, but ever since the August of 2005, it has raised from $60 dollars a barrel, then to $75, (there was a brief interval when it dropped to $50/barrel, but that was because of pure economic luck--Bush took advantage of it and said he had decreased oil prices); and now, now ladies and gentlemen, we're at over $100 a barrel. You could pretty much say the Saudis are having a field day.

Just this past summer at a student forum, I was given the opportunity to talk with students and professors from Dubai. Surprisingly, I found out that many oil-rich Middle Eastern countries are rising prices on purpose; they know that the American people will blame their president, not the countries themselves. But c'mon, are we really to blame? Think about it. Just last week Bush said, "Wait, what did you just say? You're predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?" when when a reporter mentioned the possibility of pumping gas for $4 a gallon. Mr. President, be realistic. I know you think the American people are a bunch of clowns who tap-dance just like you at press conferences, but sometimes you just take it too far.

Anyway, we'll have to wait and see if the economists are right about the gas prices. It's safe to say that they will be, especially with many of them having predicted the big R word back in mid-2007 (Bush's reply: "Huh? What? What's the R stand for?"). But one thing is certain, our country needs an economic savior, and fast.

Heated FISA Debate Leads to Closed Session

2008-03-13T23:57:00.006-04:00

The House of Representative has been debating proposed revisions to FISA and other Federal surveillance laws recently. After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush starting using the National Security Agency to track phone calls, emails, and all other types of communication of suspected terrorists outside the United States.

The problem is that the program allows this warrantless wiretapping to take place even if one of the communicating parties lies within the United States. Bush has argued that they aren't spying on the American people, just making sure that the government has intelligence of any suspected terrorist activity. Many are outraged, however, feeling that NSA overstepped its bounds and has violated the 4th Amendment and FISA, the federal surveillance legislation.

Anyways, the debate right now is whether to protect privately contracted communications companies who complied with Bush's wiretapping program from lawsuits by those who feel slighted. The Republicans feel as though the companies should be given "retroactive immunity" but many Democrats think the companies should be open to any type of lawsuit in order to protect the rights of the American people.

The debate has become so heated, that Republican Whip Roy Blunt asked for a closed session of congress to take place on Thursday, March 14th so that confidential information could be presented on the floor. Such a closed session has not taken place since 1983, and it means that the American people will not have any knowledge of what is going on inside the House chamber.

Call me crazy, but I think this might actually be a step in the right direction. How many citizens actually care about what House members are saying on the floor? What people care about is results, and if this closed session can lead to a resolution of the issue, I think people will be satisfied.

It's important that Congress remains connected with the people, but this is an isolated event, and since confidential information needs to be discussed, I really don't see any other option. A few Democrats are opposed to the idea of closing the House on Thursday (cough cough Kucinich) but for the most part, they agree that it needs to take place.

That being said, I'd really like to know what's being said in that historic session. Maybe I could call Bush and ask him to wiretap it for me. He'd probably go along with it. Who cares if it's illegal.

More on this to come as it develops.....

UPDATE!! The Democratic version of the bill passed in congress today. Those who were in the closed session last night are reporting that not much was accomplished in terms of moving towards a workable compromise. President Bush has already promised to veto the legislation, which follows the Democrats idea of not providing immunity to the communications compaines. Even in private, it seems like Washington can't get anything done these days....

Rod Parsley: One Man's Personal War With Islam

2008-03-13T22:33:00.010-04:00

It was one thing for Presidential hopeful John McCain to accept the endorsement of John Hagee, the evangelical leader who heads a 19,000-member church in San Antonio and called Catholicism "the great whore" back in late February.

But it's even worse accepting the endorsement of Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who is definitely no historian. According to Parsley, "Allah is a demon spirit. America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed...Are we a Christian Nation? I say Yes." Well of course, Mr. Parsley, a majority of our country is Christian based, there's no denying that fact. But to say that the founding of our country was based on exterminating Islam? I'm sure the Founders would have turned in their graves if they had heard that.

