Reality Check 2008

Surf's Up!

2008-05-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

Obama bet his fantastically successful candidacy on his ability to remain unmoored from what makes us so uncomfortable— America’s racial history, and more specifically, America’s relationship to its descendants of African slaves. As of his March 19th speech on race relations, that freely floating candidacy has been securely anchored right where he did not want it to be.

Obama told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “In some ways, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than those of some of the other conventional candidates.”

Reminded him? Please. If he ever forgot, he certainly hasn’t the smarts to lead this country out of its current morass— and he has. He did not forget. He wanted us to forget… when it was convenient for his campaign. When he could gin up black support by accusing Clinton surrogates of racism, he remembered. Let’s face it, the man has done a brilliant job of playing both ends against the middle. Now, however, the jig is up. With the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the ensuing speech (which was far less an act of political bravery than political necessity, intelligently and elegantly handled), he’s acknowledged his ties to Afro-American culture and the distasteful light it shines on American history. He has attached himself to everything he once told America he would let them forget (Pardon me… transcend). We will not look at him the same way again.

Kevin Drum wrote:

“I think Obama’s fervent hope is that his speech pretty much closes the issue of race in this campaign. It just flatly doesn’t help him in any way to keep it on the front burner. Like NAFTA, which dropped off the radar after Ohio, I expect that after a couple of days Obama will also drop the subject of race if he possibly can. We’ll know by next week.”

No doubt that is his hope. But his aura has shifted. He has associated himself with that which, frankly, the majority of Americans don’t want to discuss, have a dialog about, confront or do the work to overcome. He has associated himself with some of the ugliest aspects of this nation’s past, things from which we’ve averted our eyes throughout most of our history. We have no desire to stop now. And henceforth, when we look at Obama, we can easily see some aspect of it.

When he first announced his candidacy, I assumed he was going to follow a successful model. I assumed he wanted to inure America to his black face and his adoption of Afro-American culture. This first run, I assumed, would allow all the poisons that lurked in the mud to hatch out. It would allow him to confront racial/cultural issues and race-based attacks. Doing so, he would make enemies, and he would lose, but the process would elevate his standing and stature. He would then spend the next four or eight years as a leader in various national and international fields, prepped to win in 2012 or 2016.

The model is Hillary Clinton’s. During her husband’s first campaign, she attacked gender issues head-on (artlessly, grant you). She talked about “standing by her man” and baking cookies, and got attacked from all sides. She made clear that she would not play the passive role assigned to her. For that pronouncement, she made enemies, most of whom still hate her with a psychotic passion. That dirty work done, however, she set about building a reputation based on the non-traditional role she had assumed. She won herself a senate seat, burnished a reputation as a hard worker, and got closer than any other woman could to becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.

I don’t know if it was Obama’s bi-racial background or his knowledge of his genetic freedom from the historic chains of Afro-American culture, but he seemed to believe he could avoid confronting “race” head-on, and thus make no enemies. He was wrong. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo reports that “The co-founder of Laura Ingraham’s radio show, who now helps run Hugh Hewitt’s ‘Salem Radio Network,’ has mixed an Obama video interweaving Obama with Malcolm X, the Black Power salute at the Mexico City Olympics and Public Enemy’s ‘Fight the Power’.”

Yes. Obama’s aura has shifted, and this is how the game is played when you’re clothed in basic American black.

There’s an apocryphal story involving opera singers, including two black divas, sitting backstage. One of the black women reads a review. She grows agitated. “The black diva, the black diva… why is it always the black diva,” she roars and storms from the room. The others sit in silent discomfort.

“Someone had to tell her,” says the remaining black diva.

From the eyes of a teacher

2008-05-08T15:38:00.000-07:00

I sat down with a friend of mine today who graduated from Northeastern University in Boston, MA last week, and we talked for a while about her take on the educational system in the United States. Although majoring in Theater Arts, Ashley Ghannad received a minor in elementary education and her certification, and plans to be an elementary school teacher as her next step.

Following, I have written up some of what she contributed to the conversation, as it taught me a lot about education from the teaching perspective. She also commented on being a graduating senior, entering into the job force while the economy is in its present state.

Before I can go into what she had to say, I should give a brief description of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) since she talks about it. For all of you who may not know what it is, NCLB
is a controversial United States Federal Law that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools. It hinges on the idea of inclusive classrooms, meaning students with all levels of learning abilities in the same classroom, who require a myriad of different teaching modalities to learn.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation, which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students - no matter their learning level. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard.

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are highly controversial and constantly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that sheds light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.

With all that said, let's get into what Ashley, shown to the right, had to say.

She said that while NCLB is highly effective and a great idea in theory, translating theory into practice makes things more than difficult for a teacher. And thus, NCLB has not been as effective as it was intended to be.

She believes in not separating students - putting all the learning disabled students in one classroom and the regular education students in another - but there needs to be some sort of revision.

"NCLB needs to be looked at...really looked at...and maybe not even thrown away. But something's not working. Something needs to change."

Of the potential future presidents, John McCain voted for NCLB, Hillary Clinton would end NCLB, and Barack Obama would reform it. For more information about the candidates' stances on the issue, click here for a full recap.

But she attributes some of the difficulties to certain issues. They might be separate form NCLB, but they still affect the education system and the next president must take a close look at them.

Funding is a major issue. She talked about the achievement gap, where students who grow up in urban settings already have a certain percentage less chance of graduating that students who grow up in suburban settings, just because of the types of schools they go to and how much funding the school receives.

Some urban schools, she explained, don't have any resources or materials...some don't even have enough desks for their students and 40 kids to a class.

"A construction worker needs tools to build a house," Ghannad said. "Teachers aren't miracle workers. They can't teach effectively without the correct tools."

And when students don't receive any supplemental education - art, music, physical education - she doesn't blame kids for not enjoying their education, especially when so many teachers are teaching to the tests. The students who were born and raised in the United States take the same tests as those who have been in America for one year and struggle with English who take the same tests as those with dyslexia...teachers don't want their students to fail and their schools to lose funding (if a school does not pass a certain quota per year, it can lose funding), so of course the teacher teaches to the test. But sometimes that's not as effective. And not is it only ineffective for certain students, but it also takes away other valuable learning experiences. So not only are kids missing out on all of the "fun" classes, but they're also not learning as much science or social studies because they're not on the first couple of tests, at the youngest level.

"These are our future doctors and presidents, and they're not getting a well-rounded education. They're not fully educated individuals of society, and we're blaming them for not graduating?" she questioned.

Even the money spent on NCLB has not been up to par.

There are also individual education plans, which those who have learning disabilities or are considered special education. Plans are drawn up for these kids and teachers, principals, parents, psychologists, etc. all come up with specific goals and work to achieve those goals. So not only does a teacher then have to be specific to each of these students' needs (and there are probably multiple plans per class), but she needs to speed these students up while at the same time not boring the regular education students or those in between.

"There were so many teachers who could not deal with all the pressures and retired early in the past few years...not to mention some good retirement packages were written up," Ghannad said. "Many old fashioned teachers can't deal with new ideas, you know, education plans, inclusion classes, experiential education, hands-on activities...they couldn't keep up with the pressure of different theories and beliefs so they figured they would just retire early so not to become discouraged."

But Ghannad takes this all as a challenge. As a young teacher, directly out of college, she is excited to jump right into her own class.

"It's going to be challenging," she said, "but I’m really excited to jump in. A year ago I thought about having my own classroom and almost had a heart attack, and it’s only been a year, but now I feel like I’m ready, I’m prepared."

But she hopes the next president can step in and take a look at everything and see that "education is a problem."

"I understand war spending is important, but a good president will be able to juggle everything - both international and our problems - as opposed to Bush who decided to pick one thing (whatever that may be, and he chose war spending and forgot the rest). I'm sure he never had to deal with the achievement gap, growing up in a poor city or anything else facing education these days. He's never tried to empathize. Hopefully the next president will just take a long hard look."

Either way, Ghannad is in it for the long haul.

"I knew the money wouldn’t be great, and that’s okay with me because I think I’ll go to work every day and love what I do despite how frustrating it might be at times."

(p.s. -- hopefully this can count as two posts -- I put not only a lot of time and effort into getting the interview, but I wrote a lot -- 1261 words to be exact, which is enough to cover two blog posts.)

Democratic deadlock looks deadly for Clinton's dream

2008-05-08T14:34:00.000-07:00

Yup, that's right folks - for all of you Hillary Clinton supporters, it's looking pretty bleak. But why does the woman refuse to back down? Well there are lots of reasons, the biggest being personal: it would mean accepting the fact she will not achieve her dream...well, at least not this year. And the dream of becoming the first female president in the United States is not a small one, nor is it an easy one to achieve. She was well on her way. After Super Tuesday, it looked even brighter for her. But in the past few months, it has come crumbling down before her eyes. But like I said before...for this year, at least.

The following YouTube clip goes more into what should go into the New York senator's decision.

Now, is there a possible joint ticket with Barack Obama as president and Clinton as vice president? In his first interview since the primaries in North Carolina and Indiana just a few days ago, Obama deflected the question. He said it's too early to start thinking about running mates.

"Sen. Clinton has shown herself to be an extraordinary candidate. She's tireless, she's smart, she's capable, and so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," he said. "But it would be presumptuous of me at this point ... to somehow suggest that she should be my running mate."

But think of the one two punch that would be - and there has been much talk of this throughout the race. Clinton brings her "experience," and Obama, his "change," but I don't think we can be surprised who came out on top. As green as Obama may be when it comes to being the president of the United States, his promise for change has hit the hearts of voters nationwide.

A Rock the Vote poll shows that where 23 percent of Americans think the country is going in the right direction, 69 percent believe it's going in the wrong track.

Source: Rock the Vote 2008

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Clinton promises to keep things the way they are because she doesn't. But her campaign revolved around the idea that she would be able to hit the ground running from day one (emphasizing her past White House experience, etc.) whereas Obama's entire campaign was grounded on a foundation of change. From day one, he's promised change. And that hasn't changed now that he is almost guaranteed his party's nomination.

"The world wants to see the United States lead. They've been disappointed and disillusioned over the last seven, eight years," he told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"I think there is still a sense everywhere I go that if the United States regains its sense of who it is and our values and our ideals, that we will continue to set the tone for a more peaceful and prosperous world."

Linkz and Lolz

2008-05-08T13:43:00.000-07:00

Last week saw the continued brow-beating of the American people with Jeremiah Wright overkill. The first 16 minutes of Meet the Press were devoted to it. CNN, FoxNews, and the whole lot continue to replay the YouTube clips. I’ve even seen some ridiculous implications in the more whacked-out portions of the blogsophere that Obama and Wright are co-conspirators in a murder.

As the Democratic primary slogs on, it seems people really can’t get enough of this sensationalism, like all of the real issues have now been exhausted and the entire affair is reduced to a pseudo-meditation on race in America. If that’s what people really want to talk about, why not replay clips of Obama’s speech in March over and over again? Seems a bit more comprehensive than Wright’s sermons.

Frank Rich wrote a brilliant op-ed for the New York Times over the weekend discussing the double-standard in the media on the coverage of Wright/Obama vs. Hagee/McCain.

None of this is to say that two wacky white preachers make a Wright right. It is entirely fair for any voter to weigh Mr. Obama’s long relationship with his pastor in assessing his fitness for office. It is also fair to weigh Mr. Obama’s judgment in handling this personal and political crisis as it has repeatedly boiled over. But whatever that verdict, it is disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a double standard operating here. If we’re to judge black candidates on their most controversial associates — and how quickly, sternly and completely they disown them — we must judge white politicians by the same yardstick.

Meanwhile, as our country is engaged in multiple fronts of war, all in the name of combating “terror,” a recent MSNBC article discusses the failure of the US government to work with Yemen in retaining many of the suspects in the USS Cole bombing. The suspects have either escaped or been outright freed by the Yemeni government as the US made several unsuccessful attempts at forcing extradition. Two went on to commit suicide attacks in Iraq.

“After we worked day and night to bring justice to the victims and prove that these Qaeda operatives were responsible, we’re back to square one,” said Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent and a lead investigator into the bombing. “Do they have laws over there or not? It’s really frustrating what’s happening.”

Two of the suspects, however, are sitting pretty in Gitmo right now, making me wonder how this diplomatic impasse will serve as further justification for the existence of the American concentration camp in Cuba.

Elsewhere, an article getting a ton of heat on The Huffington Post concerns Clinton’s campaign using the “nuclear option” of using the DNC’s Rules and By-Laws Committee meeting on May 31 to force the seating of Michigan and Florida delegates (quite a nifty piece of headline writing). Looks like this could possibly get uglier. Great.

And just to spice things up a bit, here’s a great Times Online piece discussing the evolution of the music industry and how many smaller acts are giving into branding partnerships with big business to foot the bills.

This isn’t exactly from the weekend, but it’s an encouraging report on the anti-SUV sentiment now rampant in the used car market as a byproduct of rising gas prices.

And lastly, this is just for gits and shiggles. It robbed me of my last scrap of innocence. Nature can be downright bizarre.

"Changing" times call for a specific agenda

2008-05-07T10:19:00.000-07:00

Change.

It comes in many forms, and both democratic candidates are asking for it.

If a democratic candidate emerges to beat John McCain in the next few months, we’ll see a lot of change.

Following the amount of attention Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have drawn to themselves, and how little attention has been paid to McCain, the thought of McCain having a legitimate shot at the White House seems far removed from the daily realm of discourse and expectation.

After all the talk that has ensued, and the 21 debates, and the constant news coverage, it seems either Obama or Clinton is necessarily in line to take over the Oval Office.

But behind the usual chatter that seems to take over every conversation, news-talk program and newspaper front page, is a quieter, more ominous and biting topic.

It’s in these dark, underground conversations, that the rooted pessimism emerges and we hear whispers of another superlative for Obama; unelectable.

Hidden away from the news cameras and far from the poster boards calling for change and hope, are the mass e-mails sent out of Obama’s family in farming clothes, asking America, “Is this what you want for our first family?”

It’s the web sites with quotes from Obama, grossly out of context, painting him as a terrorist or, “too black” to run our nation, like this one from Obama, saying, “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem it self conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose.”

It’s the Youtube.com videos made by the KKK calling for the ultimate destruction of the African American presidential candidate.

Those discreet, underground whispers say “unelectable” at the surface. But deep down, what they mean is “black.”

Unelectable.

And the conservatives aren’t the only ones who know that word. But in this politically correct world, the news media simply cannot acknowledge the existence of the deep seeded racism that truly exists in this country. If they acknowledge it, they accept it. And for a business run by ratings and advertising, accepting the existence of racism would be fatal.

Sometimes, the racism is characterized as “fanatic,” or something like that, but when we say fanatic, we imply that such a belief is the minority of the beliefs in this nation. Sadly, I think this is a mischaracterization, because racism in this country, still, is not the minority belief. Obama, himself, recognized that in his “race” speech.

Suddenly, it starts to seem like McCain doesn’t have much of a fight ahead of him, although judging by Obama’s performance thus far, it’s obvious he does.
The fight facing Obama, if he wins the nomination, is on par with the any of the greatest civil rights struggles in the past 100 years. Yes, I said a civil rights struggle, even in a society that calls itself accepting and progressive.

Between now and November, onlookers to this election cycle are going to be bombarded with conservative propaganda by a Republican Party determined not to change the past.
Maybe that’s the change Obama is asking for, that he won’t characterize as such, in so many words.

The change Obama asks for, is actually the change he needs. As people, we are inherently resistant to change.

Unfortunately for the rising star candidate, he cannot win unless we do change our views, and cut down those misinformed mass e-mails before they start.
Expect a lot more of this type of behavior before November.

Unfortunately for Obama, my grandparent’s generation is still around, at least for another couple of years, who simply won’t tolerate the change he needs to succeed.
My grandmother, who says Obama is a sleeper cell terrorist, so she’ll vote for McCain, even though she liked Romney more, is a huge obstacle for him.
Change.

It comes in many forms, and both democratic candidates are asking for it.
But maybe they’re not just asking for it for the nation’s sake. Maybe it’s not coincidental that both an African American and a woman made “change” their key platform.

Maybe they did it, because they know that without change, neither of them has a fighting chance. How far our nation would come though, if we could change.

As it stands, there has not been a more qualified candidate to lead our nation, in years than Obama. Now it’s time to see where our nation truly stands on matters of race and justice. After the 1950s and 60s, we have looked upon our racial progression with pride.

If Obama is shut down by the Conservative party, which they are no doubt gearing up to do before November, it should become clear that we have a lot further to go than we thought.

Change isn’t just what Obama wants; it’s what he needs.

Should she stay or should she go?

