A New Era in American Politics: President Obama

I wanted to wait some time after the election before writing my final post. The culmination of this historic election was emotionally charged for everyone involved, myself included. I believe it is best to assess an event bearing the magnitude of last November 4th after everything sinks in.

Up until election day we were religiously following polls, listening to the predictions of pundits and making predictions of our own. Everyone seemed to think they knew what would happen; and in a way many were right. Senator Obama won the electoral college quite handily: 365 to 173. His victory, along with all the Democratic Senate and Congressional race victories, exemplifies the clear advantage the Democratic Party had in the 2008 election season.

On the other hand, what should spark some interest is Obama's failure to win closer to the 15 point advantage that the Democratic Party enjoyed over the Republican Party. He won the popular vote by closer to 7 points, which leaves room for the issues of inexperience and race as factors in Obama's less than completely resounding victory.

But not to sell his clear victory short, Obama proved that the Electoral Map is evolving and Democrats now have more than one way to win (through Ohio and Florida). Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 were forced into relying on Florida and Ohio to carry them to victory along with the northeast and the west coasts. Neither previous Democratic nominee had plans for winning Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico. Obama in 2008 was not only able to make a move in the mountain west, but to steal away the solidly red states of Virginia and North Carolina from the GOP.

If I were to make a big assumption and say that Obama has the quietly effective Presidency he needs to have and wins reelection with roughly the same states backing him, we could see a considerable advantage for the Democratic Party with respect to the electoral college in future elections. Many red states are now purple; we will see if they stay that way.

It will also be interesting to see if the Democrats use their new President and near filibuster-proof power in Congress to take commanding control of the Political arena, or if they squander the power they now enjoy much like the current Bush administration did with 9/11 and ensuing events.

Stay tuned to Obama and his new administration. Remain a participant in American politics after the election by emailing and calling your Congressional Representatives, Senators and President. Don't think that your civic duty is over now that the election has ended; it has only just begun.

The Bush Administration: So Bad that it's Good?

George Bush continues to enjoy some of the worst approval ratings a President could ever experience. His administration's ability to squander the trust and approval of the public with warrant-less wiretapping, torture of prisoners, suspension of Habeas corpus, no-big contracts, unapproved wars and more is astounding. So astounding in fact, that it has spurred record numbers of citizens to register and exercise their civic duty to stop another Bush-like administration from ever coming to power. The Republicans did it in the primary when they voted for the candidate furthest from the good graces of the administration. Democrats are doing it like never before.

Democrats were upset with the 2000 election and believe they were cheated out of the Presidency. Because of the Iraq war and Bush's relatively low approval ratings in 2004, they assumed victory was inevitable and they did not turn out enough voters to beat Bush again. The Bush administration then proceeded to exacerbate their poor approval ratings with more big mistakes in the eyes of the public and may have finally awoken the disorganized, sleeping giant that is the Democratic Party.

Record numbers of voters have registered, are voting in advance, and most likely will vote on November 4th because they have seen what happens when they do nothing. 90% of Americans believe that our country is on the wrong track, signifying that many Republicans disapprove of their own party's direction. This is why John McCain, a more traditional republican candidate was nominated by the Republican party and why many republicans have switched over to the Democratic side.

Nearly all the experts (including those making odds in the gambling industry), feel that Barack Obama is the heavy favorite in this contest. We will find out tomorrow if their bets were well placed and the voters come out in the unprecedented droves many believe they will.

Obamamercial

Are voters getting more comfortable with the idea of Barack Obama as President?

Obama, especially in recent weeks, has been reaching out to the white working class and undecided voters. His volunteer forces are out in droves making calls and going door to persuade those who have yet to make up their mind. Obama has been spending a lot of money on advertisements that purposely assure voters of his competence. Just yesterday he purchased a 30 minute spot for a type of infomercial before what would be the last game of the world series. This 'infomercial' was a very reassuring medley of Obama's interactions with a variety of ordinary people, his family and one on one face time for him to explain his policies to America. It turns out that America was watching to the tune of 33.6 million viewers (14 million more than actually watched the game).

Barack's recent infomercial, among other ads and appearances, will help to secure his lead in the polls. Most undecided voters cite a lack of information on the candidates and their policies as their reason for indecision. Obama's infomercial addresses both of their concerns head on. The ad directly refutes claims floating in the media about his association with terrorists and his inexperience. It doesn't do so by arguing with words, but by visually humanizing Obama. His Obamamercial warms viewers up to him and his family as people; illustrating them as the happy, common American family they are. Watching Obama playing with his children and listening to him interact with regular folks on the campaign trail makes it much more difficult for any American to imagine him being the type of evil Marxist/Socialist/terrorist the McCain camp is painting him as.

A graph on the success of both candidates' campaigns reaching voters personally, either by phone or in person is shown below.


This graph illustrates Obama's clear advantage in contacting Americans in general as well as voters. The ability of his campaign to get to voters on a personal level is very likely another key to his lead in the polls. Being a new face on the political scene, Obama has had to build trust for his candidacy by getting to voters and convincing them of his competence as a future Commander in Chief.

By use of internet networking, phone calls, in-person volunteer efforts and most recently Obamamercials, Obama continues to saturate America with a positive image of himself and his family.

