Clinton Nomination

Barack Obama's nomination of Hilary Clinton for the position of Secretary of State was clearly a multifaceted decision. First and foremost, it has long been said that Hilary's relationship with foreign nations and her extensive knowledge of international diplomacy made her a better pick for the Democratic Nomination. In this arena, she is leaps and bounds above the much-less experienced Obama. With wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ever-increasing threat of Iran and North Korea, of Russia and China, the necessity of a well-versed foreign relations appointment is clear. In this respect, it is apparent that Obama has made the right choice. The advantage that he can gain from her expertise and knowledge is invaluable.
In the larger scheme of things however, it seems very clear that Clinton serves numerous purposes for the Obama administration. Not only does she serve a national purpose in terms of her abilities as a Secretary of State, she also fulfills the promise Obama made after his election last month. Claiming to be dedicated, not to partisan politics, but to the inclusion of the best men and women for the job, Obama made it clear that he would be nominating former foes and opposition party members in order to create the best team possible. By placing Clinton in this incredibly powerful and significant position and also by keeping a member of Bush's administration, he has so far kept his promises to the American people and has created what seems to be a very reliable and capable Cabinet. Of course, their actions and their influence have yet to be seen but I think it is a positive sign that he has not gone back on his word yet, although I realize that we are much too early on to make any kind of judgement.
In addition to this inclusion tactic, it is also interesting to note that in some respect this nomination may have been, at least in part, a ploy to appeal to the Hilary fans who were deeply disappointed by her loss earlier in the year. I would think that Obama is already looking to the future and assuming that this placement would be beneficial in his next run for office four years from now. Having Clinton as Secretary of State, although no where near being the first female president, is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed on a governmental official. If and when Obama does run for re-election, he has surely considered how positive it will be to have the Hilary vote when the time comes.

Articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7758572.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7758673.stm

Video:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/transition.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Barack Obama or Abraham Lincoln?

Barack Obama has for some time now been compared to President Lincoln, most recently because of his alleged commitment to a 'Team of Rivals" approach to building his administration. The term refers to a book written about how Lincoln brought former opponents into his administration and utilized their knowledge and expertise to better serve the country. As Obama has reached out both to Hilary Clinton and Republicans, it seems as though he may actually be following this same path. Interestingly, this ties in very closely to a part of our second exam. The question on groupthink popped into my head almost immediately after reading the headline of an article about this particular issue. If Obama does decide to include opposition and even former enemies in his decision-making group will this serve to build an administration with the very best ability to serve the country and make sound decisions (because of its diversity of opinion and background)? Or will we find that decisions become increasingly harder and perhaps foster feelings of animosity between members of the group which is clearly not beneficial for the American people.

Hopefully, having a diverse group that includes Obama foes will have a positive effect on his ability to lead. By doing so he would not only be increasing the amount of intelligence and opinion among his staff but he would also be fostering a bipartisanship that could help him should he need aid from Republicans in the future. Should a side of the issue be lost or ignored, I think we can be sure that in a bipartisan Cabinet, that option will be put on the table. In this way, Obama can also insure that his own power will not grow so large as to overshadow opinions and options that could be beneficial to the task at hand. On the other hand however, this choice could allow for decision-making to be mired in opposition and anger which would present a disunited front both to the American people and to governments abroad. Clearly, this is not the kind of image we want to display on an international stage, especially considering our precarious situation in the world at this moment.

Hopefully whatever choice Obama makes will be in the best interest of his country and will prove to be that which can help us fix the massive problems that we are facing right now. Also, I would hope that the phenomenon of groupthink could be abated by a decision to include diverse Cabinet members and thus avoid some of the pitfalls of past presidencies which have fallen victim to this tendency.

Here is an article about Obama's "Team of Rivals" and a wikipedia overview of the term "groupthink"

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/16/obamas-team-rivals-approach-mirrors-abraham-lincon/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

GOP Breakdown?