2008-05-01T20:26:00.001-07:00

Hillary Clinton - is it right for her to stay in the race at this point? I mean, come on now, this thing is taking forever - as herbsao sums up in the post below me. Think about it...it was just a few weeks ago when much of the Democratic party was urging her to drop out of the competition...not because they hated her, but because they felt by "prolonging the inevitable" - a Barack Obama victory - she was doing nothing but hurting the party's chances of winning at the end. Even Rush Limbaugh - the voice of the Republican party - urged Texas to vote for Clinton months ago when Obama looked like he was unstoppable, just so it would buy John McCain some time to better prepare for the presidential race that was around the corner.

In the midst of all that, Clinton held strong and compared herself to the likes of none other than Rocky Balboa.

But before you make a decision as to whether it is right or wrong for Clinton to still be in the race, take these things into consideration:
--> According to an Associated Press poll, when matched up head-to-head, Clinton now leads McCain by 9 points, whereas McCain and Obama are running about even. This bolsters Clinton's argument that she is more electable than her Democratic rival.
--> The governor of North Carolina, Mike Easely, recently endorsed Clinton saying that she "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy." She is gaining support from a number of elected Democrats around the country, which also shows how highly respected she is as the potential Democratic presidential candidate.
--> The potential gas tax holiday splits Clinton and Obama...Clinton, like McCain, for it...Obama against it. With the future of rising oil prices looming, it seems that voters will support anybody who supports cutting fuel prices, even if just for a little bit.

So now you have the facts. The only question that remains now is, do you think Hillary Clinton is just hurting her party and should drop out of the Democratic race?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

When is the end?

2008-05-01T16:21:00.000-07:00

Seriously, when is this all going to end?

When will the Democratic Party at long last nominate its candidate for president? This niggling little super delegate war that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are waging is murdering their party's chances by the day.

It's getting out of hand. Sure, more and more super delegates are either leaving Clinton's camp and joining Obama's or are pledging their allegiances outright to the Illinois senator. Sure, Clinton still has a slim lead in the overall super delegate count. But last time I checked, Obama still had a commanding lead in DELEGATES! I mean the word "super" normally makes things better. Put it in front of simple words like "man" or "bowl" and they are magically transformed into comic book heroes and unofficial national holidays. Cool, I get it. Super.

But in the case of delegate counts, super does not mean better. Super just means diplomat, and the last time I checked, the American people elected presidents not supermen and women. And a majority of the American people want to see Barack Obama tango with John McCain. So give them what they want now. If the DNC waits until the convention, they may have vacillated their way out of a president.

It's like picking teams for a pick-up basketball game. Everyone selects a player from the playground, all of whom are equally qualified. But one team already has LeBron James . It doesn't matter who you pick up because LeBron James is better than anyone on the playground.

Get it? The American people is LeBron James. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo is just some bum on the blacktop.

And another thing. Have you been listening to Karl Rove talk about Clinton lately.

When the Prince of Darkness (Rove was the devil that got Bush elected twice, remember?) starts paying compliments to a political rival, it means that he knows he can destroy them. When Stanford football coach Jim Harbaugh said at the beginning of last season that the '08 USC Trojans were the best team in college football history, he was being facetious. Remember what happened? He pulled off one of the biggest upsets ever by going in to the Coliseum and beating the best team in college football history. I was there. It was horrible.

Don't be fooled. The McCain camp knows they can beat Clinton one-on-one. And I believe them. Just because they share a party with the least popular president in modern history, doesn't mean the rest of the party isn't fed up with him also.

Meanwhile, Obama has done everything he can to distance himself from his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, his relationship with him being the only major sleight on his campaign. He has criticized Wright for his comments on a consistent basis, delivered possibly the most powerful and poignant speech on race ever by a major politician, he has even gone on the Today Show with his wife Michelle and talked to Meredith Viera about the issue.

Let go, people. Obama is not a racist and most know nothing about Wright besides the fact that he's an opportunist that likes to speak out of context.

Anyway, that's enough. This rant is getting subjective. All I want is a true, bona fide presidential contest. And I can't get that until the Dems have picked their horse.

Or donkey. Whatever.

LIVE! from the May Day march

2008-05-01T15:18:00.001-07:00

Photos taken at the UCLA Labor Center pre-march rally. American Apparel's "Legalize LA"
and MIWON (the Multi Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network) were represented by hundreds of protesters. A live band played raggaeton for an hour before the crowd gathered to march down Beverly Blvd. (1st St.) towards Broadway St. downtown, the epicenter of this year's May Day immigration march. By the way, the dude with the alien is wearing a shirt that says, "I don't want to be an alien. I want to be legal."

Close your eyes and you would think you were at a futbol match at the Estadio Azteca with all the whistling and the Spanish chants in unison.

Cover your ears and you would think you were at a city-wide picket. There are tens of thousands of screaming, singing, dancing, passionate people in front of you, all gathered in a single mass of angry solidarity.

If you took the latter choice, you'd pretty much have it nailed, although the former isn't that far off in terms of spirit. Instead of "Ole, Ole, Ole!" the chants here are "Si Se Puede! (We can do it!)"

The May Day march, an annual Los Angeles event, has been the largest immigration reform protest in the country, probably the world the last several years. Last year, the march ended in violence, as many protesters were beaten and shot with rubber bullets by members of the LAPD riot squad. The fallout caused a public protest and the LAPD (and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa) had to stage another more peaceful rally a month later.

By all accounts, the events of last year are a thing of the past, as police have been acting nothing but courteous (if not, too
courteous) for this year's marchers. Some of them are in skin-tight 70's style NBA short shorts and smiling. It's kind of surreal.

It would also seem that last year's events have made this year's march even bigger. I would estimate that several thousand more have crammed their way onto Broadway this year. Even more are expected to come to the 4 p.m. rally as many will be getting off of work or school then.

This is also an election year, and immigration reform is one of the hot button issues, making this rally a bit more involved.

Organizers of the march have not lost sight of the importance of the rally in an election year.

"I think [immigration reform] is very important this year," said Strela Cervas, a community organizer with MIWON and the Pilipino Workers Center. "The candidates have proposed some comprehensive immigration reform. It depends on our mass movement to push the issue further. We need to show them this immigration system is broken and it effects everyone."

She said that there are 12 million undocumented workers that are paying taxes and boosting the economy. But they have been afforded no status and therefore cannot participate in the economy they contribute to.

As of now, there has been no appearance by Obama or Clinton, although John McCain was loudly presented at the UCLA LC rally by a man identifying himself as Melrose Larry Green or the Howard Stern Show fame. Who knows if it was really him, but he was certainly crazy enough to fit the part.

"You're much prettier than Hillary Clinton," he cooed to a police horse at the rally. "Much prettier."

I don't care about Hillary Clinton anymore

2008-05-01T11:55:00.000-07:00

As it stands right now, it’s impossible for Clinton to win with pledged delegates. She’s too far behind Obama, and she has plum run out of time. It’s not going to happen. This matters a lot, of course, least of all because no Democratic candidate has ever won the nomination without leading in pledged delegates.

Unfortunately, Clinton’s campaign – who I will hereafter refer to as the Hillary truthers – is having none of this. On Tuesday night of last week, campaign chairman and head truther Terry McAuliffe instead trumpeted the popular vote as a new measure of victory. However, even if the popular vote decided the nomination – and it doesn’t – the math isn’t looking too favorable here, either.

Unless McAuliffee is counting the outlawed Michigan and Florida primaries, Clinton’s likely too far behind on this metric to win as well. She is still 600,000 votes behind Obama in the popular vote, and he is looking to make up a good chunk of the 200,000 or so votes he lost in Pennsylvania in the upcoming North Carolina and Indiana primaries.

That is the stark math of defeat. And with that laid out in front of them, Clinton and the Hillary truthers may want to take a long, hard look at the three options they have left. Of the three, only one leaves her with a modicum of dignity at the end. She would do well to choose wisely.

In the first scenario, she trudges on to Indiana and North Carolina, running a tame, respectful campaign. Then – after losing in North Carolina and, likely, Indiana – she drops out of the race, licks her wounds, and makes up for her scorched earth strategy by campaigning relentlessly for Obama in the general.

This is obviously the best scenario for her, Obama, and the party. As for her, it leaves open the option of running again in the future (whether for president or another higher office), and she can finally get to patching together some of the relationships she and Bill have spent the past few months laying waste to. Obama benefits too – he can start campaigning against the Republican he’s supposed to be campaigning against. And the party can begin the long, arduous task of mending itself.

In the second option, Clinton hangs in the race and ratchets up the attacks, continuing to thwack Obama with the heavy, well-used pages she has wrenched so readily out of the Republican playbook. The race lurches towards the finish line, with Clinton eventually losing because, well, that’s what happens to candidates who don’t win more pledged delegates than the other candidate. Hillary truthers, take note.

This scenario offers little in the way of merriment or viability, though. Clinton effectively ends her career, and she and Bill are left on the sidelines of a Democratic party that they once, for all intensive purposes, ran. Obama, on the other hand, slumps into the general election against McCain, who will pick up right where Hillary left off with the slander and innuendo and race-baiting and prevaricating. Then, if Obama loses, America stumbles through another four years of tragedy, this time with Calamity John at the reins.

And what, pray tell, lies beyond door three? The candidates continue to beat each other up as the primaries lumber on, and we end up in a Denver deadlock. There, Clinton is able to sway enough superdelegates over to her side to usurp the public’s will, and she – and the truthers – manage to wrest the nomination away from the first legitimate African-American presidential candidate in history. The Democratic Party is likely torn asunder, with the millions of new or rejuvenated voters that Obama brought into the campaign disenfranchised by their own party.

The general election will proceed, and Clinton will likely lose for a couple of reasons. First is that she will have alienated the (more than) half of the voters that wanted Obama to win, and deserved to have their voices heard. The second is that she will have yanked the race so far to the right that McCain – being, after all, a Republican – will simply outflank her, especially on national security, sending her career to an ignominious conclusion. And if she wins, we get at least four more years of reinvigorated partisan bickering, and burrow deeper into a status quo that’s not working for anybody.

So there are three options right now, two of which could charitably be called disastrous. So what will it be? As we slouch towards Denver, will things fall apart, or can the party hold together? Will we be able to look back on this race with fondness, or regret?

It’s in lil' Hill's hands now.

General News

2008-04-24T17:54:00.001-07:00

There was some really great journalism this week. Unfortunately, it revealed some really awful journalism.

The New York Times reported Monday that the Pentagon used former military generals to spread significant messages about the status of American armed forces affairs.

According to the Times, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held meetings with the generals about certain types of media messages.

The story revealed that some time, the Pentagon has transcended predetermined messages to the retired generals to send to the mainstream media.

Here is an example of a story they all came together on:

This story is a victory for the Times, but a dangerous one for America. It has certainly led to a few questions:

For starters, what is the role of government propaganda at a time like this, when our country is at war in two different nations? It seems only to serve the purpose of deceiving Americans to gain falsely attained support.

The following document is a list of the things the generals agreed to say on CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS and other stations, and then proceeded to do.

It seems now more than ever, we must look to the news as a source of information, not necessarily truth.

Talking with each other...seems so easy, but is it?

2008-04-17T21:04:00.001-07:00

Tom Brokaw just spoke at USC - took us through his life covering the late 1960's...man, he's been through it all. Seems like he just gets it. There's something about a guy like that, who has interviewed just about every big name in U.S. history during his career, that just seems authentic...there's something about him that makes me believe and trust he doesn't really bullshit his way through life. Good guy to listen to, and believe me, he said a lot - about race and politics, about citizenship, but even more simply...about talking and conversing with each other.

He left his listeners with an idea: if we don't speak to one another...if we stay on opposite sides of the room with opposite ideologies, how will we ever progress as a country? Dialogue. It is the simplest of ideas. It's what we're taught when we're younger. Listen when somebody speaks to you. Don't talk when somebody else is speaking. Respect others' opinions. Be open-minded. Maybe it's just the way I grew up, but I don't think so.

So how is it that as we get older, all this sort of fades away under the broad umbrella of what we like to call politics? It somehow becomes okay to attack each other for what we believe, to close ourselves and our minds off to differing opinions completely. And we call ourselves older...more mature.

Brokaw didn't really go into this as much...I took the liberty to expand on his thoughts, but just think about it.

Tom Brokaw at USC - Broad Yet Moving

2008-04-17T21:04:00.000-07:00

When I heard Tom Brokaw was coming to USC, I knew I had to go. A man who has gone through history with America and abroad, reported on some of the Nation's greatest, worst and most monumental moments and has been a well-heard voice in the media, Brokaw had a lot to reflect on. Using these reflections, he delivered an eloquent speech remembering history and relating it to a generation who should learn from the stories of the past. Although quite idealistic and non-specific, with the theme of individuals contributing all that they can as citizens to the greater good of the people, it still was moving. With a feeling of wanting to be a part of a collective society who upholds the value of helping one another, audience members left Bovard asking what they could do? While coming across very genuine and grounded, one question left Brokaw only skimming the surface of a much deeper topic with an answer that contradicted itself. When asked how Brokaw thought Los Angeles should deal with the vast diversity of our city and break racial walls that divide our community among ethnic lines, he was slow to answer. He made the point that people are too afraid to offend one another, yet he was very careful with what he said himself. He discussed all needing to speak one language, which was vague. Did he mean metaphorically? It is interesting to compare Barack Obama's speech on race and politics with Brokaw's. It seems as if Brokaw feels he is not at liberty to discuss the issue with blunt honesty because he's never been fully immersed in the culture. While jumping in and out of moments of racial tension, he can't have the connection the Obama can to the issue of race. Obama's speech was risky, truthful and unglazed. Nonetheless, seeing Brokaw at USC was a privelege and a thought-provoking, moving experience. He is a man that's seen more in his life than most could in a century. He hit his point home when he said that change in our current day is going to come from the bottom up. Each of us has a responsibility to choose a meaningful life path that contributes to a brighter future for us all.

Multimedia message

2008-04-17T19:41:00.001-07:00

Tom Brokaw speaks about the state of our country and people...first by taking us back to live through the 60's. How will we get through the "worst of times?" Well, how did they?

everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt

2008-04-17T17:43:00.000-07:00

Let's take a break from politics and remember the one-year death anniversary of the most acerbic and kick ass writers to have ever lived....

My first image of Kurt Vonnegut was through the masked ballerina that forever scarred me. Her image was haunting, the elegance of her dance destroyed by the weights strapped to her legs, her beauty shrouded within a stifling, muggy facial mask, all her potential hidden among handicaps forced upon her by a totalitarian government so everyone would be treated equally.

I hated Kurt Vonnegut for creating the idea of her. I hated him for frightening me, for describing the most disturbing image of a dystopian world, which even seven years after first reading it still freaks me out.

She is one of the main characters in his short story, "Harrison Bergeron," one of my first and favorite works by the ridiculously insane Vonnegut.

With Vonnegut's passing last April, obituaries lauded him as a master of science fiction and complexity, metaphors and allegories, but I never thought of him as any of those things. He always just seemed like a grizzly old World War II vet intrigued by the scientific possibilities of the future who had the fortune of knowing how to write.

He was someone who had the unique ability to chuck around one-liners from a rocking chair as easily as taking a breath. He was acerbic, ironic, witty and painfully pragmatic. Vonnegut braved a POW camp during the Allied bombing of Dresden, and could write everything I never could and make it sound spontaneous. He could turn convoluted sentences into hard-hitting juggernauts, and somehow have everything make sense.

Like many impressionable eighth-graders, I used to read until I fell asleep under my blankets and dream I was a famous writer, and I was always most impressed by how minimally Vonnegut wrote. He didn't delve into grandiose metaphors about willows and wuthering heights - he made up words of his own, such as "Duprass," "bokonon," "foma." My favorite being "karass," the idea that a group of people are collectively conducting God's will in carrying out a precise, universal task.

In "Slaughterhouse-Five," the main character, Billy Pilgrim, notices how you never realize when you're happy until pain takes its place. He notices how peaceful it is immediately after a war, how the stagnancy after a horrible catastrophe leads to nothing but silence. Vonnegut was the same way; his complexities lay in how uncomplex he was, how he could just sit around after a massacre and make an observation about how quiet it was.

His advice was as simple as his writing. "Be a sadist," he told aspiring writers. "No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them - in order that the reader may see what they are made of."

He didn't take himself seriously and he realized the role of writing was about make-believe places, characters and plots, and not about the writer at all.

That's why, truthfully, Vonnegut would laugh at this post. Like when PBS once asked him how life was treating him, his response was a sober, "Well, it's practically over, thank God." After taking one look at the words written here, he'd probably ask, "What were you thinking? You spent 500 words writing about some fleshy old man decaying underground?" He'd say it that way, too: crassly, masochistically. Then he'd probably shrug his shoulders, whistle and sigh, "So it goes ..."

He was the most beloved sadist I've come to known.

Hillary Clinton: president forty fo'

2008-04-17T17:36:00.000-07:00

We here at Reality Check haven't given a ton of space to Hillary Clinton coverage. Why? Maybe she scares us. Maybe, for better or for worse, she's just not as fun to write about.