What to expect on November 4th

The race for President of the United States is closing in on the finish line. Barack Obama holds substantial leads in all recent national polls and has a big advantage in money raised. Because the Obama campaign has raised more money, it is even more difficult for McCain to make up ground in the polls. McCain is being forced to pick his battles around the country whereas Obama has the resources the go into any and all states he wants to (and he has done so with his 50 state strategy). As a result, McCain is also being forced to fight for traditionally red states that he should not have to (Missouri, North Carolina, Virginia, and Colorado among others). Because Obama's campaign is present in all of these states due to his cash and volunteer advantage, McCain has to spend what little he has fighting for states that he shouldn't have to fight so hard for.

Another serious issue has come up for the Republican Party: they are losing everything. Any Congressional races that involve Republicans are up for grabs. This fact has some party members beginning to question whether or not to continue funding the Presidential campaign that increasingly looks like a losing effort. In a recent Washington Post article, David Frum talks about how the money that is now being donated to the McCain campaign could be better spent on tight Congressional races that the Republicans have a chance at winning. He argues that Republicans must accept the reality of a Democratic White House and try to focus their efforts on Congressional races, on the grounds that "A beaten party needs a base from which to recover." He is right. Every dollar that Republicans send to the McCain campaign is a dollar that would be more useful in a tight congressional race somewhere in the country (for example Gordon Smith in Oregon or Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina).

As tough as it may be for Republicans to admit the truth, it is upon them. The President of the United States has been all but formally chosen. The choice now is between a 6 or 7 person Democratic advantage in the Senate, or a 10 or 11 person advantage.

GOP Conflagration

Much to the delight of destitute liberals that have amassed under the Bush administration for 8 long years, America is witnessing the ruination of the Republican Party.

In addition to and in part due to the failed dirty politics of Rove, moderate Republicans are beginning to defect from their party. Yesterday, Gordon Smith of Oregon became the fourth Republican senator to condemn the McCain robocalls insinuating Obama's link to terrorism. Widespread distaste for the recent neoconservative turn of the Republican Party is opening debate and conflict amongst the Republican ranks.

Although the base of the Republican party may be small town voters, the new found tendency toward small town politicians like Sarah Palin is wearing on the party elites. Conservative pundit George Will is voicing his distaste for the choice of an "unqualified" vice presidential candidate. Accomplished conservative writer David Brooks has articulated not only his disgust with the current Republican stance, but is also giving high praise to Obama on a consistent basis in his columns. And perhaps the most significant party defection came with Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama on Meet the Press last Sunday. He pointed to the radically ultra-conservative turn the Republican Party has taken, Sarah Palin's lack of qualification and the divisive negative nature of McCain's campaign that "goes too far" as reasons for siding with Obama.

Such a mass crossing of party lines by traditional party loyalists is more significant than many seem to believe. This election has become about more than simply who will become the next President (as if that weren't enough). The nature of this election and the effects of the Republican campaign are beginning to do serious damage to the Republican Party itself. Not only does McCain seem likely to lose the upcoming election, but he looks to be alienating some of his Party's most iconic leaders. The continued choice of unqualified candidates (George W. Bush, Sarah Palin) that cater to the religious right and ignore traditional republican ideals-like balanced budgets and small government-is eating away at the Republican Party.
Recent defections due to increasingly dirty tactics open the possibility that the gun-toting, bible-thumping, gay-hating, racist population that the McCain camp has connected with so intimately this fall is all that will be left of the Republican Party come winter.

Obama's Success

The comparatively sober Democratic campaign is winning over the American public in spite of the religious implementation of previously effective (but currently unsuccessful) Rovian tactics from the Republican side.

The illegitimate but fear-invoking message of a telephone operated smear campaign against McCain in the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary led in part to McCain's surprisingly sound defeat. Character assaults like those peddled by the Swift Boaters against John Kerry played a key role in deciding the 2004 Presidential election. However, in 2008 these very same strategies, implemented in some cases by the exact same people as in the aforementioned elections, are simply not working.

Steve Schmidt, currently of the McCain camp, has tried to build a fire of scandal underneath Obama with same tactics Karl Rove used in 2000 and 2004 for Bush. They and the 527's working on their behalf have tested the issue of Reverend Wright, pushed Obama's connection with Bill Ayers, tried to tie Obama to voting fraud, and have even desperately purported that he is a closet Muslim terrorist. Contrary to the success of such scandalous accusations in the last two elections, the Obama camp has continued unfazed.

Why is it that Americans are putting less stock in the character assaults of 2008?
One simple possibility is that they trust Barack Obama (unlike past Democratic candidates-Kerry and Gore).

Obama has been under intense public scrutiny for a long time and has yet to crack under the pressure. He knows how to calmly rise above GOP assaults and he also knows, when necessary, how to respond to the assaults emphatically. He demonstrated his ability to stand tall most memorably at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with a Presidentially-strong response to Republican questioning of his patriotism.
America knows who Obama is and he has successfully held control of his reputation in the face of attempted slander.
(Arianna Huffington argues another possibility in The Internet and the Death of Rovian Politics).

Republican Smoke Screen

Republicans are trumpeting the allegations against ACORN to anyone that is willing to listen. McCain even gave the issue a plug in the final debate. What exactly is the issue with ACORN and are they responsible for voter fraud as McCain claims?