Let's bring back some real US history, going all the way back to 1797. A section of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary reads as follows:

As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on Christian religion, as it has itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; And, as the said states never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religion opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So there you have it. I'm not sure if the Reverend knows much about history, but we shouldn't bug him too much about it. After all, pissing off the Muslims won't do him too much harm--more than half the Islamic population already hates the US anyway, why not make it a little bit more. Besides, his narrow minded brain might explode.

Gov. Elliot Spitzer: G-O-N-E

2008-03-12T17:01:00.006-04:00

Yes, that's right New York Governor Elliot Spitzer resigned today after much scrutinity relating to his involvement with a prosititute ring. There are four more words that I would like to say regarding this and four more words only:

I LOVE NEW YORK

(and as my man Forest Gump would say, "That's all I have to say about that.")

An Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro

2008-03-11T17:08:00.008-04:00

Hey, Geraldine Ferraro, I have a question for you. You've said in the press that this Presidential campaign is "very emotional" for you. You support Hillary Clinton, which is completely understandable. Its been a while since you were the first ever woman candidate for Vice President when you ran with Walter Mondale in 1984, but you still like to stay involved. Recently you've said that you feel Hillary has been a victim of a very "sexist media." So here's my question. How will you respond to this "sexist media?"

Racism, you say?

Great choice. Here's what you said last week.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
-Geraldine Ferraro

You're right, Geraldine. Barack has obviously based his entire campaign on courting the black vote. People only actually care about him because he's black. It's not like he has viable ideas, most of which are almost exactly the same as your girl, Hillary's. I actually applaud you, Geraldine. You're smarter than almost everyone in the United States. What an accomplishment! While all of us ignorant fools are out being duped by a black candidate, or just being excited about the future of this nation (regardless the next President) you're able to stay above the fray. Admirable.

Even better, Hillary doesn't feel that what you said was so bad after all.

Both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line and we have to reign them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues -- let's stay focused on that.
-Hillary Clinton

Looks like you're going to be able to stay on the campaign trail. Even though an Obama advisor was recently forced out (and rightly so) for calling Hillary a "monster" apparently racial slurs such as yours aren't grounds for dismissal. Who cares if you offend the African Americans of this nation, right? They're opinions probably don't mean much to you anyways.

Gov. Elliot Spitzer: P-I-M-P

2008-03-10T15:26:00.003-04:00

Governor Elliot Spitzer admitted to his senior administration officials today that he had been involved in a prostitute ring. While he was not a ring leader, he was linked to the ring as a client.That's just great. One of this fine country's 50 governors enjoys "having a good time" with a prostitute. To make matters worse, the man is married. He's MARRIED.
Oh well, I guess if his wife is smart she'll move out for a little while and make him sweat (unless she's like Hillary Clinton). My first advice to you Elliot is to resign, admit you were wrong, apologize and hope you don't get food thrown at you while you walk down the street. My second advice, move out of the state, if not the country because let me tell you, if I was a citizen of New York, I would probably throw a hamburger or maybe a milk shake at you. My last advice, get plastic surgery, it's probably over kill but if you really want to get away, than it's necessary.

Unfortunately that's not how American politics works. He'll either deny it happened or just apologize. Then, his political people will spin this until it looks like the prostitute took advantage of him. The government of New York will probably put him on trial to make it appear as if they're angry, but he'll get off. Then he'll serve out the rest of his term at which point he will be turned over to the people. Here is where the real justice will be served, New Yorkers are tough and they aren't going to like this guy making their state look bad. Finally Spitzer will most likely loose the election and I will be proud of every New Yorker. You see Elliot, you can say in your inaugural address, "We must transform our government so that it is as ethical and wise as all of New York" but New Yorkers will expect you to live up to it. Well who needs ethics anyways, right? I mean its so overrated and I'm sure that your personal decisions weren't involved in that upper statement, right? Of course. Nice try but the people of America and New York just won't buy it. Hope that prostitute was worth it!

Illusions of Grandeur

2008-03-09T14:53:00.000-04:00

Surprising nobody, Ralph Nader, an Independent from Connecticut has once again entered the Presidential race. He has run for President five times, and never really gotten any major support. He's got a drab personality, and usually only focuses on one or two issues during his campaign. He's got no shot, and he knows it, yet he continues to waste people's money running for President every single cycle

Why? Some might say that he just wants to bring important issues to the table. They argue that he wants his environmental agenda to be recognized by the major candidates, and is entering the race to do just that. I used to think this way, but not any more.