Well I think the old girl's giving her campaign all she's got, and it's touched me. Not in the way that makes Popes blush (happy B-day Ben Dawg!) No, in the way that makes you want to write about them.

In an attempt to make Ms. Clinton more accessible to the youth we touch here at Reality Check (no pun intended. Right, Ben Dawg?) here's a song I found on the internet on Clinton. It's written by a young Schenectady street rapper named Herb Money. I guess Herb doesn't have a producer because it's written to the beat from Flo-Rida's "Get Low." It's missing a verse, but I still think it's on point. It's called "Prez Forty Fo'"

Want to rap it for yourself? Go for it. Be sure to start rapping at :22 in.

[Chorus]
Rodham’s got that Clinton Health Plan [Plan]
Bill to confer [to confer]
The whole nation’s lookin’ at her
She won’t take no [she won’t take no]
She will plateau [she will plateau]
Prez forty fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’

That horny Ken Starr
He’s not even on a par [on a par]
She made it through Whitewater with not even a scar
[Ayy]
She won’t take no [she won’t take no]
She will plateau [she will plateau]
Prez forty fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’

[Verse 1]
Ya ain’t never seen nuthin like Hill oh no
First a Yalie maybe Senate tem Pro
A female lawya; she got plenty of dough
Dem health care aches, they got to go
So deplorable, Bush be lamentable
Condemnable, off in wars and blow
Hold up wait a minute, do I see what I think I
Whoa
Did I think I seen Rodham say yo
Girl she say she wanna give it a go
Be da Prez? Yah’if she says so
Work the polls, grab dem Dem votes
Voters say ‘hey, we ain’t go no bank roll’
Hill like, ‘I hear dat, be makin it grow’
They say, ‘On Iraq, why ain’t you vote no?’
Hill say, “Thought Saddam had A Bombs below.”

She had that

[Chorus]
Clinton Health Plan [Plan]
Bill to confer [to confer]
The whole nation’s lookin’ at her
She won’t take no [she won’t take no]
She will plateau [she will plateau]
Prez forty fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’

That horny Ken Starr
He’s not even on a par [on a par]
She made it through Whitewater with not even a scar
[Ayy]
She won’t take no [she won’t take no]
She will plateau [she will plateau]
Prez forty fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’

[Verse 2]
Hey
Hillary what ya gonna do to get the votes
Your thoughts in the papers
Gotta get them quotes
Senate Bills Policies you gotta promote
Talk up your feats but do not gloat

Best seller (come on)
Grammy win (come on)
Junior Senate (come on, now that’s not bad)

What you think she’s playin’ America
She’s the man, her mettle won’t scratch a Teflon pan

That’s what she’ll show you, what most of New York knew
Barack it is ova, you sick like ebola
Tasty like granola
Work her Motorola like Yo-Yo his viola
So lucky for you, the Delegates they love her
Don’t even need any payola
Sorry but you can’t control her
Hear that, Ayotollah?
She got them

[Chorus]
Clinton Health Plan [Plan]
Bill to confer [to confer]
The whole nation’s lookin’ at her
She won’t take no [she won’t take no]
She will plateau [she will plateau]
Prez forty fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’

That horny Ken Starr
He’s not even on a par [on a par]
She made it through Whitewater with not even a scar
[Ayy]
She won’t take no [she won’t take no]
She will plateau [she will plateau]
Prez forty fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’ fo’

C’mon

2008-04-17T17:28:00.000-07:00

The day of the Democratic nomination will be one of the most exciting days of my life;

I can’t wait.

That’s when we can finally start talking about something else.

For months, almost all of the political discussions I’ve engaged in have come down to the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I know when we have a Democratic nominee, I’ll start talking about John McCain, and whether Republicans will stay loyal to their party or back the more popular candidate.
But since that day is not yet arrived, we have to keep talking about Obama and Clinton, and so in this column, I will.

Irrevocably, their fight is a novel one. It’s a great story that will long outlast either one of them, or their prospective terms in office. It is a story of courage, determination and strength of wit. It is as engaging as any movie I’ve seen recently, but that may be a problem of mine, I’m not sure.

As for the ending, however, I’m not sure the winner will ever be as significant as the battle, in the same way that an amazing book sometimes leaves its reader thinking more about the journey in the middle pages than the book-closing finale.

I haven’t lived through enough presidential elections to be sure, but I have gotten the impression, over the years, that presidential campaigns and platforms do not always mirror exactly what the elected officials do in office.

In other words, I don’t think it’s clear how much the nomination will tell us about what we can expect.

Do I like Obama more than Clinton? Yes. Do I think Obama is a better leader, potentially, than Clinton would be? I do. Would I vote for Obama over Clinton? I would.

But do I think Hillary would be a bad president? I don’t.

She could definitely handle the job and is qualified to do it well.

When you have a fight between two challengers, the dynamic always seems to form that one person must be good and the other must be bad. One choice must be better than the other, but we become so passionate about our beliefs that we turn our backs on the viable alternative, often giving it no credence.

Obama has my Democratic vote, but Clinton still has my confidence.

Here are my issues and frustrations as I think about the future:

When I graduate college, I’ll do so in one of the most unstable job markets we’ve seen in generations. Without a tremendous amount of capitol, it will be very difficult for me to get a reasonable mortgage on a house. I’ll also be paying off debts, hopefully from law school. My annual household income, currently, will be heavily taxed under Obama or Clinton. I am sick of living in a country that is at war overseas.

I do not believe electing Obama over Hillary, or Hillary over Obama, will greatly impact the future of my issues one way or the other. Our country’s needs are very apparent, and any president will have to deal with them and fix them.

Whether Hillary or Obama gets the Democratic nomination, I’m going to stay concerned about these issues until they change. To be honest, what we can expect from either Clinton or Obama is probably difficult, if not impossible, to tell right now.

I am so interested to see what happens either way. The conventional wisdom says the conservatives will come very close to destroying Obama, and I’m not sure that’s wrong, despite how unfair that would be.

So if Obama does, in fact, win the nomination, I’ll just hope the fight stays fair, though it probably won’t.

If Clinton wins the nomination, who I have always believed would be a less challenging candidate to face McCain, I will be anxious to see how she picks herself up from a troubled campaign and learns from her mistakes to fight back and win.

But other than that, I can’t say the nomination will really affect me one way or the other.

I’ll just be excited to talk about something else for once.

Beer Drinkin', Whisky Swiggin'

2008-04-17T17:01:00.000-07:00

"Drink, drink, drink, drink!"

It's a common song sung among college kids - guys looking to prove their manhood and girls getting sloshed and sloppy. We look like marathon runners pining for their first cup of water after running through the desert for miles - we slam the cup back, chug down the frothy liquid, and wipe our mouths off of the foamy debris. If us college kids drink even half as much as we do now once we get into the real world, Alcoholics Annoymous will have to build a thousand more mega-churches to house us all.

"Live it up," so the saying goes. "...because once your out of college it's called alcoholism."

Let's face it. Alcohol is an intergral part of the college experience. We earn respect from our peers when we let loose and let the liquid pour.

Out in the real world, where people work nine-to-fives and can't afford late Thursday night bingers, alcohol is not such a staple. It does, however, hold similar objectives. It lets people relax, let go of nervous inhibitions and feel comfortable around one another. Having a beer once and while shows you're a normal person who likes to let go of the stress of every-day life and kick back with a cold one.

Hilary Clinton must have gotten this memo. She decided to head over to the local bar and enjoy some shots of crown royal and chug some beer with the common people.

Obama sees this as a publicity stunt - one to make her look like a regular, fun-loving gal who can relate to even the dive-bar crowd, when in all actuality, she's just a manipulative, cunning candidate.

Clinton could say the same thing about Obama, who was seen drinking a beer while bowling.

I don't exactly know what the intentions of either candidate was when they decided to get on camera with their beverages of choice, but I don't think the footage will scare voters away from either of them - especially young voters.

While discussing the hours of time CNN devoted to talking about the beer drinkin', whisky swiggin' candidates, several of my peers commented that not only did they think it wasn't a big deal, but it made them like the candidates even more. It showed them the more human side of the bickering duo. I'm not sure staunch republicans will feel the same way, although if their truthful with themselves, they like a good scotch as much as any democrat.

I'm not saying that voters should vote for their candidate based on the brand of liquor they enjoy (although Hilary's choice of Crown Royal wasn't a bad one), I'm just saying that it is sometimes nice, especially for young voters, to feel they can relate to the candidates. I think we all want to know that the candidates aren't political robots programmed to manipulate. I hope that neither Clinton or Obama's drinking stunts were calculated to misrepresent their humanness, but it is possible. We all know politicians can by calculating!

Take a look at this YouTube Video and decide for yourself. At the very least, you'll be entertained.

In Basketball and Politics, Experience is Key

2008-04-10T17:23:00.000-07:00

Davidson College had a tremendous basketball program this year.

I hope Barack Obama watches NCAA basketball and got a chance to see Davidson play.

There is much the presidential hopeful can learn from the March Madness basketball tournament, regardless of the strength of Obama’s campaign staff or the cunning of his many savvy strategists.

Tonight, two seasoned NCAA basketball powerhouse schools will face off for the rights to the 2008 collegiate title. No rookie schools survived the battle and typically few do.

Almost each year, around March, we marvel as a team no one has heard of starts beating the well-known competition and begins to fight its way toward the big dance. Last year it was George Mason. This year it was Davidson College.

With every win, thousands of fans join the bandwagon and within weeks, teams like George Mason or Davidson are readily marketed as America’s team. There is something about rooting for an underdog that seems to captivate and arouse our senses as Americans. But rarely does an underdog win it all. At the highest level of competition, the rookies almost never beat the seasoned competitor.
If there is anything to be learned by Obama, it should be never to underestimate a seasoned veteran.

It is truly amazing the way in which so many people underestimate John McCain.
Conventional wisdom, now-a-days, seems to dangerously ignore the possibility of John McCain offering a real fight to the Democratic nominee, presumably Obama.

The New York Times reported over the weekend that, “lots of conservatives and Republicans expect Barack Obama to be our next president.”
Is it because he’s old? Is it that he hid his medical record? Is it because he’s flown below the radar while letting the democratic nominees make the rookie mistake of exhausting themselves before the real fight?

Whatever the reason for discounting the veteran politician, remember one crucial thing: McCain has been here before.
The man has been knocked down more times than most, and each time, he begrudgingly and counter intuitively finds a way to stand back up and regain any lost ground. He is no stranger to beating the odds.

He’s beat cancer, war imprisonment and torture. He’s beat the predictions of every media pundit back in July, who stood on their pedestal and boisterously called for the rapid self-destruction of McCain’s campaign, after the loss of two key strategists.
Articles are already predicting the quick demise of the republican senator, with the Times already saying things like, “The McCain campaign will be slow taking off… It’s going to be a summer of love for Obama, and a tough few months for McCain.”

His track record shows him routinely beating the odds and champions him as the voice of experience and political know-how.
Obama is foolish if he believes the media, and discounts the competition that seemingly belies him.

It may be safe to say Hillary was but a warm-up.

As Obama and Hillary enter the twelfth round of their boxing match for the Democratic nomination, McCain quietly and comfortably rounds the country on his Service to America bus tour. Meanwhile, he is building an army of regional campaign managers, as was reported in the Washington Post over the weekend. They range from former lobbyists, political experts, and even a former Romney advisor.

I believe it will be a close race if Obama and McCain face off, as long as Obama takes
McCain for what he is, which is a tough and ruthless competitor, and not just an old man looking for one last hoorah.

Obama needs to keep in mind that while he is an unquestionably strong candidate- perhaps one of the strongest ever, McCain has just been around so much longer. And it is not just Obama’s lack of years in the U.S. Senate that puts him at a deficit to McCain in terms of experience. It’s that McCain has learned the intricacies of the battle he faces for the Oval Office, in ways Obama hasn’t yet.

Simply put, the University of Kansas, who will play for the championship tonight, opened its doors in 1866, 29 years after Davidson College. But Kansas has seen a lot more championship action than Davidson, and slowly, but surely, exhausted the inexperienced team, then went for the throat. Tonight, our beloved Davidson is an after-thought.

As the old adage says: It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog- even if the dog is old and has weak hips- or something like that.

Sippin' on gin and (prune) juice

2008-04-10T17:04:00.000-07:00

McCain infuriates me. A mention of his name literally causes me to ball my hand into a fist and smash it into a child. Unfortunately the way the press has covered the elections, issues take backseat to the mega-sporting event spectacular "WHOAZzzzzzz OBAMA AHEAD BY..." aura of the whole ordeal.

For example, rarely does one hear McCain mention his pro-life stance, especially since the primaries have heated up— a brilliant possum strategy unimaginable from the other candidates. Even more perplexing is McCain’s appeal to voters who oppose the war in Iraq, a fact again revealed by the Associated Press exit polls. Consider this snippet from McCain’s own website concerning his position on Iraq:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq. More troops are necessary to clear and hold insurgent strongholds; to provide security for rebuilding local institutions and economies; to halt sectarian violence in Baghdad and disarm Sunni and Shia militias; to dismantle al Qaeda; to train the Iraqi Army; and to embed American personnel in Iraqi police units. Accomplishing each of these goals will require more troops and is a crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development in the country.
That is the first paragraph in the section on his site on Iraq. The “we started it so we have to finish it” mentality is understandable, even honorable, but how is he alone with this stance in winning over voters who oppose the war? The unabashed McCain view is that Operation Iraqi Freedom is simply a means toward the end of securing a U.S. (-friendly) stronghold in the Middle East. On its face, it would regain none of the political capital we have lost among Middle Eastern governments and people on the street over the past five years.

All this seems either brilliant or a perfect-storm kind of confluence that has drawn enough votes to place him ahead of his two major vein-popping, flip-flopping opponents as well as the minister from Arkansas.

But who would McCain appoint to the Supreme Court? Who would he install as Attorney General? Will that person offer more than a whimper of protest when the Patriot Act is up for renewal? How much longer can the struggling U.S. economy finance “operations” in Iraq? Or long can we prop-up the Iraqi non-government? How much can we spend on rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure we’ve destroyed? A few new schools, relative calm in Anbar, and a firestorm of underground resentment don’t quite cut it, Johnny.

Neither does McCain’s tight-rope act.

Heeeeeeeere's Johnny!

2008-04-10T14:35:00.000-07:00

Throughout history, the most powerful have always supplemented their might by giving something back to the huddled masses that, frankly, had no say in their government. Not that they ever had to, but in one way or another, the big guy (or girl) usually found time to give a lil' sum'n sum'n to the little guy.

Marie Antoinette gave her people cake. She didn't know any better, but most French folks are brownie kinds of people, so they ended up cutting off her head for the inconvenience. But it's the thought that counts.

Historians say that Cleopatra fellated her entire army when they returned from a successful campaign. Now, I don't know a lot of guys who are into sloppy 50,000ths but again, it's the thought that counts.

It's just human nature to want to be thought of by other people and the same goes for civilians and their leaders today. We're just apathetic anyway until something goes wrong, so we might as well get some treats along the way, right?

In the end, it's all about knocking the powerful off their perches every now and then. We want to see that even they, with their yachts and jets and islands, still like to do the simple things their predecessors once did, like eat cake and brownies and...well, you know what I'm talking about. We like to think that they are just like us.

The same goes for politicians today, especially for those in the middle of a presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton posed with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa at a King Taco franchise (Hey, I eat tacos!) when she visited Los Angeles. And Barack Obama appeared on Monday Night Football (Hey, I watch football!) a few months back to make a special "announcement".

To quote John Madden: Oi, what a punim!

Speaking of men who know yiddish, John McCain has really took this "I'm just like you only more powerful" thing and ran with it.

For as cheesy and pretentious as his recent Service to America biography tour has been, it is a brilliant stroke of campaign genius. (It's got Karl Rove written all over it, doesn't it?)

When I word associate John McCain, I think of things like prune juice, jazzy chairs, dinosaurs, guys who try to return half-eaten boxes of cereal to the grocery store, things like that.

But it never occurred to me that he was ever in high school until this week.

Having him hit up all the places of his youth—the naval academy in Annapolis, his old high school, the hangar where he first touched American soil after returning from a Viet Cong POW camp—has gotten him in touch with young, prospective voters better than any taco or hat could ever do.

Not that the tour has gone completely without hiccups. CNN reported that when a student at Episcopal High School in Alexandria—McCain's alma mater—asked him what his appearance was about if not political (which McCain has maintained throughout the tour), the grumpy nominee-elect snapped, "I knew I should have cut this thing off. This meeting is over."

But as Obama and Clinton dirty each other with insults and innuendo, it's easy to see how beneficial this bio tour has been for McCain.

It gives him a chance to tell his stories without accusations of editorial and affords him many opportunities to flash that magnanimous, poo-punting grin that has become a trademark for so many powerful Republican politicians; see Bush, George W. (Check out McCain's smile at :58 to see what I mean)

It could be argued that McCain is the favorite right now, although that is taking into account that there is no Democratic nominee at the moment.