ACORN is a large grassroots organization that registers mainly low-income citizens to vote. In this election cycle ACORN did turn in some bad registration forms, however it is not likely that "voter-fraud" was the motive. There are many other reasons behind the submission of inaccurate registration forms. One reason is that some states require all voter registration forms to be turned in regardless of their accuracy, which is to be verified later by non-partisan state organizations. So even if someone were to leave a form incomplete or falsify their information, it is not for the ACORN employee who registered them to decide.

Given most state requirements, the most likely reason bad forms were submitted is that ACORN employees were attempting to meet a certain quota and embellished their results by throwing in fraudulent forms. Granted that this was wrong to do, these forms had no chance at actually giving any votes to a candidate. It was sure to be proven that these names and addresses were fake, they only served to help employees meet form quotas and thus get more money for their work. Check out ACORN's website for an in depth explanation from the source.

For every complaint the Republicans are making of ACORN, there are at least ten claims that Democrats could be hammering in response. Because low-income voters lean Democrat, Republicans can and do use many low-income based schemes to peel away voters from the Democratic base. One of the newest tactics being used this year in predominantly Democratic districts like Marion County, Indiana is refuting voter eligibility for those whose houses have been forclosed (by challenging their place of residence on their voter registration). Another dirty but sadly legal tactic is being used in predominantly black neighborhoods like Philadelphia's North and West sides. Flyers and rumers are being circulating anonymously that voters who have unpaid parking tickets will be arrested on site at polling facilities (in an attempt to discourage participation on November 4th by overwhelmingly Democratic black voters in Pennsylvania).

These voting fraud scandals are yet another testament to the superior organization and strategy of the GOP in relation to the Democrats. On an issue that they are most vulnerable on, the Republicans have turned the tables against the Democrats through a minor incidence that in this case it involves ACORN. The countless borderline illegal tactics that the Republicans are using all over the country are what Democrats need to publicize and complain about for the rest of October. The efforts to turn away and discourage Democratic voters from showing up on November 4th cannot be seen in poles but could have a serious effect on swing state election results. This is fair warning to all those glass-is-half-full liberals who think Obama will win in a landslide just becuase recent polls put him well in the lead. Polls are speculation, and no one is more aware of that fact than the Republican Party.

Final Debate Shows us True Colors

Finally we got a little excitement out of a Presidential debate. In their last appearance together the candidates engaged in heated discussion on negative ads, health care, economic plans, abortion, and the Supreme Court implications of the next Presidency. Both candidates took time (with Bob Schieffer's sage guidance) to highlight stark differences between their own plans and those of their opponent. McCain took this final opportunity to attack Obama directly and vehemently on many of his positions as well as his perceived associations (with Bill Ayers).

McCain had to make an attempt in this debate to somehow fluster Obama in order to reverse the critical lead his opponent has opened. He failed. Obama radiated confidence, poise, and respect in the face of McCain's crass, patronizing, myriad of assaults. Although McCain was on the attack and did make some good points, as Paul Begala said afterwards, "He looked like Grumpy McNasty again up there. 'Get off my lawn young man!' In addition, Obama responded with a coherent, civil answer to every allegation made by McCain . The American people concur once again that McCain came off as bitter and condescending while Obama came across as presidential and respectful.

The Republican nominee did all that he could in this debate, including an especially strong moment when he directly told Obama that he was not George Bush, but it clearly was not enough. McCain looked too much like the negative politics of the past, while Obama again showed the dignified qualities that the public seems to be yearning for and that have been missing in politics as of late. Michael Seitzman's blog in Huffington breaks down the contempt many are beginning to feel for McCain's political tactics and the corresponding admiration for how Obama has carried himself throughout these debates and this campaign.

Obama Poised to Lift America out of the Past

We are seeing record numbers of Democrats registering to vote, volunteering, and sending in their campaign donations this year. The unpopular record of the Bush administration is proving inescapable for the Republican Party in 2008 (in contrast with their 2004 victory against odds that favored Kerry and the Democratic Party).

Americans are showing their disdain for the Bush administration by seriously considering the removal of many incumbent Republican Senators and Representatives. Such incumbents are finding themselves touting their bipartisanship and any support they can muster from prominent Democrats. In addition to their desperate appeals to Democrats, Republicans are publicly disowning their own party (i.e. Senator Gordon Smith (R) of Oregon) just to have a chance at reelection. This goes to show how unsettled our country is with the Republican party.

But probably the most significant of all changes in public mindset is seen in the likelihood of electing a 47 year-old, first term U.S. senator of mixed race President of the United States (peculiar name and all). The fact that he beat Hillary Clinton, someone who many pundits predicted to be a shoe-in President and the Democratic nominee just about by default, goes to show the resonance Obama's message of change and particularly hope, had on the American people.

In his stirring speeches, ranging from the 2004 Convention to the 2008 Convention, he has articulated the plight of our country in a way that has Democrats, Independents and alienated Republicans showing their resounding approval. He has an uncanny ability, much like Bill Clinton before him, to shift our focus from the past and present to the future. No matter how terrible the circumstances, the ability to lift the spirits of the American people with the notion of hope is evident in Barack Obama.

In the face of the Reverend Wright scandal that threatened to ruin his bid at the White House by alienating white voters, Obama brought black and white Americans together with a speech on race and politics that will likely have a place in history next to those of Dr. King.