That strategy only works when the major candidates feel that they need to win the third party's constituency in order to take the election. The fact is that they don't. Ralph Nader doesn't have nearly the influence that he once did, which at its height really wasn't even too much. The American public just doesn't care any more, Ralph. We don't view you as some sort of Indpendent hero, fighting for the people and the environment. America is in the process of the most exciting election cycle in a hundred years, and you just couldn't resist sticking yourself in it. Its about you this time buddy. It's all about promoting your own name, not the issues.

And this is coming after you likely cost Al Gore the election in 2000. You think you might have learned by now, that you hurt more than you help. You lean to the democratic side, yet you constantly jeopardize their chances to win nailbiting elections. Yet you don't stop, and you never will. Because its not about the issues Ralph, its about you. And it always will be.

Let me be the first of the American people to let you know. We don't care.

Obama wins Wyoming

2008-03-08T21:02:00.000-05:00

Major news outlets are reporting that Barack Obama will win the Wyoming caucus today.

The delegate split is as follows:
Obama: 7
Clinton: 5

This marks the first primary since Hillary Clinton's big night on March 4th, in which she won both Ohio and Texas.

Barack Obama has now won 29 of 43 states that have been decided thus far. He has been dominant in caucuses, however, winning a commanding 12 out of the 13 caucuses that have been decided. Attention now shifts to the Mississippi primaries on March 11th.

Bush Vetoes Anti-Torture Bill

2008-03-08T20:45:00.001-05:00

You couldn't make this up if you tried.

Today George Bush vetoed a bill that would prevent the CIA from using interrogation techniques many consider to be torture. One of the methods that the bill would have outlawed, waterboarding, includes strapping the prisoner to a board and pouring vast amounts of water into their breathing passages.

Bush said that the bill "would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror." Really, Mr. President? Torturing foreign suspects is a tool in your war on terror? To hell with the Constitution and morals of this country, right?

Both houses of Congress passed the bill, but as we all know, Bush knows best. We can only hope that Congress overrides the veto, but don't count on it.

John McCain-Superstar, or So He Thinks

2008-03-08T20:41:00.000-05:00

John McCain kept President George W. Bush waiting at the White House Wednesday. Call me crazy, but that's just ridiculous. Granted McCain had won the Republican nomination for President the day before, but he kept the President of the United States waiting for him. Need I remind you John McCain that you are still just a Senator from Arizona. You are a war hero, an honorable guy I'm sure, but come on as a military man you should know all about respect. Show the Commander in Chief some. Sure, he's a lame duck. Sure, he's unpopular, but he's still the President. For once, I'm on your side George.

Boneheads of the Week: Florida and Michigan

2008-03-08T17:55:00.000-05:00

Dear Florida and Michigan,

You broke the rules. The DNC told you that you couldn't hold your primaries before the approved date on February 5th, but you didn't listen. No, you felt as though you're states were too important to be grouped together with all the riff raff on Super Tuesday. The DNC even warned you. They told you that if you moved your primaries before February 5th, your delegates wouldn't be seated in August.

But you didn't listen. No, you passed legislation that mandated your primaries be held before the rest on Super Tuesday, so that your state could have more influence. The DNC was mad, sure, but they gave you another chance. They told you that if you repealed the legislation and moved your primaries back to where they were supposed to be, they wouldn't penalize you. You had months and months to consider what you were doing, as well as the consequences.

But you didn't listen. You went ahead with your primaries against the rules of the DNC, and they punished you, just like they said they would. Your delegates aren't going to be seated at the convention. You took away the vote and voice of your people, not the DNC. Don't complain that your people are being disenfranchized, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, you were the one that allowed this.

But now you argue that the DNC is at fault? You say that your delegations "will be seated" no matter what? If you wanted to have any say in this election, you would have followed the rules, just like the rest of the states.

But no, you're too important for that. And now you're mad, fighting mad. Do you hear that sound, Florida and Michigan? It's me playing the worlds smallest violin.