How will Obama and Clinton regain national face time?

Well, there's always baseball season for Barack (I got the Cubs winning the Central this year. So should he.)

As far as Hillary is concerned...well...she could always learn a thing or two from Cleopatra.

(To donate to my burial fund, please write all checks payable to Reality Check 2008 c/o herbsao)

Imrpoving his image?

2008-04-03T21:50:00.001-07:00

So I was talking to my mom about politics today - very odd topic for us. She's a staunch Republican and I have no clue what the hell I am...moderate I guess. I'm still formulating my opinions. But anyway, she said something that was pretty interesting...she said: "Voting is a popularity contest these days, especially for young people. It's about the name you know, and how you perceive that name."

So I took a look at this. Maybe that falls into partly why the youth tend to vote Democratic...I mean, Sen. Barack Obama is all about connecting with the people. Sen. Hillary Clinton is an open book - there are no surprises. America has known the ins and outs of her family and history for years.

So what about Sen. John McCain? Doesn't really fit in, huh? He always seemed to me like a robot - you know, one of those military men who got where he is through "loving their country" and "patriotism."
But where was his heart? Where was his sense of family values...or any of his past NOT related to the military?

So I think he got the memo. I think that's what this whole Biography Tour is all about. Stopping at various spots throughout the United States that have mattered most to him throughout his life is a heartfelt way to show America the personal, not political John McCain. And to be honest, it's a damn good idea. Listening to him speak about gaining respect from his father and the importance of his family life growing up, to his days in high school on the junior varsity football team, I finally felt like McCain became a person. Got rid of his robot thing he had going on.

That's what analysts say..that he's using this time to "fix" his image with America before the Democrats can define it for him. And I say, what's wrong with that?

I mean, if my mom's theory holds true at all, the better McCain makes his image, the more votes he's going to get...especially from American youth.

Sen. John McCain speaks in Meridian, MS on Monday - his first stop on his biography tour.

Sen. John McCain speaks in Alexandria, VA on Tuesday - his second stop on his biography tour and the site of his high school.

He went to Annapolis, MD on Wednesday, where he attended the Naval Academy and Pensacola, FL Today. To get more information on those trips and his full biography, click here.

Not so lolcat

2008-04-03T18:15:00.000-07:00

Not to be glib and hold forth on the obvious and feed blogger stereotypes but, c’mon, last month marked five years of Operation Quagmire, which means there are people whose entire college or high school years have been marked by this war, which has meant death, disfigurement, lies, the politics of fear, and our bungling about as a nation inciting hatred abroad and spending deficit money on Halliburton. Had enough yet? Bush will not accomplish any mission in Iraq. He has failed and says it’s up to the next president to finish “protecting our way of life,” or whatever is recognizably left of what we once used to proudly refer to with those words. Helluva job Bushie!

Some fifth-anniversary stats:

90,000 Iraqi civilians dead.
4,000 American soldiers dead.
158,000 American troops still occupying Iraq.
$3 trillion wasted.

"Americans are not casualty averse. They are failure averse," Carafano said. "They were unhappy with the lack of progress and spiraling violence. That is why you have seen public support rebound after it was clear the surge was working."

The number killed in Iraq is far less than in other modern American wars. In Vietnam, the U.S. lost on average about 4,850 troops a year from 1963-75. In the Korean war, from 1950-53, the U.S. lost about 12,300 soldiers a year.

A 2006 Duke University study found that it was 100 times as likely that an American knew one of the 292,000 Americans killed in World War II than someone today would know a service member slain in Iraq.

Yeah EDUCATION!!!!
No end in sight.

The $3 trillion we’ve spent on Iraq could have, for example, brought an end to crushing student debt. Projected spending on the war for next year alone would provide scholarships for 21,552,257 college students but we’d have to get Bush and the scared-to-death Congress people, Bush’s vassals, to want to fund education not occupation.

Media coverage on war dwindles

2008-04-03T17:32:00.000-07:00

About two a day for five years.

Two mothers, two fathers, two siblings two friends; two soldiers whose trips home from Iraq are marked only by a plastic body bag adorned with a folded American flag as a memory of their service.

Each day since the beginning of the war in Iraq, an average of two families have gotten bad news about someone they care about at war.

That’s the news. The bad news.

So even if you open the paper and see no coverage of the ongoing war, because nothing “newsworthy” happened the previous day, know that at least two people are getting news today. And tomorrow. And the next day.

In five years, more than 4000 families have gotten news, of a very personal sort. In that time, beginning with largely sensationalized news coverage of the first bombings in Baghdad, little by little, the mainstream media’s coverage of the war has dwindled.

We’ve gone from 24-hour, first person coverage to only occasional stories about death toll milestones or major events. It’s clear Americans, and their news organizations, have grown accustomed to the war.

Frankly, there just isn’t much conventional news coverage about the war anymore. There are features, and occasional reports. But where Iraq used to dominate front pages when it was new and fresh, our top papers have to resorted coverage consisting of a couple inches buried on an inside page.

Wars desensitize people over time. While still troubling, the gruesome, bloody photos of the carnage overseas that used to invoke tears or even nausea, shown early on by the media, have become so commonplace, that many people say the images and their stories have lost their newsworthy element.

Maybe it’s not that what’s going on is any less newsworthy, but that we have just come to accept that it’s happening, and feel we no longer need the constant daily reminder. It all comes down to the point of reporting news and reading news.

The question then, from a media standpoint, is whether or not the war, droning on each day in an overwhelmingly unchanging fashion, is in and of itself, enough to be called newsworthy. Or, now-a-days, does something more need to happen to warrant valuable page space.

After all, Interstate-10 is packed with cars every morning, but “Freeways clogged again,” doesn’t make for a very interesting front-page headline, now does it?

The answer, it seems, based on the recent performance of the news media, is that Americans know the war is going on now, so news occurs only when something changes. We’ve come to accept the war as the status quo; it’s no longer news.

We accept that two people die a day, so now it’s only news when an explosion kills fifty of more. But what of the two? Why are there deaths not newsworthy?

It’s because we accept that two more will die tomorrow. Don’t forget, the unavoidable side effect of acceptance is complacency. And with complacency comes inaction.

We say “war” but what we mean is “two bodies a day.” When we stop hearing about two bodies a day, we think of war like we think of traffic on Interstate-10, a necessary evil.

That’s not a place this country wants to be.

War, unlike traffic, is not supposed to happen each day. Therefore, for everyday there is a war, news is being made. Let’s not, as a culture or as a news media, deny that two deaths a day is not normal, but is most definitely newsworthy, and should remain in the front of our minds for each day it occurs.

The nature of the news we read about in magazines and newspapers, see on CNN and hear about during presidential debates has changed greatly since 2003.

But tomorrow, two more families will get news in the same way two families did on the first day of the war. To them, tomorrow’s news is by far, the biggest of the entire war, if not their entire lives.

And worst of all, it may not even hit

Obama, Dave Matthews come to Indiana University

2008-04-03T17:24:00.000-07:00

Aiming to get students to register to vote, Barack Obama is sponsoring a free Dave Matthews Concert at Indiana University.

According to students there, the unplanned concert comes as a huge surprise and is another step in Obama's campaign to target students.
"He may be trying to buy our votes, but for Dave, I don't really care," said an IU student.
As can be seen below, Obama has sponsored concerts before.

Jimmy Peanut and Hanoi Jane join Obama

2008-04-03T14:06:00.000-07:00

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama received two more high-profile endorsements this week. One, at least at this point, is technically unofficial and mostly irrelevant anyway. The second however could come to bite Obama in the butt. (If you're in to that sort of thing.)

Let's start with the non-controversial one.

Former peanut farmer and president of the United States Jimmy Carter made an announcement earlier in the week that went as far as words can go to throw support at a candidate without actually endorsing them. In an interview with the Nigerian newspaper This Day he said on behalf of himself and his wife:

"We are very interested in the primaries. Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town, which is home to 625 people, is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro-Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess."

Though off the record, I have it from a reliable authority that Carter's mailman is pro-Obama, too. And his barber, his dogsitter, his acupuncturist, his hangnail, and his two cats, Goobers and Jelly.

And get this. According to Ben Smith at Politico, Carter was in Nigeria apparently for a Guinea Worm Eradication Awards dinner.

Dinner?! Seriously, what kind of food do you serve at a banquet honoring the eradication of a parasite that lives in your body for a year and can grow up to three feet in length before exiting painfully through a blister or open wound? Spaghetti Marinara? Pigs in a blanket?

Now that I got you good and hungry, let's move on to the other endorsement, the one that might fester in Obama's craw like a Guinea Worm in an enflamed digestive tract. (Okay I'll stop.)

I'm talking of course about good ol' girl Jane Fonda, who gave her unofficial endorsement of Obama outside a Los Angeles restaurant. As reported by the Los Angeles Times' Andrew Malcolm:

"Fonda was eating out last night and exited the restaurant, ignoring as celebrities often do the assembled press contingent.

But a video camera was rolling as she approached the street and someone, perhaps just trying to get her to turn around for a picture, shouted out at her back, “Who are you going to vote for?”

There was a moment of silence. Then, the actress did turn around toward the cameras, paused and with a smile said simply, “Obama!” Then she got into a car and drove away."

Here's some video.

This is bad news for Barack. If some of you need a reminder why—or were not born before 1972—here's a brief history on Hanoi Jane.

Jane Fonda has been pissing people off her entire life, WAY before she used the "C"word on the Today show. She's so good at it that she can piss off one group of people, and then a couple decades later, turn around and piss off the people who were originally supporting her pissing off the first group.

In the late 60's, the Workout Queen endorsed the Alcatraz Island occupation, which was supposed to raise awareness for Native American rights. Then she married Ted Turner. But that wasn't what pissed people off. It was when she accompanied her husband to a Atlanta Braves baseball game—a team that Turner still owns and which plays its home games in a stadium in his name—where she was seen doing the "Tomahawk Chop," an ignorant little gesture that would seem at least a little bit distasteful for a supporter of Native American civil rights.

Anyway, a few years after her Alcatraz moment, Jolly Jane somehow found her way to Hanoi, Vietnam where she was seen talking to a group of Viet Cong and resting her buns on an NVA anti-aircraft gun—a gun that shoots down the planes of her home country. The year was 1972, right smack dab in the middle of a violent, unpopular war; a war in which a soldier by the name of John McCain was being brutally tortured not too far away.

You see what I'm getting at?

Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is clapping her hands in delight while sweating her way through Jane Fonda's Light Aerobics and Stress Reduction video.

It's probably a smart move for Mrs. Clinton to be working out.

I heard that Ivan Drago is itching for a rematch.

And to learn more about Guinea Worm and how to eradicate it, please visit the Carter Center website.

Brains vs. beauty?

2008-03-27T20:49:00.000-07:00

Is it true that there's a correlation between beauty and success? I've heard it before. I'm sure you have too. But my guess is that it probably matters what field a person is in.

For example:
--> You want to be a model? Sorry honey, you probably won't make it big if you're ugly.
--> So you want to be a politician? As a man, I'd say it probably helps. But as a woman, does it take anything away from a candidate's credibility?

Hillary Clinton - perfect way to test it out. Take the poll now!

Opinion Polls & Market Research

PETA would be mad: Funny quotes on the campaign trail

2008-03-27T20:31:00.000-07:00

Which quote is funnier??

1) "When we were in college we used to take a popcorn popper -- because that was the only thing they would let us have in the dorms -- and fry squirrels in the popcorn popper," said Mike Huckabee (see the video below)

--OR--

2) "PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air," said Mit Romney laughing about strapping his dog to the top of his car. (see video below)

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Presidential candidates are always talking about how to get us out of Iraq, fix the economy, and improve health care. At least while they're not reminiscing about popcorn-fried squirrels and strapping they're dogs to the roofs of their cars. PETA would probably not be too happy with either Mit Romney or Mike Huckabee for their confessions. Perhaps that's why they're out of the running. However, quotes like these remind us that politicians arent always (or were'nt always) straight-faced fighters. It's always nice to be reminded that politicians are humans too - with a sense of humor and some funny memories to reminisce about.

Vouge'n

2008-03-27T20:09:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton is a fashion plate on the go. She's a coffee, neckerchief and croissant kind of gal. Hilary can answer calls at 3 in the morning while balancing her checkbook and filing her nails. She doesn't bake her own cakes, she buys them at Ralphs. She doesn't need to please her man by sewing on his loose buttons, she'll just buy him a new one from the Regis Philbin collection! As both a senior citizen and a FASHION citizen, this prezzy lady has to think long and hard about what to wear everyday. So what do you think? Which pantsuit and necklace combos best suit this presidential fashionhopeful?

Opinion Polls & Market Research

The poll to end all polls

2008-03-27T19:43:00.000-07:00

What's the most important quality in a presidential candidate?

So there are a lot of ways to answer this question. The middle class may want someone dependable; the rich probably want someone that would make them even richer; the elderly just want a nice shady place to read and talk to themselves.

And what about you kids out there? I know.

You want to fight. But that could be painful so you'd rather watch someone else fight. So put this in your UFC Octagon and smoke it:

Barack Obama v. Hillary Clinton in a no-holds barred cage match.

Who wins?

You decide.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

A defeat for Bush? Maybe he doesn't care.

2008-03-27T19:40:00.000-07:00

In the wake of one of the few Supreme Court rulings that go against the president, many are calling the defeat a huge one for President George W. Bush.

The Supreme Court issued its opinion this week, barring the president of the United States from enforcing International Treaties on U.S. states without Congress' approval.

While countless political pundits have called the decision a major defeat for Bush, who tried to force Texas to acknowledge Vienna Convention and reconsider a death penalty sentence for a Mexican foreign national, it seems it's really a win-win situation for the U.S.

Maybe Bush really didn't agree with the international treaty, but knew the supreme court would assert its global supremacy in the ultimate world arena. That way, without having to take the fall for disregarding the laws of the world court, he could shift the burden onto the supreme court while saying, "I did everything I could." After all, it's better when SOMEONE wins.

So maybe the set up was ripe for American political muscling, and in fact it was a victory for Bush, not a defeat.

Either way, it's not clear he really cares.

Opinion Polls & Market Research

Pew-Wee

2008-03-27T18:06:00.000-07:00

How much do Obama’s pastor’s comments matter? There are pundits now convinced that the Pastor Wright YouTubes have rendered Barack Obama unelectable. Some initial polling suggests the Wright controversy may indeed influence voters. Others believe the controversy has been rightly handled or mostly amounts to a distraction and will have little effect on the election.

Some issues on the table: (1) Was Obama lying when he said recently that he wasn’t aware of the nature of Pastor Wright’s comments and/or was he lying earlier in characterizing his relationship with Wright as “deep”? Could the relationship be both deep and unwitting? (2) Would perceptions that Obama is lying in either case— in the matter of the true beliefs of his pastor— significantly affect perceptions among Americans of Obama’s character and his fitness to be president? (3) Are there a significant number of voters disposed to vote for Obama who have now taken enough offense at Pastor Wright’s comments and Obama’s reaction to them to not vote for Obama in the general election… to either not vote or to vote for McCain instead? (4) Does Obama’s relationship to Pastor Wright and Wright’s church, Trinity United, significantly undercut the legitimacy of Obama’s appeals to a post-racial America? (5) Are Pastor Wright’s comments racist and, if so, should they be subject to the same scorn by Obama supporters as have been the witless comments made and repeated by the Clinton campaign’s Geraldine Ferraro?

Obama’s answer to the Pastor Wright controversy was to provide background on how he came to know and respect Reverend Wright and gave assurances that he never heard the man make these kinds of inflammatory comments; never while Obama was “in the pews” of Trinity United Church nor in personal conversation… Already, of course, the nation’s journa-trashdigger-lists are poring through the church calendars and Obama’s travel schedule to see if Obama might have been in a pew and neither daydreaming nor dozing for some of the reverend’s riffs on “Amerikkka.” So far, neocon New York Times columnist and proven hack William Kristol used his perch at the Paper of Record to declare that, indeed, Obama was in attendance for one of the sermons. Kristol wrote a whole column based around this nugget of information-gotcha, only to be proven wrong and made to write a three-sentence retraction complete with typo (“camapaign”)— the retraction as tossed off as the column, because what else would it be? Pee-ew stanky.

A much more insightful and carefully researched analysis was delivered by Tracy Morgan on SNL...

2008-03-27T18:03:00.000-07:00

Cleaning up a mess from the media:
Obama responds to coverage of Rev. Jerimiah Wright with an honest speech about race relations in America. What was the effect?

The Storm...
This is a clip of one of Wright's sermons that appeared on FOX

The Clean-Up...
This is a clip from Obama's national addrees where he responds to the media's coverage of his minister

The Effect...