In the hardest of times Obama displays an undeniable confidence in America, its people, and its spirit that is contagious. We trust him to fix our health care, we trust him to end our seemingly endless war, we trust him to fix our ailing economy, and we trust him to bring our country together and move us forward.

In closing I would like to leave you with a clip of Donna Brazile speaking candidly at a forum for The New Yorker Magazine. The first few minutes are on a bit of a tangent, but starting at the 3:00 mark she taps into exactly what Obama has done to many Americans with relation to bringing our country together and moving us forward into the future.

Recent Developments

With two debate "victories" under his belt and the economy's failure being tied to the Republican Party, Obama has opened up a 14 percentage point advantage over McCain-according to the most recent CBS/New York Times poll. After working hard myself in voter registration and canvassing efforts, as well as phone banks, it is gratifying to take a step back and see the reflection of our efforts in the poles. This is proving to be one of the best political campaigns ever run from top to bottom (if not for surging ahead of John McCain in the poles then for upsetting Hillary Clinton in the primaries). With credit due to the record breaking online network of enthusiastic donors and volunteers and to the well executed policy proposals and speeches from Obama and his team of advisers, this campaign can almost taste victory.

Does the Media have a Liberal Bias?

Almost every time I have watched any sort of Fox News program, or listened to conservative talk radio, I have heard the phrase "liberal media" thrown around. Republicans are pushing this idea in an attempt to discount the power of traditional media (old, established media sources like the New York Times, ABC News, etc.) and to indirectly promote new media like talk radio, cable (fox) news and unregulated internet sources.

As it turns out, most experts from both the conservative and liberal sides of the spectrum who have studied the media have been unable to find a liberal bias in mainstream media as Fox pushes (one example is Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media?)

For any example the Republicans can give of liberal media bias, a counterexample can be offered for the Democratic side. Katie Couric's interview with Sarah Palin is one of the most recent cited examples of the "liberal media" trying to stick it to the Republican Party on purpose. Although Couric's questions were perfectly legitimate and could have most likely been handled by any competent sophomore DWA major, I will humor Palin's claim that she was blind-sided by the big, bad media elite. Even in the case that she was, I could cite John Kerry's interview with Charlie Gibson leading up to the 2004 election as conservatively slanted (link to transcript at the bottom of this post). He grilled John Kerry on his war record in addition to cutting off Kerry's attempts to explain himself.

From what I can see in America today, the current administration is getting itself involved in scandals that merit the media exposure it is getting. Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby, Trent Lott, and Charles Keating among others coupled with Bush's taste for bending Constitutional laws seem to merit their share of exposure to the public. There is no need to spin these stories in any sort of liberal fashion, they are ugly and sinister to being with.

It is time for the Republicans to stop complaining about media bias and own up to their own scandals and gaffes. If Sarah Palin doesn't read any newspapers, she should at least have the ability to name any one respectable periodical (when asked on national television, twice!) if she plans on being vice president of the United States.

Link to Kerry interview transcript:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/Story?id=123457&page=1

Repeat Debate

I am very involved in politics right now and I find almost any political discussion in this election season particularly fascinating. That being said, last night's presidential debate was the most boring hour and a half I wasted on politics all year. And if a person like me who is willing to regularly write a blog on this year's election was bored, I can only imagine how the average American felt about this dreary display.

The dullness of this debate can be attributed in part to how circumscribed Tom Brokaw was as moderator. He was restricted from asking any follow-up questions of the candidates, despite their tendency to give overly-evasive "answers" to almost all questions. Regardless of what was asked, Obama and McCain went through slightly updated talking points from the first debate, uninterrupted. They both came in with agendas and responded to legitimate, specific questions with vague lectures that segued into whatever they wanted to talk about. Brokaw was more correct than I realized at the time when he referred to himself as nothing more than "the hired help."

The other serious problem with this debate was the town hall format. The idea was great, but the fact that it was not a town hall format at all negated the purpose. There were voters sitting in on the debate, but they were allowed a minimal amount of questions and the candidates did not give any of their questions the direct thoughtful answers that they merited.

To conclude, the fact that this debate was so uninteresting means that Obama won. Obama leads in the polls and in a majority of swing states. His only concern is holding that lead for less than four more weeks. His job was to look and sound presidential, exude confidence and poise, and not to screw up.
McCain's job was to shake things up, get Obama out of his comfort zone and bait him into leaving his scripted agenda. McCain was unable to do any of the above. Obama controlled to tempo of the debate and kept it uneventful. This means that his lead will most likely continue to swell as his army of volunteers continues to scour the country for swing voters at a feverish pace far superior to that of McCain's "hired help."

Wall Street Bailout: Necessarily Outrageous?

Nobody anywhere seems to know the answer. Politicians, economic experts, and people of all backgrounds across the country have been formulating opinions without legitimate reasoning. I have sifted through newpapers, blogs, radio, television and my own economic professors desperate for definitive answers. My search has been met with nothing but ambiguous claims that have NO tangible, factual foundation to rest on!

What if we didn't bail out anybody? Some folks, like Newt Gingrich, Ralph Nader and Dean Baker, say (in interviews and articles) that the bailout is misguided and the popular threat of a Great Depression is empty. Rather, as Baker posits, "There is no way that the failure to do a bailout will lead to more than a very brief failure of the financial system. We will not lose our modern system of payments."