Since Obama's historic win earlier this month, there has been what seems like a breakdown of sorts within the GOP. Not only has Sarah Palin embarked on a bizarre publicity tour that has done nothing but further cement her idiocy, but there have also been direct attacks on both the former vice-presidential candidate and her running mate John McCain. As most of us have surely heard by now, there have been a number of anonymous sources from the McCain camp that have personally attacked both Palin's personality and her intelligence. Leaking the budget for her campaign wardrobe and concentrating on her infamous missteps regarding Africa and NAFTA these sources have revealed a tendency that losing parties have to unravel from within once their campaigns have been disbanded and their immediate purposes have been suspended. Clearly, this kind of information would never have come directly from McCain's campaign during the election season for fear of jeopardizing the outcome. However, now that members of this group have seen the writing on the wall and have lost their chance at the presidency, they have not held back on their condemnation of Sarah Palin. And for those who think that this particular instance is just an isolated event, it would be important to also consider the fact that South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint has recently and publicly come out against John McCain. According to this prominent member of the party, McCain betrayed certain conservative values in his quest for the presidency. Those particular principles were named as "freedom, religious-based values, and limited government." Don't even get me started on why religion-based values should have no place in politics after our long ago separation of church and state. Beyond this issue, the comments made by the SC Senator also attacked actual policy ideas held by McCain including amnesty for illegal immigrants and support of global warming. And while the truth behind these claims are irrelevant at this point, they prove that the seeds of dissension have been sowed within the GOP after this difficult and embarrassing loss. I think it is important to remember that this was not just a loss, but it was a defeat in which the GOP lost sections of its electorate to a Democratic candidate, some of which have been solidly Republican for decades. This tendency to place blame and face a breakdown is surely a plague that affects any party on the loosing side. It is clear, however, that much of what Senator DeMint has said was opinion and indicated nothing other than a GOP member voicing frustration over a significant loss. What bothers me however, is that these anonymous sources from the McCain campaign have apparently known for some time that Palin was less than ready for the job of vice president but were willing to let this slide if it got their presidential candidate nominated. This is not an opinion. Someone who doesn't know that Africa is a continent really shouldn't be holding such a high political office in this country and I'm sure that the campaign knew that. Is this any different than any other political deception? No, but the fact that people would be willing to leave our country to a candidate without experience or ability is extremely upsetting.

Below are a few articles that outline this issue:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/15/gop-senator-mccain-betrayed-republican-principles-2/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/07/palin-aide-calls-anonymous-campaign-charges-sickening/

Prop 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd_ai2LrgJo

http://www.whatisprop8.com/

Above are two sites: one is a website outlining one group's definition of Proposition 8 and their support for it and the other is Ellen DeGeneres's PSA urging voters to vote no on Prop 8. And although not certified so far, this proposition has passed in California. I think that the controversy over this issue is unfounded. And while I understand the importance of religion in some people's lives we have to realize that if we want to preach secularism in our country, our laws cannot mirror religious beliefs. Yes, our Constitution is inherently religious in some aspects but it was also written at the founding of our country which is a far cry from where we are today both socially and politically. Clearly, everyone has a right to their own beliefs but when these beliefs encroach on other human's rights, they cross a line in my opinion.

If we want to extend democracy and human rights and freedoms to other countries (like we claim to want to) then we should be setting an example at home. We should be an open society for EVERYONE not just those people that our religions tell us are worthy of respect. I feel like this particular issue and the fact that it has passed in a country that just elected Obama president is a very strange contradiction. It seemed as though some people are selective in what minorities and alternative lifestyles they accept. But we cannot play judge and jury on other people's lives because we are all human and live together in a country that needs to be unified. And although there has always been racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, this cannot be a justification for its continuance.