After Obama made his eloquent speech about race, the reactions were mixed. Some said the speech was an honest look at the real condition of race relations in America that would help his campaign. Others thought the media coverage of his pastor would severly hurt his campaign. Here's what the numbers say from usnews.com:

"Before the Wright revelations, Rasmussen in its nightly tracking showed Obama ahead of Clinton nationally 48 percent to 41 percent, a statistically significant 7 percentage point lead. On March 18, the day of Obama's Philadelphia speech, that was reduced to a 45 percent to 44 percent lead. The most recent results, reported March 24, showed Clinton ahead 46 percent to 44 percent. In other words, over two weeks, Obama was down 4 percentage points, Clinton up 5 percentage points—major movement, given the usually glacially show movement in Rasmussen numbers."

To watch Obama's entire speech on race relations click here.
To read an interview with Obama conducted by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review about his minister's sermons, click here.

2008-03-27T18:00:00.000-07:00

Obama in the Tabloids:
Misleading article smears Obama in the National Enquirer,
which is owned by a key financial backer of Clinton.

When wandering up to the check-out line at the grocery store, my eyes feel an attraction with magnetic-like force to the colorful, bold tabloids that boast the newest celebrity secrets. Generally it's some superstar on the cover who is either pregnant, is going to rehab, has cheated on their husband, or has gained a lot of weight (it's always pleasant seeing a superstar's cellulite jiggling out of their bikini. I guess celebrities aren't immune!)

I think tabloids are America's guilty pleasure. We all glance at the ridiculous headlines and try not to seem too interested in public, but secretly want to tear through the tabloid and read all the gritty gossip.

I don't see too much harm in reading about Brittney Spears and Lindsey Lohan's latest escapades, but when tabloids creep onto political turf, my heart starts beating a little faster.

This is what happened when I saw this on the front of the National Enquirer:

After reading the article online from someone's blog who had scanned the article and posted it (which has since been removed), I realized that the headlines, like most that appear on tabloids were misleading. This scared me. I saw many customers reading the headlines, but not the article, and as of now, I can't find the article online anywhere. Luckily, I printed it out before it was removed and have investigated the accusations further.

First, and most scary, was the misleading headline that Obama has a close relationship to a terrorist. In today's society, the word terrorism is synonymous with the middle east. Obama's name has led many naive people to believe that Obama is a Muslim. The New York Times said in an article that "some posts even claim Obama is an Iranian agent." The Enquirer headline could only spur more rumors.

If readers read the entire article, however, it would become apparant that the word terrorist is actually referring to Bill Ayers who was a former member of a 1960's anti-american group the Weatherman who was involved with the hippie-era bombings of the Pentagon.

Ayers is now a professor in Chicago who is no longer associated with the activist culture of his younger years. And Obama's relationship with Ayers was not in the 60's, but the 90's when they served together as board members of the Chicago nonprofit the Woods Fund whose "goal is to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area," according to their website.

This type of activity doesn't seem too harmful to me. Since when was helping the less fortunate an act of terrorism?

Yet the article included a photograph of like this one of Obama wearing a turban and Somali clothes that burn a middle eastern image into the minds of paranoid readers.

The two other accusations relied heavily, if not entirely, on rumors. The article quoted a private investigator, Donald Young, saying "There have also been rumors about Barack's personal life and his sexuality" - not quite a definitive source.

I wondered why the Enquirer would run such a story, so decided to look up who owns the Enquirer. I found this on politico.com: "the key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary."

Business Week said this about Altman: "As a former Deputy Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton, he is a player in Washington."

Interesting.

Anyways, the article made me wonder what kind of effect the tabloid attention would have an affect on the public's opinion of Obama. I was shocked, however, when over a week went by before I heard anything about it. I thought, for an instant, that maybe Americans had written it off.

That hope quickly dissolved when Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pictured and briefly mentioned in the article, became the focus of a media frenzy.

I'm not sure that the Enquirer was what led people to look the radical reverend up (although it may have - the article came out the 1st and ABC first ran the videos of Rev. Wright on the 13th), but whatever the cause, people sure have gone nuts. Videos of the minister's passionate sermons are all over the news and web. Googling Rev. Wright and Obama got 638,000 hits and searching Rev. Wright on YouTube pulled up 1,830 videos. The coverage is what prompted Obama to make his national address concerning race relations in America.

Whatever role the Enquirer played in all the mess that has become the democratic race, I have concluded that tabloids should stick with news about Brittney.

Are you hearing this?

2008-03-27T15:07:00.000-07:00

Is anybody out there listening to Barack Obama?

I mean really listening to the words that are coming out of Obama's mouth lately. Had I no idea who the man was, you would have had a better chance convincing me that he was a Martian diplomat than an aspiring POTUS.

I will say this: Obama's recent speeches have seemed like they did come from outer space. And damn, has it been refreshing.

First there was his March 18 speech on race at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia. His eloquent, magnanimous and rich inquiry into the state of racism in this country was the most moving political speech given since John or Bobby Kennedy. It is a little out of date, but I implore anyone who hasn't seen it to sit down for half and hour and watch it. Reading quotes or transcripts does not do it justice.

Up to this point, "A More Perfect Union" has been the Obama campaign's defining moment. And right it should be. It was eloquent without being long-winded, it was intelligent without being pretentious, it spoke to both sides without once patronizing either, it was concise and powerful. We've certainly come a long way since Richard Nixon told the American people about his dog Checkers.

Put it this way: could you imagine President Bush trying to give a speech like that? Pigs would fly Concordes before that ever happened.

What's most striking about the speech is that it was given by a presidential candidate in the middle of a neck-and-neck campaign. We tend to expect pandering from our presidents, not to be spoken to, as Jon Stewart recently put it, like we're adults.

Racism tends to be a political buzzkill, but Barack went for it anyway. Of course, it was necessitated by the P.R. firestorm created by his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, who's heated diatribe/sermons have gone viral on Youtube. Of course, in our media saturated culture, his comments were immediately disseminated on television, where they have been taken out of context and scrutinized for the past month.

Pastor Wright seems to me to be an overzealous, bombastic and polarizing figure. But to call the man a racist or an enemy of unity—and to call Obama the same by extension— as many in the media have suggested, belies a type of ignorance and misunderstanding that's precisely what Barack's speech addresses.

I may disagree with some of the things Wright has said, I might even be offended by others. But that's doesn't give me the right to criticize the man or call him racist. Because the truth of the matter is, I couldn't possibly understand where he's coming from. He's right when he says that Hillary's never been called a nigger. Neither have I and I'm sure most of his detractors haven't either. Perspective is everything.

Let me take you on a trip to the No Spin Zone for an idea. Take a look at how Wright is treated here and then tell me you understand where he's coming from.

I'm not saying that anyone is as obnoxious or disrespectful as Sean Hannity. But his thought that Trinity United is prejudiced because they advertise themselves as a black church is something that many people agree with. But who is Sean Hannity to be calling Wright prejudiced? Who is Sean Hannity to be quoting MLK to a black pastor? It's a shame.

My point is that the issue of race is a complex problem. Debasing it as a public spectacle will only halt the type of dialog that Obama has courageously opened up. Simplifying the idea of race was exactly the problem in the first place.

We have an incredible opportunity to address an issue that has been fundamentally ignored since the 1960's. I know there are other problems in this country right now. Perhaps some of them are more pressing needs than discussing it.

But there may never be a more perfect time than the present to progress race. Barack Obama went out on a limb. Will we follow as well?

Poll test

2008-03-27T13:05:00.001-07:00

Opinion Polls & Market Research

What can Oprah tell us about the election?

2008-03-13T18:14:00.000-07:00

It wasn’t Sen. Ed Kennedy. Nor was it California’s first lady, Maria Shriver. Nope, it wasn’t former Fed Chairman Paul Volker either. And while he may be America’s most eligible bachelor, it wasn’t George Clooney.

So who, then, in the long list of Sen. Barack Obama’s endorsers will prove to be the most important- and most telling- of all?

The answer, in just one word: Oprah.

Don’t get me wrong, every endorser brings voters, and is, therefore important.
In fact, currently, all the candidates seem to be waiting anxiously in the wind, vying for Gov. Bill Richardson’s endorsement, which the Obama camp preemptively, and wrongfully claimed access to this past weekend.

But there is one problem with calling Richardson the Big Kahuna endorser in this election: He is neither a woman, nor black, and therefore can’t speak the loudest for
either group.

Oprah is both, and not only that, but a virtual “champion” of both persuasions. She had to make a choice that necessarily left part of her identity unrepresented. I can’t imagine a louder voice.

As the head of a media empire dominated entirely by female consumers, Oprah went with Obama. So what does tell us about the candidates and how race and gender will play into the election?

Will other black women, or women in general be inclined to abandon their gender roots to vote for Obama?

Studying the list of endorsers for a candidate is a really helpful way to see what direction our nation is heading in, while not entirely indicative of America’s stance on our presidential candidates. So I have provided a list of both candidates’ endorsements, thus far, at the end of this column.

As actress Tina Fey said on Saturday Night Live a few weeks ago,“…Women have come so far as feminists that they don't feel obligated to vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. Women today feel perfectly free to make whatever choice Oprah tells them to.”

When this election process began, I was initially concerned about the effect racial and gender pride would have on the democratic process. Will the old adage “blood is thicker than water” prove true in America’s political context, where blood signifies race and gender and water signifies political views?

Will, for instance black republican voters abandon their political loyalty at the polls to further their racial cause and progression of African Americans in America? We obviously don’t know just yet.

But it seems Oprah’s decision is somewhat telling, because she has never before endorsed a candidate. The question here is not necessarily who she endorsed, but why. Why did she choose this election to sway her masses toward a politician, and not before? Why didn’t she just abstain as she has every other year?

Her decision to stand up for the African American candidate and never a candidate before him may indicate how other blacks will vote if it comes down to issues versus race. Oprah said herself, “I have not one negative thing to say about Hillary Clinton.”

Either of these candidates would further her cause for civil rights justice in America.

Perhaps in choosing, and endorsing a candidate for the first time, she is sending a message to the 47 percent of Blacks who did not vote in the last election, that because she is stepping up for the first time, they should too.

If she had been an avid political endorser in every other election, it would be different. It would be more conceivable that he choice was based on politics. But she chose this election, which has been so centered on race and gender, each of which she represents, it seems questionable that her motives are truly issue-based.

It will be very interesting to see how the additional diversity plays into vote counts in November. Whether racial and gender blood is thicker than political water, we soon shall see.

Certainly in the case of Oprah Winfrey, it seems to be.

Spitzer sputters, Limbaugh stutters and...a tub of butter?

2008-03-13T16:21:00.000-07:00

So Gov. Spitzer couldn’t keep his hands out of the honey pot could he?

Why is it that the most overzealous politicos always seem to have a closeted habit for the very thing they so publicly scorn? Richard Nixon hated the hell out of the “authoritarian” regime in red China, but was so green on the inside he jimmied his way into DNC headquarters. And he was in the lead by double digits at the time! I don’t know if that makes him more insecure or a hypocrite. Maybe he’s just an insecure hippo.

And do you remember Rush Limbaugh? Whenever that bumpkin-bigot wasn’t railing against minorities or gays or Harry Potter, it seemed like he was focusing his self-important wrath on people who take drugs. Here’s a gem:

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. Drug use destroys societies. And the laws [against drug use] are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.” (The Rush Limbaugh Show, Oct. 5, 1995)

Of course, it turns out ol’ Limbo was addicted to Oxycontin. Some reports had his habit at upwards of 30 pills a day. 30 pills? Was he in perpetual labor? That’s enough hillbilly heroin to make Liza Minelli scoff. Cool it, honey baby. Save some for the cabaret!

Then it’s no surprise that Spitzer—for years a staunch enemy of prostitution—had been busy spending over $40,000 of tax payer’s money getting busy with high-end (no pun intended) professionals. You see that stuff smeared all over the former governor’s face? That’s called egg. (No comment on what might be on Kristen’s face.)

The high-rising Spitzer (I got to stop with all the innuendo) had been touted as one of the top Democrats in the country before Client 9 decided to rent out room 871, choking his career limp (now I’m just forcing it).

So that means his resignation Wednesday probably affected the 2016 presidential election more than the upcoming one. But tremors from hooker-Gate might be felt this year. If prospective balloteers needed a reason to be turned off by politics, this could definitely keep some skittish voters away from the polls.

The youth vote should be unaffected by all this. Most of the buzz around campus has been about how much more attractive (if not more trashy by association) 3-Diamond Kristen is compared to Monica Lewinsky. Others have debated what they would feel entitled to for $1,500 an hour (My favorite scenario involved Sock-em Boppers, the back of a Volkswagen and Abraham Lincoln.)

Nobody under the age of 30 has felt disillusioned by the political process. We’re pretty much used to this stuff by now.

But with Bulldog Clinton quickly catching up with O-bama-slama, who knows how much this will affect the delicate balance of the democratic race.

Speaking of delicate balance, did you hear the one with Gov. Spitzer, a prostitute, a tub of butter, a showerhead, and a tea cozy? Neither have I.

She said WHAT?

2008-03-12T19:46:00.000-07:00

With wins in Wyoming this weekend and Mississippi last night, Obama made up all the delegates Hillary gained on him in Ohio and Rhode Island on March 4th. He is also set to add more delegates when the Texas caucus results are finalized.

According to Bloomburg News: “With the win in Mississippi, Obama has now won 29 contests compared with 15 for Clinton. In overall votes Obama has about 13.3 million to 12.6 million for Clinton, based on unofficial returns.”

AP exit polls suggest Obama won 90 percent of the black vote in Mississippi.

Meantime Geraldine Ferraro, former vice-presidential candidate and “unpaid Clinton fundraiser,” as I guess we’re referring to her now, is defending the statement she made to a newspaper in California Tuesday that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, went after her hard, calling her remarks racist divisionary politics. Obama told the Today Show that it was another example of “slice and dice politics … which are about race and about gender and about this and that, and that’s what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way we can’t solve problems.”

Ferraro is standing by the comment but Hillary has begged off. Referencing the “She’s a monster” comments made by Obama adviser Samantha Power earlier in the week, Clinton said: “On both sides, some of our supporters have crossed the line and gotten personal. We have to keep this contest about the issues.”

Ferraro’s comments aren’t racist. They’re just stupid. They are meant to belittle Obama’s accomplishments. The idea that Obama is enjoying special privileges as a black man in this race is to miss the point entirely. The attention he has received because of his race is merely an acknowledgment of the daunting odds against a black man becoming president. For him even somehow to have surmounted the million obstacles, large and small, and make his way as a black man into the arena is one thing. To shine there as he has done is another, gaining support across demographics and leading the race for the nomination. Ferraro is no racist. She’s just another damn fool Democratic leader caught up in the destructive silliness that has taken over this primary race.

Was Clinton’s latest strategy- self pity combined with brute force- a good call?

2008-03-06T23:31:00.000-08:00

I wish presidential debates were looked at more like boxing matches.

Have you ever seen a pre-fight meeting before a highly anticipated boxing match between two high profile boxers? They’re all about strategy.

The fighters stand chest to chest, sweat dripping from their furrowed brows, every muscle flexed beneath open silk robes as they stand on a stage and glare into each other’s eyes. Despite their records in the ring, you can often get a good sense about who’s going to win the impending bout by watching this interaction.

The real strategy comes in the delivery. A good boxer wants to be scary and intimidating, but not overzealous to the point of seeming insecure. Some of them stand on their chairs and yell, curse and threaten.

Others of them, however, don’t say a word. Those tend to be the scariest of all.
Barring the difference in attire, maybe boxing matches and presidential debates really are not all that different.

Tuesday’s presidential debate looked a lot like one of these pre-fight meetings and boxing match.

In what might be the final debate between Sens. Hillary Clinton(D-NY) and Barack Obama(D-IL), Clinton had two boxing strategies.

Her first was to be loud and proud. As she discussed health care and trade policies, she verbally struck down her opponent and rarely let him have the last word. Her other strategy was self pity, saying she has felt victimized in the whole process and that she hasn’t been dealt with fairly by the media.

The question widely asked afterwards was, “was her act believable?” Was this the right strategy coming into what might be her final primaries after Obama’s previous 11-win
streak?

Or should she have been the quiet, contemplative, scary opponent?

As Howard Fineman of Newsweek said after the debate, "Clinton wanted to be Joe Frazier, the relentless one, glaring across the ring for 90 minutes at the infuriating man with quick moves and tassels on his high-laced shoes. She complained about the referees, charged ahead as she had to do. She devastated him with a few power punches-but not enough of them-and didn't level him."

But perhaps it was a last-ditch effort for the struggling candidate, formerly believed to be a shoe-in to the oval office.

Peter Cannellos of the Boston Globe said, “…as the candidate who is trailing, she needed to take some risks and shake things up. In the end, she may have chafed some viewers but succeeded in taking the fight to Obama. Nonetheless, he seemed to emerge unscathed after skating through some verbal thin ice of his own."

Either way, she didn’t knock him down.

In my opinion, her strategy officially, finally, once and for all, killed her campaign.

