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.