Politics and Lies

In another class I'm taking this semester we're discussing World War One and its consequences which parallel those of the Iraq War in our current time. In literature from that time it was clear that authors were disturbed by both the meaningless interpretation of the war by those who were fighting in it as well as the political cynicism that resulted. In Ernest Hemingway's novel A Farewell to Arms he focuses both on the soldier's battle to survive through a war they didn't believe in and the difficulties faced by those who realized that the political system was exploiting the vulnerability and ignorance of the people. When war becomes advertised on billboards and on television it seeks to sell a lie in order to convince people that their participation is necessary and noble. When words like "sacrifice" , "glory" and "strength" are associated with a particular war joining the military and fighting for the honor of the country (or the honor of another country's people) seems like a way to actively participate in this ideology of the great American savior. But when it is revealed that the justifications and the advertisements put forth by the government are false it leads to a sense of disillusionment on behalf of both civilians and soldiers. What does it mean when we find out that our own government has manipulated us? And what does it mean when we no longer trust politics to offer us the truth?
Clearly the similarities between Iraq and WWI are numerous in this respect. We have been coerced into believing certain "facts" that turned out to be falsehoods which has consequently led to a great deal of anger and cynicism. Not only this but how could we ignore the military commercials that air on television every night encouraging people to join the Army or the Marines in order to continue fighting this war we cannot end. In addition to this, politicians, including our president, have spent what seems like a great deal of time trying to convince us firstly to go to war and secondly to remain in it until we "win". Alot of people at this point in time are fed up with what seems like endless lies and persuasion by Washington and are ready for something to change. I think that this is the reason Obama has been so successful in his campaign thus far. In a political environment like the one we live in today, where people all across the country are questioning the validity of the political system as a whole, it is refreshing to have someone who seems removed from the lies. Whether or not Obama is trustworthy has yet to be seen but he offers a distinct change from what we have seen in the last eight years, especially considering the tragedies that have resulted from the war. Much like in WWI, the Iraq War has left a generation of young people that doesn't trust the word of their government in some of the most significant issues facing the American nation. Some people may disagree but ask yourself some questions about the issues. Did you believe President Bush when he claimed WMD's five years ago? How does it feel to realize that, regardless of intention, he was dead wrong? Pick your candidate of choice, the person you are going to vote for; Do you believe everything they say or are you cynical about some of their promises? What does this say about politics and the government? Do we not want to be proud and secure in our nation ?

Halloween Fun

There has been a lot of talk about how fun this election could be were the consequences not so serious ( especially considering the current economic situation). Most recently, however, there have been some people making an effort to truly enjoy politics. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner was an opportunity to truly consider the presidential candidates in a new light. Considering the last three times we've seen the candidates converse was during three ultra-serious debates (most especially the last) it was refreshing to watch them laugh and joke like normal people. I think it's really important to be able to see the candidates in this way because I think everyone tends to loose sight of the fact that they are real people and even though they must be truly superior in some ways, their nature is just like ours. We all know that politicians are suppossed to be strong and responsible beyond that which is expected of the general citizenry. But I do think it is overlooked that on an emotional level it must be unbelievably difficult to be a politician, especially on the national stage. During the third debate, McCain made a comment that during a football game he was watching he saw an Obama advertisement condemning him. I can't imagine sitting at home watching television and then seeing my enemy or my opponent pop up to berate me. I'm sure that it is something that these men and women have gotten used to but I do not think that they are emotionally deviod enough not to feel stung due to certain advertisements.
To get back to the actual topic, in the spirit of Halloween, there have been alot of people creating pumpkins with the likeness of their favorite political figures or integrating politics into their annual decorations. There are also tons of people planning on dressing up as Obama and Palin regardless of their political affiliations. I feel like we havn't had enough fun in this election yet because of all that is riding on its outcome but I am personally very excited that these things are finally going on and giving us all a chance to enjoy election season.
For everyone's enjoyment here's the roast video and a political Halloween article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N-j0W6MW-U
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/political.halloween.irpt/index.html