Here’s why: The impending presidency will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the most challenging of all time, with global terrorism threats on the rise and a failing economy with the weakest dollar in history. She is standing up against a candidate who fought from the bottom, beat the odds and stands strong, while arguing about technicalities and what is fair. Clinton’s boisterous act was transparent; her eyes told a different story.

Appearing on Saturday Night Live was stepping out of the boxing ring to get a cheap shot. Maybe that happens in the entertainment wrestling circuit by brute men in masks, but not in the professional boxing arena. She only hurt her cause.
What Clinton’s latest strategy seemingly ignores and what she fails to realize, is that her bid for the nomination is a great indication of how she will act in the White House. We want a candidate like Obama; The strong, silent winner.
We don’t want a president who will stand on the global stage and argue about what’s fair. What traits was her strategy trying to display?

So is it the size of the dog in the fight or the size of the fight in the dog?
For as much as I despise cliché’s for their prosaic nature and idealistic mentality, it seems the qualities we look for in a president can really be summed up in this way.

The nomination process has evolved to its current status for a reason. It is a test of strength and will for the candidates. We don’t want to pity our president, we want to be led. We don’t need a president who will yell and scream that they’re the best and complain that no one else sees it.

We want a president who is a winner and knows it.

Obama, dazed and confused

2008-03-06T11:16:00.000-08:00

If, as Slate V recently pointed out, Hillary Clinton is like Tracy Flick from Alexander Payne's irreverent film "Election" (1999), then perhaps Barack Obama is like quarterback Randall Floyd from Richard Linklater's high school classic "Dazed and Confused" (1993).

True, the comparison isn't nearly as on point as Clinton is to Flick:

But Obama and Floyd do have some similarities. Whether it was a presidential election or high school, both coasted through these periods on the strength of their charisma, jocularity and good looks. Both are masters of oratory. (Obama: "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential."— Floyd: "It’s best to get it all at once. After the first 10 licks your ass gets so numb you don't feel it.")

For a time, life was good for these two. Obama swept 11 primaries in a row and was riding a wave of voter enthusiasm all the way to the Democratic nomination. Floyd was the captain of the football team on the eve of summer, paddle in hand, his future and a veritable field of to-be-freshman butts in front of him.

But then they reached a crossroads.

Each had to make a decision that could affect that once-promising future. Would Floyd sign the totally uncool anti-drug agreement his fascist coach was forcing on his players, thus making his summer irrelevant and like totally uncool? Will Obama sharpen his attacks against Clinton now that she has vaulted back into the race by winning both the Texas and Ohio primaries, thus jeopardizing the veneer of amiability that has, up until Tuesday, endeared him to his voter base? Will he channel his inner-Chicagoan and take the bat out of the trunk, aiming for the Clinton campaign's knees?

Well, we know Floyd chucked that anti-drug thing right in coach's smarmy face and bought Aerosmith tickets. ("Number one priority of the summer," he said. So cool.)

But only Obama and his advisors know what the future holds for their campaign. He did come out swinging—though jabbing is more like it—this morning. The New York Times was aboard his campaign plane to report on some of his opinions of his opponent.

“She’s made the argument that she’s thoroughly vetted, in contrast to me,” he said. “I think it’s important to examine that argument.”

He also questioned her experience in foreign diplomacy: “What exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It is not clear. Was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer’s no.”

With the Pennsylvania primary looming, it will be interesting to see how sharp his jabs become. Seeing as how Clinton dominated Ohio—and how similar the two states' demographics line up, especially economically—Obama could have a tough time winning there without answering Hillary's attack on his record of experience.

A suggestion to the Obama campaign: get to know Pittsburgh's sports teams. Steelers' quarterback Ben Roethlisberger just signed a contract extension worth over $100 million; Penguins' captain/phenom Sidney Crosby just returned to the lineup after an injury necessitated hiatus. (But don't say it like that, say it more blue collar, like "Good to see Sid the Kid back after some wonk f@#*ed up his leg.")

Just don't bring up the Pirates. That's still kind of a sore subject in the steel city.

It's about time to go, friend-o's so I'll sign off as I usually do with a thought. What if Obama didn't attack Clinton at all, and she in turn had a change of heart. Like the Grinch's, it would swell to three times its size and she would stop being such a Negative Nancy. Could you imagine that, Obama and Clinton just getting along?

Maybe it would look something like this.

Who loves black people the most?

2008-02-28T16:52:00.000-08:00

Is Hill-lolzz playing the race card? The Washington Post’s Marjorie Valbrun made a pretty good case last month that it's starting to look that way. There’s the innuendo and backdoor references to Obama drug use. Then the careless reference to MLK that drew on the idea that if you want to get something done, you gotta ask a white person, a version of Franklin’s co-sign. Her pandering references to her marriage to Bill as “interracial.” Bill Clinton’s New Hampshire red-in-the-face diatribe about the media love affair with Obama, recalling his leveraging anti-Sista Souljah sentiment in the wake of L.A. race riots to distance himself from Jesse Jackson and “establish his white bona fides” during the 1992 presidential campaign…

Yes or no, whether the Hill is or isn’t, Valbrun’s short piece underlines how calculating and unappealing and destructive Clinton politics can be and have been and will continue to be, that history being a core part of Hillary’s vaunted “experience” and what Obama is partly campaigning against.

Valbrun’s conclusion:

“My generation of black voters is politically savvy and well educated. We couldn’t care less about outdated notions of party loyalty. We are not our grandmothers, and no amount of candidate appearances at black churches is going to shape how we vote. We will certainly not sit back and allow Democratic candidates, or Republicans for that matter, to engage in Willie Horton-style tactics, even if the tactics are Willie Horton lite.

If Hillary Clinton competes against Obama fairly and without resorting to covert race baiting, large numbers of black voters will surely embrace her should she be the party’s nominee. If she relies instead on racial fears and stereotypes, we should not give her our votes.”

There will be Barack

2008-02-28T16:20:00.000-08:00

The Oscars were on Sunday. I didn't watch because I was on my way back from a weekend in Vegas. Naturally, there were plenty of stories that came out of the trip. I saw Mike Tyson outside of Pur in Caesar's Palace with five bodyguards he could have tore up with his thumb. He's got sides of beef for shoulders and he still speaks with the voice of a brownie scout, but he's put on a few pounds. I told him I could get him in touch with Mike Huckabee, maybe slim him out a little. He didn't get it, just looked at me like he wanted to bite my ear off.

Anyway, I'll leave most of my stories—along with my money—in Vegas. But I will share another piece of relevant info with you. If Barack Obama truly is the young person's candidate, then Vegas—filled to its seedy, immaculate brim with 20-somethings—should be Obama central, baby!

Spurned by journalistic curiosity and a general alcoholic disregard, I asked as many people as I could who they would vote for if the presidential election was tomorrow. Of the 10 people interviewed under the age of 30, five said Obama, 2 said Hillary Clinton, 2 said Ralph Nader and 1 person said, "Roger Clemens but not Barry Bonds."

I asked 20 people over the age of 30 the same question. This was more interesting. 10 of them said Clinton, 3 said Obama, 6 said McCain, and the last told me about a very sinister place where I could stick my question. It should be noted that a majority of the McCain voters play slots and a majority of the Obama voters play craps. Nader's supporters play poker.

You might have missed it but Ralph Nader did in fact enter the presidential race this week, following through on his promise that if Ms. Clinton was running so would he. Today, he endorsed former San Francisco Board of Supervisor Matt Gonzalez to be his running mate. Here is Nader's assessment of Obama in an interview with Amy Goodman.

I can't remember the last time I heard the term "male distribution of power." Probably some time during Janet Reno's tenure.

Anyhoo, Nader is obviously unimpressed by Obama's rhetoric of change. The question from this point until the convention is whether or not the American public is. And of course the answer is a resounding "Duuuuh."

But my question is why. Why does this strike such a cord now when it freaked people out so much in 2000 they voted for a cheerleader. (Then again, Gore's rhetoric was more along the lines of "change or the Earth will melt!)

I began this post talking about the Oscars. It occurred to me while I was looking for a bookie that would accept a four-way parlay futures bet on Sunday's Awards that the Best Picture nominees at least metaphorically linked to the leading presidential nominees.

I couldn't find anyone that would take my bet (BP: No Country for Old Men; BD: the Coen brothers; Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis; Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem), which is too bad because I would have won.

But the thought remained. The BP nominees (outside of Juno) were all incredibly dark, depressing, cerebral pictures. From an artistic standpoint they were all outstanding. But they were hardly feel-good movies; they were more like "feel-Emo" movies. They received great critical acclaim (hence the nominations) but did terribly at the box office. Nobody wanted to see them.

On the other hand, some of the biggest box office successes (Juno, Enchanted) were some of the more cheerful, sunny, HOPEFUL films you'll ever care to see. They simply made people feel good.

Now extend that analogy to the presidential candidates. (Ah, you see where I'm getting at?) Nominees like the tired, dour old Westerns (No Country for Old Men, There will be Blood; John McCain) have the experience, but are a little sparse on the hope.

People would rather see something smiling, fresh and clever (Juno; Obama). That's what gets people excited to go the theaters, enthusiastic to go to the polling booths.

So which movie would you rather see?

Or...

And in case you were wondering: Obama is a 7:4 favorite to be president in 2008.

(May you rest in peace Hunter S. Thompson)

Convention may change the tide of history

2008-02-28T16:12:00.000-08:00

It’s been a while. 56 years to be exact.

And while a gaggle of political pundits have called it impossible, we might actually see the first brokered Democratic National Convention since 1952 in Chicago.

A “brokered convention” is the term used to describe the horse-trading for delegates that occurs when candidates come into a convention without a presumptive winner. It makes for the most interesting types of conventions.

In times of a brokered convention, the attention turns to the all-powerful super delegates who can be bought and sold- figuratively of course- to sway a nomination. They are charged with the task of taking one candidate to the next level.
Less than 100 delegates currently separate Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL) on their quest to secure the 2,025 necessary for the Democratic nomination. Needless to say, it’s a neck and neck, photo finish. More than ever before, a brokered convention seems conceivable, at the very least, and the democratic super delegates will be necessary to determine the winner.

On the GOP ticket, a brokered convention is less likely, but is possible. The Republican Party hasn’t seen one since 1948. Mike Huckabee, however, is still incorporating a brokered convention into his strategy. He said in a Texas radio interview that his goal is to force a brokered convention, and then show himself as the real Conservative to convention delegates.

But because the real focus is the Democratic race, since neither candidate has emerged as a presumptive nominee, we are forced to ask whether the 56-year brokered convention drought could end this year?

The answer, I think, is it’s still far too early to tell.
While the candidates are so close in delegate counts, about 4 months of primaries and caucuses still loom in the distance and the Convention is not even until the end of August.

Even though Obama had, of late, been on a storied 10-win streak in the primaries, Clinton vows to regain full speed and catch up. In this highly contentious election, honestly, anything, including a brokered convention, could happen. The race could stay close all the way to convention weekend and result in a massive horse-trading session,
or one candidate might just run away with it this month.

But looking ahead, if the DNC is smart, they’ll find a way to avoid a brokered convention. Such conventions are typically viewed as a detriment for the party in which they occur, both because of the apparent existence of instability within the party and because the emerging presidential candidate has less time to campaign by his or herself. In the 1952 brokered convention, Adlai Stevenson was given the democratic nod, but would go on to lose to President Dwight D. Eisenhower months later.

If it’s any indication of how things will play out, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean says a brokered convention would be a disaster.

At different points in history, conventions have meant different things in the scope of a presidential nomination and eventual general election. Brokered conventions are perhaps the most pivotal kind of convention.
So super delegates are more important than ever.

Every election cycle introduces at least one buzzword that becomes part of our American vocabulary. This time around, and due to the importance they will undoubtedly play, that word is super delegates. From jokes at the academy awards to routine articles in the local newspaper, super delegates are popping up in almost every instance of presidential candidacy discourse.

The backroom, conventional wisdom regarding the inception of super delegates stems back as far as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
Both in that convention and in conventions to follow, the unspecified, unwritten role of the super delegates has been to make sure Americans choose the “right” candidate in the primaries and caucuses. Or, at least, they have served as a last ditch effort to make sure we don’t choose the “wrong” one.

When Rev. Jesse Jackson got just a little too close to a presidential nomination in the 1980s, the super delegates were there to knock him down.
In the case of a brokered convention this year, the super delegates would be the impetus to send a black candidate with an Islamic middle name into the general election campaign.
We’ve certainly come a long way since 1968, and should be darn proud of it.

But in the interest of American politics, a brokered convention might serve to weaken the process in a time when our political parties need to be completely sure of themselves, their candidates and their platforms. Hopefully between now and August, both parties find a way to bring rise to a presumptive candidate, because after all, the real focus is on the general election.

But whether or these conventions change history, they’re undoubtedly bound to be interesting.

Obama, the youth vote, and the war in Iraq

2008-02-28T13:05:00.000-08:00

So yeah yeah, we all know Barack Obama is the king of the youth vote. The reasons behind it are obvious - a young new face, a promise for change, a passion that can be heard behind each and every word of his speeches. We get it. But let's break it down into specifics now, shall we?

Each presidential issue can be discussed at length - health care, immigration, the economy, etc. But for this blog post, let's focus on the war in Iraq. Why that topic specifically? It's simple. The youth care about the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The youth care about the men and women fighting abroad. The youth care about the lives of potential soldiers, who may risk their lives in the line of duty.

What youth care about

I'm not saying adults don't care about our armed forces. Of course any patriotic American will support our troops, regardless of their stance on the war itself. But let's make this comparison for a second. The war in Iraq has spawned the first overarching anti-war movement from the young demographic since Vietnam. That means this group would clearly support a leader who is also against the war in Iraq, right? Right.

And just so you know, I'm not saying every single young person agrees or supports this anti-war sentiment. But the vast majority have risen up against the George W. Bush administration and its handling of the war. Don't believe me? According to a Rockthevote poll, out of 668 people people within the ages of 18 and 29, 68% thought the U.S. is on the wrong track. Only a quarter believed it to be on the right track.

According to the same poll, 12% believed the war in Iraq to be the most important issue facing any potential president. It was the second most important issue, closely following jobs and the economy at 17%.

Where Barack Obama fits in

So we said that it would only make sense if this particular anti-war, youth demographic supported a leader who was also against the war. That removes John McCain from the list immediately. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. After all, according to cnn.com, McCain:

"Voted for use of military force in Iraq. Supported Bush veto of war spending bill that would have withdrawn most U.S. troops by March 2008. Was an early proponent of sending additional American troops to Iraq."

That's not the kind of guy that the 69% of youth who want to withdraw at least some troops from Iraq will want as their president.

With McCain pretty much a shoe-in for the Republican candidate, that leaves the Democrats - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. If you listen to any debate these two have, you will hear both candidates' opposition to the war in Iraq. But keep one thing in mind. It wasn't always that way.

According to cnn.com, Clinton initially voted for military force in Iraq although she says now that she would have voted differently "if we knew then what we know now."

Barack Obama has been the one face in the crowd that has always opposed military force in Iraq from the beginning. Not only did he vote against it at the start, he also once called for troop withdrawal to begin by the end of 2006.

Here's a video of Obama speaking in 2002 against the war.

Obama vs. McCain

Yesterday Obama and McCain exchanged some words with each other about the situation in Iraq. McCain referenced one of Obama's debate answers and questioned his knowledge of an al Qaeda presence in Iraq.

According to CNN's report, McCain said: "I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq. It's a remarkable statement to say that you would send troops back to a place where al Qaeda has established a base -- where they have already established a base."

Obama answered back to the comments by saying there was a misinterpretation and that he was answering the question hypothetically. "McCain thought that he could make a clever point by saying ,'Well let me give you some news Barack, al Qaeda is in Iraq,' like I wasn't reading the papers, like I didn't know what was going on." Obama continued to say: "Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

The speech where Obama makes those statements is below.

In this past week McCain has confessed that his stance on the war may affect his chances for the presidency. I am not sure the answer to that question, but I can tell you this. When it comes to the youth, anyone FOR the war in Iraq is NOT the candidate for them. Case is point - Barack Obama.

Obamlinton Campaign Stops

2008-02-21T17:56:00.000-08:00

A scattered potpourri!

View Larger Map

How did youth vote? Clinton or Obama?

2008-02-21T17:19:00.001-08:00

View Larger Map

Fraternity political parties?

2008-02-21T17:05:00.000-08:00

USC's Theta Chi is hosting a political rally, where they're hoping USC students will come out and support their candidates. They're calling it "Super Saturday" and there will be plenty of "games" to help each side prove their candidate is the best suited by USC standards.

This is the way it works. The admission is one dollar per person. You put that dollar into your candidate's box, and it will count as your vote. At the end of the night, all of the "votes" will be counted up to get the winner. However, unlike typical voting policy, if you want to support your candidate more, you can throw more money into the box.

