Sarah Palin's Experience?

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKING: John McCain Chooses Sarah Palin as VP

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

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



Analysis and more information to come.

Time to Put up or Shut Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bad News Bearers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question of the Day: A Family Affair

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

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

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

Republicans Ready To Fight

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

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?

Alex Severin- Election 2008 and The Supreme Court

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

Slick Barry

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."

Faux News Strikes Again- Trotta Style

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.

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

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

Bonehead of The Week: All of us

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

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.

Governor Richardson endorses Barack Obama

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....

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.

Rod Parsley: One Man's Personal War With Islam

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.

An Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro

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.

Illusions of Grandeur

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

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.

John McCain-Superstar, or So He Thinks

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.