The Risk of Assasination

There's no easy way to talk about a political figure's possible assasination but I think this is a topic that really needs to be discussed because its implications are profound. I'm sure we are all aware that there is alot of chatter going on about the possibility that Obama, if elected, would be assasinated. I think that had this not been a serious threat before, it is now that it has been hyped up by the media and the public. There is no denying that being a black man in the most powerful position in the United States government is dangerous. Without being morbid, I personally, and many people I have spoken with, believe that there are individuals out there who would committ the crime. It doesn't mean that it will necessarily happen but it certainly is a possibility. The point at issue here however, isn't Obama or impending assasination. It is what this says about our country in general.
First off, it is Obama's race that has caused this topic to be discussed at such great length. The idea is out there that should he be killed, it would be by someone who was so inherently racist that they literally could not stand to be governed by a black man (lets not forget that there are those less extremist who would simply never vote for a black man and have outwardly admitted this). I think this clearly proves the fact that although we have come far since the fight for civil rights, we remain a country that has deep racist tendencies. And should an attempt be made on Obama's life we will be a country divided; it will become black vs. white in a matter of seconds. The fact that it is possible that we could return to the situation we faced in the 60's is indicative of the lack of change we have made. It is undeniable that Obama's nomination and his campaign are signs that we are improving but it seems as though that has overshadowed the fact that to truly be a free, democratic nation, all citizens need to be unquestionably equal. This is not so. McCain need not worry about a serious assasination attempt from pro-choice advocates (at least not as far as I know) and this is a policy position that he has chosen, not an inherent part of his identity. Obama, on the other hand, must face a greater threat because of his race. How can we ever claim true equality when this disparity exists.
This particular race issue also does not speak to the fact that the people we are talking about (those that would consider assassination) are technically fundamentalists even though they may not be tied to a specific religion. In essence, fundamentalism is the most extreme conservativism there is (and I mean that not as a political characterization but as a resistance to change) and that would be the force in action here were there to be an assassination. Alot of people would acknowledge that this threat does exist yet would make it clear that this does not provide an accurate or fair description of America as a nation. Now, if we can make this distinction within our own country, how can we not make it for the Middle East? We have equated Arabs and Muslims with terrorism perhaps irretrievably. And we make very little effort to differentiate in regards to those nations and people (as is evidenced by the lack of media coverage actual Middle Eastern people recieve and the ongoing social injustices Muslims and Arabs face in the US). Again, what does this double standard say about this country and its values?
I want to make it clear that I'm not predicting an assasination and that most of my information has come from dozens of conversations with others as well as from media. But I do think the fact that so many people are aware of this and are talking about it indicates that it is a distinct possibility. There are even Obama supporters out there who have been so moved by this threat that in a naive notion have decided not to vote for him in order to "save his life". Clearly this is not the issue I'm getting at here. What I'm trying to provoke is a discussion on whether or not this national obsession with assasination means that our country has failed in its attempts at racial equality. I think that it does. I would really appreciate any comments about this or any disagreements because I think it is one of the major issues in the political community right now. Below is a link to a site that discusses the issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513512/They-kill-Obama-US-president-Outcry-Nobel-Prize-winners-assassination-warning.html

Obama's Eloquence

Much has been made of Barack Obama's eloquence in this election and most of the conversation has centered around whether or not his speaking abilities actually point to anything substantial within him as a candidiate. Certainly, being able to speak well does not denote competance as a president. Many people that I've spoken to about Obama, even those who are planning on voting for him, have mentioned their fear that he may be all talk. He has a very useful ability to make himself and his policies sound not only appealing but unquestionable. Who wouldn't want 95% of the country to have lower taxes? Who doesn't want to improve our education system? In my opinion, he makes it oh so hard to disagree. But will these supremely eloquent speeches bring about the real change that has been promised? While I personally don't share these fears I can understand why the media's (and his opponents) portrayal of his eloquence has made some weary of his true intentions and capabilities. But the fact that McCain has expressed his own opinions about this particular issue leads me to believe that this fear my be unfounded. Because McCain is no where near Obama's level in terms of speech-making it would make perfect sense for him to discredit his opponent in terms of one of his greatest characteristics. Making Obama's eloquence is a way to distract from the fact that McCain really can't measure up in that department. Clearly, this issue has been picked up by the press and political pundits and has now manifested itself in the voters minds as a potential problem instead of a beneficial trait (which I believe it is). It's indicative of the political environment that we live in where nearly every positive aspect is turned into a detriment. Why can't we recognize talent and superiority without attacking it?