Other folks, particularly Barack Obama, John McCain, and Treasurer Henry Paulson are strong advocates of the bailout and made many personal calls to congressional leaders to push the bailout bill through. They all provide the same compelling but vague argument that we better bite the bullet and do this... Or else!

Or else what? We're all going to be lining up for soup next week? Nobody really knows how bad things could get or what really would happen if we let the market system take its course rather than socializing the biggest insurance firm in the world, among other large corporations.

I'm not arguing that we should not bail out Wall Street. I am simply upset that our two presidential candidates and the rest of our governmental leadership have been so hasty in their decision to do so. They are showing an astonishing level of imprudence in their response to a crisis that was caused by precisely that; imprudence (on the part of home buyers, creditors and investors).

I am as interested and concerned as you are to see what will happen next in this rigorous test of modern capitalism. I believe that consumer and business confidence in our financial system will be a deciding factor in how bad this crisis really gets. And I can only hope that our next President, Congress, and the Federal Reserve move away from their initial approach (panic) and take a more wise and thoughtful stance with regard to this dilemma of unknown proportions.


Newt Gingrich Interview Transcript

Ralph Nader Interview Transcript

Who gained what in the VP Debate

Regardless of what anyone says, the vice presidential debate last Thursday night was about Sarah Palin. Palin and certainly John McCain did not want this to be the case, but it was and it's all Sarah Palin's fault.

Vice presidential debates are never supposed to be centered on the VP candidates themselves. They should be battling the opposing Presidential candidate as nothing more than a champion surrogate. The purpose of the running mate is simple; 1)pull in a certain demographic or region that your respective presidential candidate needs and 2)be a good wing man (or woman). That really doesn't entail much work or responsibility. Usually, your home state and your voting record account for job number "1". And being a good wing-person requires only that you speak highly of your candidate and poorly of the opponent.

Sadly, Sarah Palin failed miserably at one of the easiest jobs in all of American politics. How you ask? By looking and acting inept to the point that voters were forced to focus on her competence rather than what she had to say. As Adam Nagourney posed in his NY Times article yesterday (link at bottom), people tuned into the Thursday debate not to hear what Sarah Palin had to say about Barack Obama, but to see how badly she could possibly mess up her "cake" job.

As it turns out, she performed adequately enough to get people to take her somewhat seriously, but not enough to give McCain any sort of help in the polls. Her only hope at doing that hinged on Joe Biden making a catastrophic error, which never happened. He put on a nearly flawless performance that showcased not only his vice presidential competence, but his comprehensive knowledge of the issues, his commitment to the middle class, and his undying support for his running mate.
This debate further solidified Obama's lead in the polls, and with only 4 weeks left until election day there is little time or chance for McCain to unravel the tightly woven lead that Obama's campaign is knitting.

Link to the NY Times article mentioned: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03assess.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1&oref=slogin

Vegas

This weekend I traveled to Las Vegas to register voters in one of the most evenly divided states in the country. It was an experience I won't soon forget. Las Vegas is very different from all other cities I have visited in America. Money at a level previously unknown to me and severely impoverished neighborhoods are separated by nothing more than a few blocks and a freeway overpass. Nowhere else in the world can you so frequently find Pink Escalade stretch -limos parked alongside tattered old Cutlass Supremes.

However, in Vegas I did more than observe. I and over 200 other volunteers registered people outside of supermarkets, strip malls, and at the UNLV vs. UNR rivalry football game. Voters at the supermarkets in our area of north-eastern Las Vegas espoused a wide variety of ideologies. Some folks were fervent supporters of either Obama or McCain, but quite often the people we registered were still undecided. Some shoppers were already registered, or claimed to be to avoid talking to me. Others were opposed to voting in general despite the possible deciding role their state could play in the upcoming election. As a result, many people signed up as non-partisan voters that will continue to ponder their choice between McCain and Obama.

I will save the tales from the college football tailgate in the Las Vegas desert for another time. What I will say is that all the talk of college students being tree-hugging, hopeful Obama fanatics should be taken with a grain of salt. I personally talked with many college students last Saturday that are spitting mad at the idea of being led by a Democrat who many believed was a poor military strategist and an inexperienced leader. Sadly, there were also those who believed that among worse things, Barack Obama is a "Flag-burning Muslim."
This trip illustrated in painfully real terms the bitter division among Democrats and Republicans that thrives in many parts of our country.

Voting for President is being confused with Voting for Prom Court

Why does the Republican base like Sarah Palin so much? She is simple. The base of Republican America sees the same qualities in Palin that they saw and liked in Bush in 2000. She shares their lifestyle, their beliefs, their virtues and their flaws. Traditionally elitist Republicans like George Will do not approve of the movement towards simplistic, down-home, anti-establishment candidates for the highest office in the land, and they have good reason.

With regard to the anti-establishment view David Brooks of the New York Times writes, "I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice. And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence."
Later in this well written column Brooks also mentions how Bush and Palin compensate for their lack of experience with "brashness" and "excessive decisiveness."

The unsuccessfulness of the Bush presidency showed the Washington elite the danger of letting stubborn, inexperienced politicians take over Washington. But small town Republican voters do not evaluate leadership in the same way. They base their votes on instincts; on the likeability and school-of-life knowledge of a candidate. In their minds a quality formal education merits nothing short of disdain.