Seems like just another way to get money, right? Well, it probably is. But think about it this way. Their target audience is college students. That is where the money will be coming from. Theta Chi wants to earn money for their fraternity by getting the most amount of students possible to show up to their house Saturday night. So why not a concert? Why not a themed dance party? Something that students our age probably would pay money to go to.

Why would they bank on politics, especially when kids our age apparently "don't care" one bit about voting, or the elections, or supporting a candidate? Hmm...do I see a change in the political climate of the youth demographic?

Well, maybe...maybe not. Maybe it is just this: an excuse for all-you-can-drink alcohol and a social atmosphere. That might very well be the case. But if it is, who's to say that none of those students that go to "Super Saturday" will listen to the kids who actually care and get more interested in the elections?

It turns out to be a bit of a chicken or the egg scenario. Care about politics, then go to the party...go to the party, then care about politics. Either way, chances are, a party like this would have been a huge flop four years ago. And now, according to Facebook.com, close to 70 people are confirmed guests. That's something.

If you are a part of Facebook.com, click here to confirm yourself as a guest for this party or find out more about it.

Democrats deadlocked down south

2008-02-21T16:47:00.000-08:00

It may be 12 days away, but campaigning in Texas has already begun. With how close the Democratic race is, and with 193 delegates on the line on March 4 awarded in Texas alone, there hasn't been a bigger contest for Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. So far, each candidate has spoken at numerous stops within Texas, and both plan on giving plenty more speeches in the next week and a half.

For Clinton, who has slipped a great deal since Super Tuesday, Texas could be the momentum swing she has been looking for and needing. She has focused much of her energy on Texas and Ohio since Super Tuesday, neglecting some states along the way. Critics have questioned this method, but it could all pay off for the New York senator if March 4 goes according to plan.

So far, the polls in Texas are neck and neck. Below are some of the speeches both candidates have made since they've been down south.

These speeches may not be complete; however, the full speeches can be found at Youtube.com with the simple search of Clinton Texas or Obama Texas.

Hawaiin youth perspective

2008-02-21T15:51:00.000-08:00

Sen. Barack Obama took Hawaii handily on Tuesday with 76 percent of the vote. Hawaii, where Obama was born and spent much of his youth, was covered extensively in the news for the first time in ages. Perhaps it was because of the personal connection Obama has with the state. Perhaps it was because Hawaii could, and did, become Obama's tenth straight state victory over Sen. Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it was because the Democratic battle is the closest it has been during the primaries in a while, and is occurring during an election year that could potentially become one that goes down in history.

But Hawaii, hours and hours off the coast of the mainland, typically gets ignored in coverage. In fact, neither Democratic candidate visited the state, but rather stayed in Wisconsin to do some last-minute campaigning. Coming toward the end of a tiring campaign trail, the travel time and time difference makes the distance of Hawaii a bit foreboding. Besides, the state only offers 20 delegates compared to the more promising victories the candidates can achieve in other states. Frankly, Hawaii is too inconvenient to bother with. Instead, Clinton sent her daughter Chelsea and Obama sent his sister Dr. Maya Soetoro-Ng.

But the truth of the matter is, Hawaii has been in the news. And after Texas, Hawaii sends most out-of-state students to USC, so it was easy to catch up with a few to see what they thought about the attention as well as the candidates.

“Its’ really kind of exciting for Hawaii especially," Jon Yu said. "Usually we don’t get very much attention.” He said he'd be voting for Obama. When asked if the fact Obama is from Hawaii factors in at all, Yu said: "Of course. Everybody wants to vote for the person who he feels most in tuned with. Whether that be because of beliefs or origin, hey, it's still connection."

Brian Chung, another USC student, said, “I also plan on voting for Barack Obama because of his stance uniting the country together. I feel its very important, but also because he went to my school.”

Somebody once told me that if a candidate can reach a person on five different levels, he or she will get the vote. If a common birth state, school, understanding of an island, etc. is factored in, it's no wonder Obama took Hawaii in stride.

McCain's got love for the lobby

2008-02-21T15:05:00.001-08:00

If the New York Times hadn’t been the ones to break Lobbygate I would have probably dismissed it. But considering the reputation the newspaper has, as well as the astonishing number of reporters who pursued the story (how many NY Times reporters does it take to bring down the Republican nominee-elect for president? 4—plus two researchers) this really has my attention.

In case you missed it, the Times published a report Wednesday evening (EST) on their website detailing the relationship between Republican 71-year-old John McCain, the all but nominated nominee for president, and the 40-year-old Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist for media mogul Lowell W. Paxon. Iseman by the way, looks eerily like a younger version of McCain’s wife.

The article, which for the most part received its information from anonymous aides within the McCain campaign, stated that Ms. Iseman had been showing up often at McCain fundraisers, been taking private flights with the senator on a client’s corporate jet, even making numerous personal visits to McCain’s office.

His aides became convinced that the relationship had become romantic and they began taking steps to cut off the candidate’s contact with her for fear that word of it would get out, especially when media outlets started running stories about McCain writing letters on Paxon’s behalf. The article alleges that aides actually blocked her access several times when she visited, warned her about her actions in private, and even approached the senator about the prudence in cooling off his Boeing jets.

When these warning went unheeded, the aides decided to—for fear that word of McCain’s affairs would get out—get the word out. In all fairness to the McCain camp, both the senator, who has known about the article for months, and Iseman have denied the allegations that they were having an affair.

So what will the fallout look like?

Obviously, it won’t affect his standing as the Republican nominee (but wouldn’t that be the miracle the Huckabee camp has been waiting for? Or one of them at least).

But it will certainly change the way McCain is going to run his campaign against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. As a candidate who has staked his value set to a platform of campaign finance reforms and revolutions in the way politicians make policy, this Lobbygate business has dumped a big bucket of ironic paint all over McCain’s face that his Democratic opponent would have to be blind and unscrupulous to miss. So unless Dick Nixon and Stevie Wonder have a tone-deaf kid that wants to run for president, McCain going to have to reign in the barbs if he doesn’t want to this brought up nine months from now.

People will forget this happened. There aren’t enough details to keep people interested for the next few weeks, much less the coming months. And I don’t see that creepy voyeur Ken Starr hanging around in the bushes so I doubt there will be any more naughty specifics to report.

But should McCain’s attacks get too numerous or too spurious, the Democrats have one hell of a bullet to fire back.

As far as the kids are concerned, if you’re worried about losing the youth vote Senator McCain, there are always television commercials. Don’ be like Bob Dole. Don’t wait until after the election to prove to the kids that, though you may be an old veteran, you’re still virile.

Make it happen Cialis. Make it happen.

Students organize around Obama

2008-02-20T09:52:00.000-08:00

View Larger Map

Adding to the list of campaign qualities unique to Barack Obama, a student army backs the impending democratic nominee in a magnitude not seen in any of the other campaigns. Students for Hillary and Students for McCain remain disorganized and meager. The following is a map of the Students for Obama campaign offices in California alone. There are more than one thousand in the United States, including one right here at USC.

Room Service for 1,000?

2008-02-19T13:57:00.000-08:00

Obama likes it cushy. What? According to the LA Times’ Travel Blog, the Chicago dreamboat’s campaign has spent almost $300,000 more on luxury hotels than Hil-Hil, and almost $500,000 more than McCain’s campaign. What’s going on Barack? Did Obama girl and her sorority sisters run you dry? You don’t want to be that candidate, and now your wife is especially going to kick your ass. Holiday Inn Express’s website uses a “Smart Meter” that calculates how much each candidate would’ve saved if they had stayed in their cheaper, more conservative abode, than champagne parties at fancy digs. Here’s the rundown:

Which campaigns spent more $$ on hotels?
Republicans vs. Democrats: Democrats! ($1,753,000 vs. $2,083,000)
Obama vs. Hillary: Obama! ($833k vs. $503k)
Romney vs. Giuliani: Romney! ($708k vs. $509k)
Romney vs. McCain: Romney! ($708k vs. $361k)
McCain vs. Huckabee: McCain! ($361k vs. $42k)
Laurel O’Connor, current lifestyle marketing for Holiday Inn Express in Dallas, gave some examples, gleaned from the expenses and donations that each candidate files with the Federal Election Commission:

Obama’s campaign spent $1,798.34 at the Beverly Wilshire hotel in L.A. If you booked a standard room at that hotel tonight, it would cost approximately $545 based on info provided by its website. In contrast, the Holiday Inn Express Century City would run $199 for a standard room this evening.Clinton’s campaign spent $2,436.59 at the Fontainbleau Resort in Miami Beach. If you booked a standard room at that hotel tonight, it would cost approximately $350 based on info provided by its website. In contrast, the Holiday Inn Express Miami-Airport (near Miami Beach) would run $209.99 for a standard room this evening.Romney’s campaign spent $11,700 at the Mandarin Oriental New York Hotel. If you booked a standard room at that hotel tonight, it would cost approximately $530 on info provided by their website. In contrast, the Holiday Inn Express Madison Square Garden would run $249 for a standard room this evening.

Well the real story is, what the hell is Romney doing spending $700,000 on hotels? I mean besides the fact that Mormons ARE supposed to be heavy drinkers and all….

Obama's got 8-straight, a crush and a Japanese fishing town

2008-02-14T15:07:00.000-08:00

Today is Valentine's Day and love is in the air. Love for Barack Obama that is.

O-bama-slamma swept this week's Potomac Primaries, taking Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. in dominating fashion. The wins have now given Obama 8 straight primary victories and have propelled the Democratic presidential candidate to his first delegate lead since the Iowa primary. His recent swell in the polls have brought many analysts to begin calling him the favorite.

Key to his improbable run up the delegate charts has been his appeal to what have up until now been dependable demographics for his opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton.

Obama was favored in all three Potomac states among lower-class whites, working-class whites and minority women, all of whom had typically been Hillary's crew. The only demographic that seems to remain at her side are white women.

And don't think that this hasn't affected Ms. Clinton. She appeared at a recent rally
in Ohio with boxing gloves, a symbol for what will be a more aggressive smear campaign against Obama. She has been quoted as describing the attack phase of her campaign as "fun" and "exciting."

"There's a big difference between us -- speeches versus solutions, talk versus action," Clinton has been quoted saying.

She even fired her campaign manager earlier this week. Clinton will now focus on winning the upcoming Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4. The most overheard adjective describing her campaigns there has been "must-win."

Yep. Things are looking pretty darn lovely for the junior senator.

But it doesn't end there. Obama even has a town named after him in Japan.

Okay, so the town has always been called Obama, but hey publicity is publicity, even if it's on another continent.

The Associated Press's Junji Kurokawa wrote a story today detailing how the fishing town 250 miles west of Tokyo is suffering from a bad case of Obamania.

Posters of the Obama the Man hang all around Obama the Town, even in the foyer of its largest hotel. Barack's face adorns everything from T-shirts to headbands, which have been some of the most popular items in the town's souvenir shops. Confectioners have even started baking sweet bean cakes displaying the man's face. Talk about some sweet P.R.

Obama's mayor plans on sending a large, lacquerware (another thing the town is famous for producing) doll with the Japanese character for "victory" sprawled across it.

There's one more thing. It is Valentine's Day and I just couldn't resist. You may have seen this floating around that campaign hotbed known as Youtube.

Things sure are looking up for Obama.

Obama Boy?

2008-02-14T01:22:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Sen. Obama knocked down the so-called Potomac Primary— that is, the combined primaries of Virginia, Maryland and Washington DC. Basically, the man lofted a long three-pointer and swished without even so much as a hand in his face. Voting statistics suggest the victory came as a result of Obama’s widest demographic appeal to date. In addition to his usual coalition of young people, well-educated people and young and well-educated and every other kind of black people, he drew the support of folks across all income brackets. White women as a group reportedly remain the last bloc of Hillary supporters, although that may be changing.

Henry Jenkins is a professor at MIT and co-director of the university’s comparative media studies program. In addition to writing great forward-thinking books on media and popular culture, he is a persuasive public advocate for the rights of digital-era fans, gamers, bloggers. He defended gamers against legislative backlash after the Columbine school shootings, for example, made calls for increased media literacy with the Federal Communications Commission, and has made the case repeatedly in various settings for a more consumer-oriented approach to intellectual property. He is, as Mimi Ito put it this past weekend at the USC 24/7 DIY Video Summit, one of the “superheroes of the internet” whose work in championing the tastes, activities, and intelligence of everyday people is an inspiration.

It came out at the Summit that Jenkins is, in his words, “an Obama boy.” He explained why in a way that reflects his thinking about how society has changed in the network era. “Adult leaders tend to talk about ‘I’ but young people online talk about ‘we’ … The difference between the ‘I’ campaign based on experience, a la Hillary, and the ‘we’ campaign based on bottom-up energy, a la Obama, speaks to two different models of what political change might look like… We don’t want to go back to the centralized mindset… I don’t want a president who feels my pain. I want someone who will get us to work together to solve the problem.”

A link to the video: http://de.sevenload.com/videos/czjS3UW/I-am-an-Obama-Boy

McCain, don't get excited just yet

2008-02-13T08:27:00.000-08:00

The traffic ruined everything.
Had it not taken more than two hours to get from downtown Los Angeles to Beverly Hills on the morning of the California presidential primary, I would have gotten to watch Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vote and then ask him the usual barrage of election day questions.
But there was traffic, and lots of it.
Amid my steaming frustration, staring down miles of seemingly endless freeway at a dead stop before the clock even struck 7:30 a.m., I realized something was missing. It didn’t feel like an election day.
In more than three hours in the car en route to Beverly Hills and back downtown, there were only four small signs promoting presidential candidates, and they were all above freeway overpasses, almost too tiny to read.
Every one belonged to the democrats, specifically Sen. Barack Obama. Not one for Sen. Hillary Clinton, not one for Sen. John McCain, not one for Mitt Romney, not one for Mike Huckabee or even Ron Paul. As if the lack of campaigning on the part of republicans was to be an indication of the turn out that day, less than one million republican voters opted for the inevitably victorious candidate, McCain.
There are more than 36.4 million in the entire state. And only about 986,000 came out to support the candidate who will probably take office if a Republican is given the nod next November.

Clinton, the leading democrat, garnered more than two million votes, personally.
So what happened? Why did McCain get the shaft, even considering the generous boost given by our state’s increasingly moderate governor?
Maybe it was because his wife, Maria Shriver endorsed Obama, for what that’s worth.
According to CNN exit polls, 70 percent of Californians who strongly support Gov. Schwarzenegger voted for McCain. Maybe his endorsement meant something after all.
“When it comes to choosing a presidential candidate, for decades California wasn't important. Now it is," said Schwarzenegger in the USA Today.
To get less than million votes as your party’s front runner in a state this size while supported by a governor as popular as Schwarzenegger should send a clear message to McCain about what he needs to do if he is going to emerge victoriously in November. He’s going to have to do more than get former candidate Rudy Giuliani to jump out from behind a curtain on Jay Leno’s tonight show and surprise the audience as McCain’s new best friend.
He’s going to have to connect with republicans in a way he has yet to find, because as we’ve seen in a number of elections, the momentum he carries with him now, which may well launch him into the GOP nomination, may not be an indication of how voters will act in the general election.
Simply put, McCain is going to have to do something.
Yes he found a friend in Schwarzenegger, yes he found friends at the Los Angeles Times, who declared that "he has waged a principled and persistent effort to end the Bush administration's embrace of torture as a weapon of war, a frightening concession to terrorism and an abdication of basic American values."
But his staunch criticism for supporting the series of immigration bills that would have increased the chances of citizenship for about 12 million illegal aliens in this country, and also his co-authorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law has made him enemies in his own party. He also voted against President Bush's tax cuts and for banning same-sex marriage. The point to be made here is this: Primaries are sometimes and indication of how a candidate will fair in the general election. This one is not. McCain is a front-runner, but only because conservatives see no other viable candidate. There will be no Mike Huckabee to pull him up by his bootstraps when facing Clinton or Obama.
A Field Poll, however, found that McCain and Clinton would garner approximately the same amount of votes if this were the general election. But the poll has McCain losing to Obama by about seven points.
If McCain walks away from California with a smile on his face, it should be because he is still in the race, not because he has sealed a presidency. He should take the clear and deliberate message sent to him by California’s voters and change his tune, rapidly, if he wants to become the next president of the United States.

Election Merch Kaliedescope

2008-02-07T21:51:00.000-08:00

Supporters show their enthusiasm for their favorite candidates with pins, shirts, signs and more.

2008-02-07T21:43:00.001-08:00

Come read my newspape r

Snapshot of youth supporters

2008-02-07T21:41:00.001-08:00

Check out presidential candidates reaching out to young voters across the country.

Face-off '08

2008-02-07T21:23:00.001-08:00

In our media saturated culture, nothing is sacred. Everything--from the LAPD to Britney Spears' choice in underwear--can be scrutinized.

This is especially true for the major presidential candidates. Sarcasm has never felt so patriotic.

Our apologies to McCain fans, but it would be like shooting very slow fish in a very small barrel to include him here. We respect Mr. McCain and his courage through adverse times and his noble, wizened jowels.