Debate #3

Throughout the 2008 campaign, I've been tentative to actually attack John McCain personally because to be honest, I've always thought he was a rather relatable candidate. Seeing him in other debates and other appearances (most notable his speech at the RNC) I had created an image of him in my head that was rather favorable considering my own intensely liberal beliefs. However, after witnessing his performance last night in the final presidential debate I was literally disgusted. His childish eye-rolling and condescending laughter was a complete turn-off as a voter, regardless of which candidate I was planning on endorsing on election day. His rude interupptions and snappy demeanor served only to make him look desperate and grumpy which is not the kind of attitude I would have expected from someone trailing in the polls. This was one of his last chances to appeal to a broad range of individuals and in my opinion he failed miserably. He may have had a few great lines, as can be expected from any candidate in a debate, but the majority of his statements just seemed angry and indignant. He was constantly on the attack and some of the things he said were just plain ridiculous. I'm not ashamed to say that his ideas about taking Iraqi veterans and placing them as teachers without having to be certified is horrendous. What a miserable idea it is to take individuals who have just been through the terror of war and throw them into a classroom without having to take the exams and the courses that other teachers are required to take. I'm sorry but this seems as though McCain is placing military service on a pedastal that it does not deserve to be on. Fighting in a war is courageous and it is respectable and admirable but it does not mean that it should exempt individuals from having to follow the same rules as everyone else. Not to mention the fact that in order to better schools and improve education we need to create even more qualified teachers than we already have. And in terms of McCain's "equal access" statement I'd like to ask him what he considers equal about the educational system right now. Clearly he is referring to the end of segregation but make no mistake, there is not equal access to education for those in lower socio-economic classes and this is through no fault of their own. They are children, period, and they deserve no more and no less than priviledged children who can attend Exeter or Deerfield. Everyone should have this superior education not just those can foot the bill.
When considering Obama's performance, however, I was not just impressed I was in awe. He exuded confidence and warmth in his unwillingness to respond to the numerous attacks thrown at him by McCain. And when he spoke he looked not only at the camera but at John McCain as well. I felt like Obama was participating in a conversation whereas you would have thought McCain was in a boxing ring. To most clearly illustrate this point, we need to look at the discussion of negative campaigning. Obama stated that politicians (especially in this election) need to stop trying to characterize each other as bad people. He was then immediatley attacked by McCain who wasted no time bringing up ACORN and Ayers. I'm not saying that these issues shouldn't have been addressed as they were serious allegations, but to spew out an attack after Obama's assertion of friendliness was pretty disgusting. Obama consistantly noted similarities between the two candidates and when he did mention differences, it was done respectfully. I want my president to be someone whose anger is directed towards the right places, someone who can function respectably in public forums. McCain's performance last night was a disaster but thank god for that because it might just have cost him the White House.
Here's a link to the debate and some commentary about priceless reactions of both candidates http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/#video

What's in a name?

In another class that I'm taking we were discussing the recent McCain/Palin rally up at Stabler and one of the students mentioned that a prominent figure in the Republican party had been continually referring to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama". In our subsequent discussion we talked about what it means that this kind of a tactic is used in order to somehow discredit or damamge the opposition. This is by no means an attack on McCain or the Republican Party but I would like to explore the mentality behind this and its consequences.
Clearly referring to the middle name "Hussein" is a direct referrence to Saddam Hussein and the Middle East in general. Considering that much of the election is focused on the Iraq War, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it's pertinant to ask whether or not this reference is simply a misguided fear tactic or if it is indicative of an inherent ethnocentricity on behalf of both the nation and the Republican party member. It also begs the question of what is acceptable and "politically correct" in terms of political strategy. Keep in mind that the name Hussein is a mark of the Islamic religion and not necessary of Middle Eastern ethnicity. If Obama had a distinctly African middle name, or a distinctly European middle name, would it ever be used as a way to create negativity around his candidacy?I would assume not. It is not "ok" to be racist against African decendency and we would never dream of degrading a European name as we would risk degrading many of our own ancestors as Euro-Americans. But for some reason, we are permitted to use a religious name ( that calls to mind the horrors in Iraq ) in this manner.
What does this say about us a nation that we still have people who are willing to refer to a specific area of the world in order to create a feeling of fear or inadequacy? What does it mean for those Muslim Americans living in the US who have to deal everyday with the fact that their religion is used as a scapegoat in politics? In this way, the Republican member who used this tactic is (and perhaps subconsciously) creating a "unity" through exclusion and alienation of "others". These "others" do not just include terrorists, although this is clearly the implication in that it connects "Barack Hussein" with terrorism, they include Iraqi's suffering in the midst of national destruction, it includes Muslims in all over the world, and it includes Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States. And even if the intention here was not to victimize a certain group, that is the result. If you should question whether or not this is the case consider the rally that took place yesterday and ask yourself how comfortable you would have been attending that rally with a turban or a veil on. Consider the fact that there is a professor here at Lehigh who was interested in attending but revealed to his students that he did not think he would be let in. This kind of exclusion isn't abstract, it happens everyday and everywhere. I think what I'm trying to convey here is that politics can take a nasty turn sometimes and we need to ask ourselves why we allow it.