Before thinking critically about the idea of regular people taking control of Washington I was not so concerned. I thought it was only fair that ordinary citizens be allowed to choose candidates who are most closely connected with them, but I was wrong. We should want better leadership for our country than ourselves. We must trust that although Barack Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review and we never will be, that he knows how to solve our nation's dilemmas with the expedience and prudence beyond that of a simple hockey mom or a rancher. They may embody familiar traits and values, but those qualities are not what we should strive to find in a Commander and Chief. Although Sarah Palin is not running for President, she represents the overarching "anti-elite" chorus that is rising throughout Middle America and scaring prudent Republicans and Liberals alike.

PLEASE READ David Brook's concise column that I referred to in my post
it is well worth your time

One-ups have gone TOO far

Humor me for a moment and consider the campaign trail to be a pot of boiling water. Imagine that the pot is the campaign season itself, and the boiling water inside is the substance; the issues and the rhetoric of the candidates. If so, it seems the current financial crisis, among other things, has effectively vaporized all the water (a.k.a. substance) from both campaigns.
McCain and Obama began their battle for the white house by advertising themselves as the most worthy candidates. They proceeded to highlight their opposition's weaknesses, which in most campaigns is to be expected. However, as of late the candidates have taken their battle to new lows in choosing to accuse their opponent of things that are untrue, tell egregious lies about themselves and their record (maybe this is just Sarah Palin), and by frequently making promises that are impossible to keep.
McCain has built a career on advocating against over-regulation of business, but in light of the current financial crisis he has cried louder for wall street regulation than Karl Marx would have if he were here today!
Obama is promising give money back in tax breaks to nearly all Americans, spend tremendous amounts of money funding his national health care project, lower gas prices, and clean up Washington and clean up wall street and bake everyone in America cakes on their birthdays beginning on inauguration day. Where will all this money come from?
Obama plans to get his by stopping the Iraq War, but we aren't even spending tangible money in Iraq. Stopping the war just means we stop digging ourselves further into debt. McCain says the money will come through the removal of earmarks. New York Times reporter Jackie Calmes said in an interview with Gwen Ifill tonight that in comparison with the $700 Billion proposed bailout of Wall Street, earmark spending amounts to a rounding error. (The way Jackie puts it all together in the interview is really well done, you should check out the link below to listen to it).

Do we really have to listen to this out-of-hand, foundation-less pandering for 41 more days?! The media needs to take a stand and call both candidates out for the bluffs that they are making EVERY SINGLE DAY on the campaign trail. Each crazy promise is one-upped by an even more outlandish one from the opposing camp without so much as a peep from our so-called public watchdogs. With both candidates building their towering campaigns on false promises, we are sure to be let down when one of them actually sits down in the oval office and has no idea what or how to remedy 95 out of the 100 wrongs they promised you and I they would right.

Link to /newhours interview with Jackie Calmes and Amy Walter:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/09/22/20080922_campaign28.mp3

Why Young People are Crazy for Obama

Recently in my politics class we (the students) were asked to explain on behalf of all young people why we are so excited about Barack Obama. On the spot, our responses were nothing short of inane. We spouted off the campaign slogans and talking points from Obama's campaign almost word for word. Hope, change, Mccain=Bush, health care reform, and a host of other things that have relatively ZERO impact on why we (college kids) are so excited about Obama.

After thinking about this question for awhile after class I was able to complile my own set of reasons that explain more honestly why we are excited, and why the talking points mentioned in class are not exciting at all.

First of all, Mccain and Palin were not even on the democratic radar when Obama first declared his cadidacy. I went to a rally in early 2007 for Obama, and I remember how many excited college students made the trip to see him speak. These students were not nearly so excited about going to see Hillary, yet their historic primary battle hadn't even begun and their policies were not nearly different enough to merit such a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary. So why flock to Obama?

1)Obama is a superior orator. He is inspiring, vibrant, and knows how to get his message across.

2)Obama is young. He appeals to young voters simply because he is young for a politician. He talks, moves, and acts with a freshness unique to him amongst a field of political veterans.

3)Obama was against the Iraq war from the start. No other contending politicians in either primary could claim this stance.

4)Obama is different. He is young, half-black, and a brand new face. We as young people have had either a Bush or a Clinton in office since birth. We know nothing else and we are tired of it. Obama doesn't have the gray hair and pasty white face that we are used to seeing in every state of the union and on every dollar bill, and this is enough to get us excited.

5)To close out this short list, I will attempt to articulate one more reason that I think applies to more young people than just myself.
When Obama first spoke at the 2004 convention my parents were in awe. They were so impressed with how well this brand new senator articulated the challenges we faced as a nation. From then on he stuck in all of our minds as a great presidential candidate for the future. However, because my parents are of a different generation, and even though my mom is from India, they along with some of my older democratic relatives believed in Obama only to an extent. They held back the excitement that I readily showed for him because deep down they grudgingly believed that America couldn't yet vote a black man in as president.