1st Presidential Debate

After watching the first debates last Friday it was unnecessary for me to watch any of the media perceptions of who "won" because I was so impressed by Obama's performance that it really didn't matter to me what anyone else thought. Besides the fact that Obama spoke eloquently, directly, and confidently he mentioned some of the things that are important issues for me as a voter. At this point we have beaten Iraq, the economy and abortion (and all the rest of these "big" issues) to death. We know where the candidates stand and we have for a while now and while these issues are incredibly relevant they seem to have overshadowed others that are, in my opinion, of equal importance. As I had mentioned in an earlier post, education is a personal issue that Obama has addressed on a number of occasions. In the debate, he further emphasized the necessity of bolstering public education in urban areas in order to better prepare our children for their (and our) future. It's unnecessary to go into detail here as I have commented so often about this issue on previous posts and comments and I don't want to bore anyone to death.
The issue of American reputation in the world is the main issue that I've been struggling with recently and it will be a deciding factor in who I vote for in November. We have become a bully in the international arena and our friends at this point are few and far between. Our invasion of Iraq (and our continued and failed presence there), our war in Afghanistan, and our most recent actions in Pakistan have taken the reputation we have worked so hard for and squandered it. And while I don't expect everyone to share the same opinion there is no doubt that to some extent our reputation has suffered and needs to be remedied. Obama directly addressed this necessity in one of his answers which was refreshing because I feel as though I haven't heard enough mention of the issue in any political conversations recently. He noted that we have a long way to go and was specific on where exactly we need improve. I was thrilled that this issue was brought up because I don't think alot of people take the time to consider that even though our lives at home may not have changed because of this reputation shift, it is still important because it could compromise our legitimacy and international respect. Obama also emphasized the single lense that we look through as Americans which goes along with the reputation issue as our arrogance and superiority-complex are looked down upon by the international community. He was clear on the fact that we need to send a message to the world that we are hoping and planning to change in order to exercise better tolerance. He also noted that we have lost the inspiration that we once gave to people who hoped for a life of freedom and opportunity within our borders. Obama's reference of this issue was insightful, sentimental, and sincere. It made me believe that with him as president we could remedy our new position in the world (as a domineering, selfish country) and return to our old reputation as a beacon of liberty and opportunity.

All Joking Aside

Deciding who will be the next president of our country is no laughing matter - that much is clear. However, lately I've been wondering whether or not this means that politics cannot be seen through a different lense in order to give us all a break from the monotony of the barrage of serious, over-dramatized information we are given daily. Why do the jokes that politicains make have to become a national scandal in new media? When candidates go on late night talk shows or crack jokes in candid moments they are ripped apart the next day as though these comments have any bearing on the issues. Why should politicians press secretaries or public relations consultants have to worry about releasing statements defending their candidates jokes when there are much more important things that their time should be focused on? This may seem trivial to some but I think the lack of fun and enjoyment in politics is disheartening.
To laugh and to joke is part of being human. It makes candidates more relatable and it shouldn't be something that is seized upon as an opportunity to attack. When reading a joke made by McCain and its subsequent political analysis I was shocked that people actually took a joke and transformed it into a reliable source for a candidates "character". This particular article also touched on what we talked about in class on Tuesday; media preferences. http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html Each media source will hone in on ANYthing that can discredit a particular candidate. I hate to say this but so what if McCain thinks Chelsea Clinton is ugly? This has no bearing on his ability to be president or on his character as a human being. The only thing this shows is that he's really a terrible joke teller. Obama's joking attempts to diffuse the tension created by his "lipstick on a pig" comment are hysterical but I am certain that some Palin supporters ( who took the statement out of context) were unwilling to laugh.
What this post is mainly concerned about is why we have allowed politics to breed bitter, cynical voters who can't open their minds to enjoy the times we are living in. Some of what we are facing today is incredibly serious and in no way am I advocating taking the political arena or voting as a joke. But why not laugh sometimes? We shouldn't let the media dictate the way we respond to candidates in their endeavor to portray nearly every action in a negative light. And even though we are facing difficult times right now and this coming election may be the most important in our lifetimes, that doesn't mean that we can't take a little time now and then to ALL laugh at something (or someone).
Here's a site that has some funny jokes about all the candidates and their running mates:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/johnmccainjokes.htm

McCain suspends campaign

Reading an article on CNN.com today I was shocked that McCain has chosen to suspend his campaign in an effort to focus his energy on particpating in negotations in Washingston concerning the current economic crisis. The first question that came to mind, considering our discussions in class about political strategy, was whether or not this was truly an action to assist the country or if it was a campaign tactic. While it may seem as though a suspension of the campaign is antithetical to the latter idea, I think it is clear that during a presidential election year, nothing a candidate does is without thought to his potential candidacy. McCain is calling for a bipartisan effort at a financial solution as well as a postponment of the presidential debate this Friday as a show of political unity. Obama on the other hand is cautious about any postponment or suspension because he believes that this is the most important time for the country to hear from their prospective executive. And while I agree with Obama, I think McCain is presenting a very appealing message for national unity in order to secure the welfare of the country.
Obama notes that a presidential candidate needs to be able to handle more than one thing at once in order to prove his reliability to the American people and is tentative about infusing negotiations with presidential politics. I think that this is a clear strategy on his part to portray himself as willing to aid in economic recovery but unwilling to taint the important process in any way. This is a very middle of the road stance which I think is appealing because it shows confidence in himself coupled with a legitimate concern for the stability of the country. At the same time, I think his statement concerning his own personal aid to the negotiations were tainted with doubt at his ability to do so. One quotation began with "If I can be helpful" which does not serve to further an idea that he is capable of participating in a proposal. This is clearly not what the American people want to hear. "If" is not a word that we associate with a capability to lead and may cast doubt in some minds as to whether or not this is an indication of Obama's inadequacy.
McCain, however, has officially suspended his campaign and is seeking to postpone the debate in order to devote full attention to the matter facing the country at this very moment. And while this is an incredibly noble action to take, I wonder whether or not this will have an effect on voters. It is admirable that he is allegedly willing to put politics behind him considering the state of the economy but I think his proposal to push back the debate could be seen as fear. In addition to this, if Obama chooses to continue campaigning (which seems likely) then McCain may be losing precious time in the month before the election. He does, however, seem very confident in his ability to aid in the negotations which is symbolic of exactly what we want in a president; a man willing to put personal issues aside for the betterment of the country. Choosing which candidate is handling the crisis better is something I'm incapable of doing at this time despite my incredibly liberal politics. Both candidates, in my opinion, are staying true to their beliefs and I cannot fault either one of them for that.
Clearly, this particular issue is close to the hearts of all American citizens. When our money is in danger we do not respond well. And the fact that the goverment is proposing the "most sweeping economic intervention since the Great Depression" is an indicator of how serious the crisis has become. When it seems as though independents are going to play an enormous part in this coming election, what the candidates do right now is incredibly important to their campaigns. Both have pledged support to one another and with one another and plan to issue a joint statement about how to go about resolving the crisis in a bipartisan manner. They are both smart enough to realize that an angry debate over something this imperative is equal to political suicide. They also know that unity is paramount at this particular time as we need to be certain that our government is working for us and not for themselves. I would have to say that regardless of the strategy involved or the perception of each candidates response they have both made a concerted effort to come together and present a united front.
Below is the link to the CNN article:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html

Political Transparency

Alot of the actions taken by politicians during election years are poll-driven as opposed to belief driven. Recently it has been brought to my attention that each candidate has made what I consider to be incredibly transparent decisions. Obama left the church that he has been a member of for decades, Palin has similarly abandoned a church she has been a part of since the age of two, and McCain has been appearing on a number of well-known women's talk shows. Neither Palin nor Obama want to be percieved as fanatical and McCain is intent on winning the women's vote particularly after Hilary's defeat. I would assume that most people are able to pick up on the strategy as well. However, if we know that candidates are only doing these things to get particular votes then why do we continue praising/condemning them for these kinds of actions. I have no problem admitting that I can find a justification for Obama's choice to leave the church but cannot find the same for Palin's choice. Clearly this is due to an extreme bias in my own opinions but it is also indicative of the way that alot of people think about politics. If women know that McCain is using a woman as a tactic to sway them into voting for HIM how could they allow themselves to be manipulated this way? If I know that Obama probably would not have quit his church had he not been in the running for president how can I not consider him a hypocrite? I don't know what it says about the citizenry that we are so easily persuaded by strategic actions that most of us can see through. I would honestly like comments if anyone has something to offer because this is a concept that I have a very difficult time understanding.