Growing up in the 90's in one of the most liberal areas in the country (Portland's East Side), I admit that I have more of a theoretical idea of racism rather than the crudely tangible reality my dad experienced growing up in the 50's and 60's. His generation remembers too well the assassinations of John, Martin, and Bobby and how hope was crushed by the hateful extremists in America. The fact that 40 years later they don't think our country is better than that pushed me further toward Obama. I wanted to prove my parents and everyone of that era wrong. I wanted to make them see that our country has progressed so far that a perfectly qualified man can in fact rise to the vey top without being judged by the color of his skin. Although Hillary had the same type of allure being the first viable woman candidate, it wasn't the same because she was a Clinton, she was the heavy favorite, and because I find that the theoretical hurdle of racism in America is higher than the theoretical hurdle of sexism. This is not meant to discount the problem of sexism, it is simply the conclusion I have derived from living in America all my life.
I was affected by the first 4 reasons I listed as well as the fact that Obama was more liberal than anyone else in the primary (aside from my personal favorite Kuccinich). But on top of those reasons I was no doubt driven further into the Obama camp to show my parents and all those like them the error in their judgement of America. I believe Barack will remind the world of America's true colors when he becomes president, and perhaps most importantly he will show Americans how far their country truly has come in the last 50 years.

Gullible America

Why are negative campaign ads that speak to the educational level of 3-year-olds so important in United State's elections? There are so many key issues that the candidates rarely speak of in their ads, and the media rarely covers. This is because AMERICA DOESN't LISTEN. Americans do not take any time to go out and research for just 20 or 30 minutes on how we got into this finiancial crisis and who is involved. Most people seem content to just watch whatever is on TV that entertains them best and accept whatever election garbage is thrown at them through their favorite entertainment program. This could be Saturday Night Live, Sean Hannity, The View, Bill O'Reilly, and all other rating driven programs that don't tell the important half of any story. If you are to follow any link I post on this blog, follow the one below to a blog written by James Moore that speaks to this point. I encourage you to inform yourself by sifting through conservative, liberal and "unbiased" news and opinion from all over. You can never learn too much about the issues

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/a-nation-of-village-idiot_b_127340.html#postComment

Obama regains lead in polls, should we care?

The Media is constantly pushing polls on projected election outcomes and the American people have developed an unhealthy craving for more. The most recent polls show Obama regaining his overall lead with voters as he pounds John Mccain (who seems to be pounding himself as well) on his lack of economic strategy. As Wall Street continues its unprecedented downward spiral the economy is most likely going to become far and away the most important issue on the table. However, the most recent polls are most likely not a result of Obama's progress in the debate over the economy (that will come later). Sarah Palin's convention-inflated approval ratings are dropping steadily as the media puts her under its stage lights.
But my point is not what is driving these polls, but why we shouldn't care. These national polls are not an indication of what will happen on Novermber 4th; so much more can and will happen before election day that will invalidate them. And most importantly, the election is not based on popular vote. The electoral college will decide the winner of this election, which means that if we are to check polls as progress reports we should look to battleground states like OH, FL, PA, CO, NV, NH and MI among others. These are the states that will decide the election, not polls that include oregon, california, texas, or kansas.

"Charlie"

Sarah Palin said the word, "Charlie" 60 times throughout the course of her interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC this week. To say the least, this is a sign of discomfort with regard to her role as a VP nominee. She came across as quite unprepared, especially when Charlie asked her opinion of the Bush Doctrine and she proved to have minimal knowledge of what it was and failed to formulate any opinion of substance on the post-9/11 foreign policy initiatives laid out by President Bush. It may be that Palin was just jittery about her first full-length national television interview, or it may be that she really is the unprepared, uncultured, passport-less hockey mom that she is leading those of us who are paying attention to believe.

Mccain has gone too far, even for Karl Rove

I almost couldn't believe my ears when I heard it, but on the most recent edition of Fox News Sunday Karl Rove said in so many words that Mccain went too far in his campaign ads. "[They] do not pass the 100-percent truth test," were Rove's words. He also made clear that it was not necessary for the campaigns to attack one another in the manner that they are currently. "They have legitimate points to make about each other," said Rove.

Although Mccain's ads have been deemed more severe and some even complete fabrications of the truth, Obama has engaged in similar tactics by attacking Mccain's age rather than his issues. Their ads seem to be escalating as they attempt to one-up each other's personal attacks. It is the responsibility of the media to chastise this form of campaigning until both camps move away from their no-holds-barred cahracter assaults and get back to the serious issues our country must address immediately! Why have we not yet seen any advertisements or statements involving global warming? For all I know both camps have bought into the Palin stance that global warming is not human-made and is therefore out of our hands... SOMEBODY BRING IT UP.

Stay smooth or get on the attack?