Palin vs. Feminism

I was recently sent an email that enclosed a copy of Eve Ensler's (the creator of the Vagina Monologues) thoughts on Sarah Palin. In it she pits Palin against feminism even going so far as to call her an anti-feminist. For Ensler, feminism is inherently connected to issues like racism, environmental protection, and the eradication of violence and war as well as to more conventional feminist ideals like birth control and abortion. In terms of these problems that we face as an international community, Palin seems like a barrier to freedom and safety instead of a proponent of change and hope.
It is incredibly difficult as a woman to accept a female pro-life candidate. I don't codemn Palin for not aborting her own pregnancy or her daughter for choosing to keep her own child, but I do condemn the idea that anyone should not be able to make the same choice for themselves. The control over reproduction is essential to the freedom of women as it is unique to that gender. To take away this control puts a woman's body under the control of the goverment which is incredibly demeaning. In addition to this, Palin is supportive of abortion only if the mother's life is in danger. This has always seemed like the most supreme arrogance on behalf of some pro-life proponents. Only they can say when it's acceptable to abort a child right? Where does this moral superiority come from? What about pregnancies that result from rape and incest?
Ensler also discussed the "Drill Drill Drill" chant that rose up at the RNC as well as Palin's adoration of guns and hunting. In essence she is in support of ruining a pristine landscape while also killing the unique wildlife that resides there; and she wants to do it with her bare hands. If she wants to use God as a justification for ending abortion rights because it entails the murder of one of God's creations then isn't hunting somewhat contradictory to that belief? Although I am fully aware of the fact that animals are different than human beings are they not God's creatures as well? Are they not innocent bystanders in their own murders much like an unborn fetus?
Perhaps this use of religion as justification for policy is one of the most baffling of Palin's beliefs. While we all know that religion is inherent in our political system (although we preach the separation of church and state) making it a blatant explanation for specific political action is unfair and intolerant. In the article Ensler says that "when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be." It is clear that Palin is a Christian and is deeply influenced by the religion and the belief system behind it. In no way does this reflect poorly on her as a human being. But as a politician, her ties to religion have the tendency to turn God into law. We cannot do this in a country that has such diverse religious affiliations. We cannot invoke religion as a reason for war and abortion. To do this is not only to ignore the fact that we have a difference of opinion in our country but also to turn God into a somewhat violent being in naming him as a proponent of war. And let me just be clear, I do not condemn religion because I know the meaning that it can carry for those who follow it. It just does not seem responsible to tie one religion to an entire policy initiative. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/drill-drill-drill_b_124829.html

Obama and Education

Personally, education is a key issue in this campaign. My family is a family of teachers and administrators so I am aware of how dedicated teachers can impact students and how much they care about the communities they work in. My mother is a vice-principal at a successful charter school in Newark, NJ and I have seen first hand how invaluable an opportunity it is for students in that urban area. Without the charter school to open doors their chances at going to a well-funded and furnished high school are incredibly limited. But with the services offered, they are able to get a quality education in an institution they can be proud of as well as a chance to go to some of the most elite high schools in the world. Clearly, this is an issue very close to my heart and Obama's recent statements about education and charter school funding in particular are exactly what I would want to hear from the next president of the country. Not only has he pledged dedication to improve the No Child Left Behind Act but he also plans on giving more funding to the most responsible charter schools. He wants to give parents more options for education which is relevant because the only option open to children in urban communities are public schools which are notoriously unsuccessful at encouraging students to learn and continue their educations. He also notes that in the age of globalization our children are going to have to be better educated in order to compete with nations around the world. The future of our country rests on the shoulders of our children and we can't leave their education and their own futures up to chance.