Barack Obama's campaign is at a crossroads. Many of their loyal supporters are getting anxious as the Republican base has been reignited by the addition of Sarah Palin to their ticket. These Democrats are most concerned that Obama is not responding with enough zeal and fire as is being thrown at him from the other side.
The latest advertisements from the Mccain camp are being called dishonest, dishonerable, and even outright lies by some relatively impartial pundits and finally Obama himself. One of the ads accuses Senator Obama of advocating sex education for kindergarten and pre-K, a ressurection of a dirty ad run by Alan Keyes in his 2004 Illinios senatorial campaign against Obama. What Obama truly advocated was coaching young children to be aware of sexual advances by adults.
The choice to run this ad was a risk for Mccain, which I believe he paid for in full when he appeared on the show The View earlier this week. And the reaction from Obama supporters to this ad and others like it (the lipstick on a pig smear) was clear; outrage. This begs the question, will Obama shift strategy and begin attacking Mccain with the same vigor and distortion of facts, or will he continue in his battle to stay truthful, clean and above the dirty game that is Washington politics (or Karl Rove politics).
New York Times columnist David Brooks and syndicated columnist Mark Shields came to a conclusion yesterday on The Newshour, that this election and the issues at hand favor Obama and Biden. They agreed that the Mccain camp has pulled some flashy stunts to keep the race quite close thusfar, but has very little substance to carry it through the next 8 weeks in the battle for the whitehouse. That being said, the Obama camp has little reason to panic and will most likely stick with the strategy that got them this far; appealing calmly and earnestly to the middle class of America with incontrovertible facts, and with the registration of hords of young people in every swing state.

Check out the Newshour broacast of Brooks and Shields from Wednesday night and the NY Times article that speaks to the same issue by following the links below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/12cnd-candidates.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/09/12/20080912_shieldsbrooks28.mp3

Distraction Tactics; Baiting Barack

Sarah Palin is dominating media coverage. She is ahead of both John Mccain and Barack Obama in approval rating polls. It is most likely that this is due to her better-than-expected convention speech, which is the only knowledge that most Americans have of her so far. From where it stands currently, her approval rating has nowhere else to go except down (the attractive, Tina-Fey-librarian look can only carry her so far before family values and pork barrel scadals begin to outweigh the former).
What Palin has brought to the table that will remain throughout this election is the issue of experience. Whenever her experience is brought up, consequently Barack Obama's experience is examined. The Obama camp has become aware of this and must continue steering such conversations away from Palin's experience and toward her stance on vital national issues.
Palin may also prove to be bait in a larger sense. By drawing attention away from Mccain in the media she is acting as a buffer for issues of change and freshness. By keeping her at the forefront of media coverage, Mccain is able to use her strengths on certain issues (youth, middle class background, etc.) as cover to hide his own weaknesses in those very categories (being old as the hills and owning too many properties to recall how many in total). It will be interesting to see how much longer Mccain can dodge the spotlight, and in what fashion Barack Obama will respond.

On a side note, does anyone remember who the Democratic VP candidate is? I forgot...

Liar Liar

The republican nominees are avoiding the truth of their own records in order to compete with the Obama ticket in the battle over who will bring necessary "change" to Washington. Sarah Palin is consistently claiming not only to have opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" but to have been the reason behind the closure of the project. In fact, she was not only very much in favor of this $223 million earmark, but she accepted federal money on behalf of the state as Governor and kept it after the project fell through! And the project was only stopped because the cost projections rose well above their original $223 million dollar estimate (as opposed to Sarah Palin acting as 'maverick' governor and defeating the proposition of her own accord). In actuality, the end of the bridge project came when federal government refused to send over $100 dollars in addition to the previous $223 to Alaska for this bridge to a small island of roughly 100 residents. (a link to Paul Krane's article at Washingtonpost.com which provides further proof, quotations, and background on this subject is given at the bottom of this posting).
The obvious truth is that John Mccain and Sarah Palin are not nearly as different from the current administration as they so vocally expresses they are.
Fact: Seven of John Mccain's campaign advisors are Washington lobbyists working on behalf of corporate interests (the interests of American citizens can wait in line behind them).
How will it be possible for Mccain to go to Washington and shake anything up on behalf of the American people when he already owes loads of political favors to the corporate lobbyists who got him elected? When compared with the fact that Barack Obama has zero lobbyists running his campaign and has refused to accept any campaign financing from lobbyists, it seems clear that Obama is more apt to affect serious changes in Washington on behalf of the American people.
Yet as we see in the campaign stops and television ads, the republicans persist in manipulating the truth in order to portray themselves as agents of change. The Mccain camp must believe they can convince American voters of ideas simply by bombarding the airwaves with empty, foundationless slogans that contradict their own personal records. Are the American people ignorant enough to play into this strategy?


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/stevens_no_action_for_bridge_t.html

We have too much spirit to become discouraged

If you are at all like me, the state of our country hasn't looked much worse than it does now. The dollar is weakening, grocery prices have soared above inflation, gas has roughly tripled in price over the last 5 years, more jobs are being shipped overseas every day and the U.S. is financing an ill advised war with money our unborn children and grandchildren have yet to earn. On the other hand, I am quite young and when your only life experience is the glory days of the 1990's, the problems of today must seem exceptionally daunting by comparison.
The more news I watch, the more appalled I become. I am stunned by the fact that a republican presidential candidate is running neck and neck in the polls with a democrat in the wake of the most unpopular republican presidency ever. I am saddened by the lack of coverage the media gives pertinent policy issues in comparison with their fascination in Obama's choice of lapel pins and Sarah Palin's teen daughter.
But everything about this election hasn't been as negative as John Mccain's campaign ads. Voter turnout in many democratic and some republican primaries broke records. Young people have energized politics with their renewed sense of interest. We saw our first viable female and african-american candidates engage in a history-making primary battle, and we now have our second female VP nominee and our first black presidential nominee. History stands to be made either way in this election, and there is no better way to decide who will bring that change than a record-breaking number of voters (except maybe having the supreme court decide for us).