The faces of presidential speeches

2008-02-07T21:04:00.000-08:00

Multimedia message

2008-02-07T19:12:00.001-08:00

Clinton supporters cheering when they watched on a big monitor that Clinton won California.

How the heck do the primaries work?!

2008-02-07T15:52:00.000-08:00

I kid you not, I just googled Primaries for Dummies. I am officially no longer in denial. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PRIMARIES. There, I admitted it. I feel like I am declaring my stupidity and shunning myself into some inept-voter oblivion. But judging by several conversations with fellow students, I doubt I'm alone in my confusion. How the heck do the primaries work?! And...please, somebody tell me what the hell a super delegate is (I have an image in my mind of a delegate wearing a blue spandex suit and red cape flying through the air with a giant pencil in hand, thrusting forward to go vote...not the most appetizing image).

I thought that my "primaries for dummies" search would bring me to some site that would explain the process in clear, layman’s terms and make me feel pathetic for not understanding before. But, I was wrong. After scouring the internet, I have concluded that the primaries are just ridiculously confusing! However, since I have done all the investigating, I will do my best to summarize my findings.

Ok...here we go.

The number of delegates a state gets is based BOTH on the population AND the number of registered voters. The equation gets complicated. Look at the table below to see the breakdown. And if you don't believe it's confusing,
Check out this LA Times article called Formula on delegates may muddy the field in California primary - it will confirm that confusion is justified.

Now...how do the candidates win a state?

Both parties do things differently...

For the Democrats the percentage of the votes a candidate gets corresponds to percentage of delegates the candidate wins. For example, consider a state with 20 delegates at a democratic convention with three candidates. If candidate "A" received 70% of all caucus and primary votes, candidate "B" 20% and candidate "C" 10%, candidate "A" would get 14 delegates, candidate "B" would get 4 delegates and candidate "C" would get 2 delegates.

For some states, republicans use a "winner takes all" approach. Which ever candidate gets the most votes wins all the delegates in that state.

Now...what does it mean to win a delegate?

Most delegates are required to vote for the candidate who won in their district. Which means, that the delegate votes will reflect the same percentage of the votes the candidate won (same example as above). However, there are some delegates who are not legally bound to vote the same way.

Duh da da da...Enter Super delegates

Super delegates are current elected office holders (congress, governors, or those with other substantial roles) who aren't bound to vote the same way at the party convention. They were created in 1980 to give party officials the power to shift who earns the ticket(otherwise the primaries would basically be the final word). They also are allowed to vote for candidates that aren't even on the ballot. Weird, I know.

So what does this all mean? Do the primaries decide which candidate will get the party nomination?

Well, you would think! But no. That's not how it works in the wacky world of the primaries. What ultimately decides which candidate will win the party ticket is the party convention. Generally, the person who wins the primaries wins the ticket. But, there is no rule! The party could ultimately choose someone different (although they probably won't).

FACT:

THE PRIMARIES ARE WIERD, WACKY, HARD TO UNDERSTAND POLITICAL SHINANIGANS!!

Anyways... the democratic national convention will decide who wins the democratic ticket. The convention will be in Denver, CO August 25-28 (ahhh...you mean we have to wait that long, listen to all that boring, endless analysis? Yes. You do.) It is usually earlier, but they are postponing it until after the Olympics.

HA HA republicans. You have to wait too! Even longer! The republican national convention will be in Saint Paul, MN September 1-4.

Supa, Dupa.

2008-02-06T18:37:00.000-08:00

SUPER TUESDAY in the life of a USC grad student:

This is a record of how Chris Nelson's day unfolded, as he struggled with the decision, tried to make sense of those over-hyped California ballot propositions, hounded his friends for their opinions, took pictures, voted, shot time-lapse video from his rooftop, and wandered around his neighborhood. Super Tuesday, indeed.

7:45 am:
My alarm goes off. First thought in my head: I hate my goddamn alarm. Second thought: It’s Super Tuesday and I still don’t know who the hell I’m voting for. Snooze.

7:50 am:
Still hate my alarm. Still don’t know who I’m voting for. Snooze.

7:55 am:
I have to find an alarm with a 10 minute snooze. I also have to get up and move my car from a meter spot. Is anyone campaigning against the L.A. County Parking Mafia?

8:15 am:
Back in bed. Too much work for school, need to hide from it for a while longer. Under covers. Wifey comes in and laughs at me. She’s Canadian and so can’t vote but has been a Hillary supporter from Day One. Why is the choice so obvious to foreigners? “It’s obvious to anyone with a brain,” she retorts. Ouch. I’m positive her tone had nothing to do with the fact that I had just crawled back into bed as she was leaving for work.

10:30 am:
The stress of all my work, of thinking about going from Hollywood to USC to Studio City to USC to Hollywood throughout the course of an 8 am to 10 pm day while fighting a cold on top of the weight of my impending civic duty was enough to finally chase me out of bed in a panic. Is there such a thing as pity for a man who wakes up at 10:30 am on a Tuesday? Worth a shot.

10:55 am:
Make some coffee. Fire off some emails. The wheels are turning. I start bombarding my friends with IMs to see if/how they have voted. I get wildly different versions of the same response.

11:15 am:
I check Facebook. People’s status messages are rife with Super Tuesday slant. From the benign “Get out and vote” to many more specific messages in favor of Obama. The manifestations of a) heavy interest among the under-thirty voting bloc and b) the overwhelming support for Obama among those people are abundant. I’m actually starting to think for the first time that he can really pull this off.

11:30 am:
Stupid California ballot propositions. If I see another sad, disenfranchised American Indian on TV standing in front of a corn field with his distraught compatriots…

11:45 am:
I tell my Hillary-hating friend Max that I am leaning toward Obama. He tells me that “twenty years from now, they won’t stone you.” I knew I was in this for something.

12:00 pm:
That’s it. Going to the L.A. Times website. Check their positions on the Props. Voting how they tell me to. Am I a sheep? An irresponsible citizen of a democracy taking my civic duty lightly? Perhaps. As I try to find impartial information from other sources, I hear a story on KCRW (L.A.’s NPR affiliate) about how the ballot measures in this state are completely out of hand as vehicles for special interest groups and lobbyists to covertly advance their positions. Going with The Times.

3:00 pm:
The deed is done. I woke up in a fog of cold virus, lack of sleep, and indecision. By 3 pm though I was convinced that I was part of something bigger, something meaningful, significant, a watermark in American history, something people will study with fervor for years to come. Just as I had seen all over USC campus the previous week, Obama was everywhere. At least in my universe. The notion that my few square blocks of campus and Hollywood are a microcosmic representation of the United States is far-stretched at best. But it sure as hell seemed that way.

3:30 pm:
Driving in my car to Culver City for a different assignment: a ride-along with Culver City police for my reporting class beat. See how cops spend Super Tuesday.

(turns out it’s busting 27-year-old, Jaguar driving, shoplifting parolees at Target, which puts a whole new spin on the epic sense of “hope” everyone is experiencing just because a few people get up and talk about how we can change pretty much everything that’s wrong with our country today by casting a vote. Hanging with cops brought the cynicism back full-force. Go figure.)

As I’m driving, I hear that Obama has won Georgia. An African-American dominated vote, but nevertheless, the first called victory of Super Tuesday goes to my choice. My man. The man with the plan.

10:00 pm:
After six hours with the Culver City Police, I am exhausted and greased from all the buttering up they do even to a measely student journalist. Don’t get me wrong. They were extremely nice. But I’m constantly in awe of how I’ve gotten by far the friendliest responses from the police when city councilmembers and supervisors won’t give me the time of day. Hell, a contractor won’t even call me back, but the cops took me out for a bbq dinner. I left trying to figure out which way was up. But that’s another story…

10:05 pm:
DAMMIT. Dammit dammit dammit. Clinton won California? How are the calling it with only 35 percent of the polls reporting? Absentee ballots? Something is messed up here. People casting votes months ago when McCain was on his last leg, Giuliani was the front-runner, and Obama was a blip on the 2008 radar that had a Hillary-supporting nation wondering why he just doesn’t wait another eight years. It felt like a sledgehammer to the temple. How could the progressive stronghold of the U.S. vote overwhelmingly in favor of the establishment? Or was I just bamboozled and lashing out at myself for taking the bait?

10:15 pm:
I call a few people. Calm down a bit. It’s sinking in. If this were the Republican primary, it would have been a Hillary slaughterhouse, but thanks to the proportional distribution of delegates, Obama is less than 100 shy of her count. I didn’t even know I was voting for the guy as of this morning, yet once the ballot was cast, I have felt such an emotional attachment to the cause. A large portion was probably personal validation, but hope is a strong word. Audacious even. (wink!)

Hope does cast a spell. A potent one. When Obama speaks, style is the substance. The thought of having someone so inspirational, so dynamic, such a poet of the public address, had become a sort of spiritual elixir. I know all of his supporters’ fingers are secretly crossed that he will have the acumen to wisely choose cabinet occupants should he get elected president. No one is entirely sure who his close friends and cohorts are— but as that presidential figurehead… man would he be awesome!

Turns out nothing was decided on Super Tuesday (except maybe that I will never shoplift at a Target). The choice for the Democratic nomination is out of my hands. Strange thing about this democracy of ours. It’s so easy to get charged up by enacting our most basic of civic rights. It’s stressful even. Especially when it all ended with a whimper and not a bang.

Voters Go On Record—Anecdotes and Empowerment

2008-02-06T17:42:00.000-08:00

“Yes, I was enthusiastic because it was my first time voting. It was exciting. I was kind of nervous; I didn’t want to do it wrong. But when I was done, I felt accomplished. I did something grown-up and participated in something special.”

Justine Garcia, Junior, Policy Planning and Development

"It took me all of about 30 seconds. I spent the morning reading up on the propositions, researching and figuring out my S's from my elbows. So I got in the booth...and I totally forgot. I froze up. I had to pull out my sample ballot to remember."

Mickey Hirano Culross, 41, Sports Editor Rafu Shimpo newspaper

Dan Rather broadcasts from the USC Annenberg School of Communication

2008-02-06T12:11:00.000-08:00

Students, eager to learn from highly respected journalist Dan Rather, got their opportunity on Monday and Tuesday as he held a question and answer session and broadcasted live from the Annenberg east lobby. Rather, who has covered the presidential elections since 1952, discussed the current political climate, which he expressed as an exciting time for politics. While he did not endorse any canidate, he did draw comparisons between Sen. Barack Obama and former national leaders such as President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. On Tuesday night, Rather broadcasted for five hours covering the primaries as the votes came in. To learn more about his visit click here.

Super Tuesday slide show

2008-02-06T00:29:00.000-08:00

Want to see the voting process many students took on Super Tuesday at the USC Catholic Center off University Ave.?

Paper ballots gliche in some places, not others

2008-02-05T17:04:00.001-08:00

By John Legittino

On Record On Super Tuesday

2008-02-05T12:49:00.000-08:00

Charlie Wu, current chair of the board of CAUSE, thinks the democratic front-runner after today's primaries will be determined based on the age of the voters:

“I think it depends on what age group turns out. I assume the older voters that remember fondly Bill Clinton in the 90’s will vote for Hillary. I think the younger people will vote for Obama.”

Gavin Hachiye Wasserman, president of the Japanese American Republicans, is sold on the overall voter enthusiasm being fueled in large part to an emphatic youth movement. He only wishes people got as pumped up for elections as they do for that other recent cultural tradition:

“It would be great if people were always as hyped for an election as they are for the Super Bowl. The people of the United States have died for our democracy it deserves this kind of attention.”

Early morning campaigning seems slow

2008-02-05T09:46:00.000-08:00

So the original first post of the day was going to be an interview with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as he cast his vote in West L.A. and proceeded to endorse John McCain. I left my house at 6:30 for an 8:00 a.m. press opportunity. by 8:30, I was still miles away, caught up in the swarm of Angelenos making their way to work. I have never in my life seen more congestion on the freeways and side streets.
However amid my frustration at missing such a great opportunity, I noticed that missing from the congestions were the typical signs and ralliers calling drivers to vote for their candidates.

In fact, during more than 3 hours on the road (to get to a place 12 miles away!) I saw only 4 signs, every one for democratic candidate Barack Obama- who was in Chicago at the time.

This seems rather striking that so few signs and ads have run this morning in a state widely known for it's paramount importance on the day of the presidential primary.

On a street corner near Fairfax and the I-10 Freeway, about 10 supporters stood on the corner bolstering signs. Hundreds of cars honked and drivers yelled, seemingly in support.

Here is a collection of what I saw during my failed attempt to interview Schwarzenegger.

Some more of us

2008-01-31T17:27:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Google images

So check this out guys. Here is another blog written by Annenberg students about the elections. It's for a class, and I've heard they will be blogging all day next Tuesday. I just figured it might be interesting to see what some of our peers have to say about current political events.

Mike Huckabee—Chuck Norris Approved

2008-01-31T13:13:00.000-08:00

From what I can tell this was real. It's too bad Huck had to drop out; I would have liked to see more of these.

Chuck Norris doesn't endorse candidates. He roundhouse kicks their campaigns into oblivion...from the inside.

The revolution will be transcribed

2008-01-31T11:51:00.000-08:00

Hi there, USC student. So really, what do you think about all of this? Last August I set out on watching the first Democratic YouTube debate with a group of Trojans. Enlightening? Embarassing? Either way, here's the transcript.

A group of five twenty-something college kids— Anam, Ashley, Josh, Nik, Sarah— gather around the television for an evening of debauchery, Disney Princess fruit snacks and Democrats.

Close up: Perfectly coiffed Anderson Cooper in full silver fox glory.

ANDERSON COOPER: Our first question tonight is from Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah.

ANAM: Oh my god, Anderson, you’re the heart of my ocean.

ASHLEY: Anderson you’re so dreamy.

SARAH: I’d vote for you Coop-y.

COOPER: Sen. Dodd, you’ve served in Congress for more than thirty years. Can you honestly say you’re any different than the rest of the Beltway crowd?

SEN. DODD: Well, I think so.

NIK: Really you think so? Why does his hair look like a croissant?

ANAM: (sighs) Oh man he’s so full of himself (reaches for fruit snacks). “Oh look at me, I’m old and white with fluffy hair like a dove.”

SARAH: (fixated on Cooper) Anderson you’re so dreamy. Come to my window.

COOPER: Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word liberal?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: I prefer the word “progressive,” which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

SARAH: Thanks for the history lesson Hil. Can you give me the low-down on muckraking and moonshine now?

ASHLEY: Yeah and maybe a brief synopsis on the causes of World War I?

SEN. MIKE GRAVEL: I want to take on Barack Obama for a minute, who said he doesn’t take money from lobbyists. Well, he has 134 bundlers. Now, what does he think that is? Besides that, he has received money from a Robert Wolf, the head of the USB…

COOPER: Sorry, your time is up, senator.

GRAVEL: …and it’s a foreign-owned bank!

JOSH: Doesn’t Gravel remind you of a grandpa who was haphazardly pulled from his rocking chair and just thrown onto the stage?

SARAH: C’mon Gramps! We got a debate to go to!

ANAM: But but but… I have to finish my Werther’s originals!

A five-minute conversation continues on possible Grampa Gravel scenarios just pre-debate, ie., taking a nap, drinking Metamucil, watering his plants. Everyone in the room comes to the consensus that since Gravel is 1) the former senator from Alaska 2) very old and 3) looks like he knows how to make good toffee, that he will now lovingly be referred to as Gramps.

YouTube Debate video submission of Sen. Dodd begins.

VIDEO QUESTION: Senator, how did you get the white hair?

DODD: Hard work, I suppose. For example, it took me seven years to pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, and I helped to end wars in Central America and bring peace to Northern Ireland. I’m ready to be president.

VIDEO QUESTION: Well, how many white hairs do you have?

DODD: Hundreds, thousands, I presume.

VIDEO QUESTION: Really?

DODD: I’m Chris Dodd, and we approved this message.

The group is silent for about 10 seconds.

SARAH: That was one of the worst videos I’ve ever seen.

ANAM: “I got white hairs from ending wars in Central America?” Whaa?!

ASHLEY: Fidel Castro still has black hair. He was involved in more wars than freakin’ Dodd.

JOSH: That’s cuz Castro dyes his hair…while smoking cigars.

NIK: So does Dodd.

SARAH: You can’t buy white hair color.

JOSH: You’re right… White hair doesn’t come out of a bottle. You can only get it by ending wars!

COOPER: Is anyone on the stage in favor of reparations for African-American descendants of slaves?

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: I am.

Everyone in the room awws at Kucinich’s meager height and elfish smile.

ANAM: I LOVE YOU KUCINICH!

COOPER: Gov. Richardson, the Democrats talk a lot about the failure of the president to deal with Hurricane Katrina. The governor of Louisiana was a Democrat. The mayor of New Orleans was a Democrat as well.

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON: Well, there were politics… This is what I would do. The response of our government to Katrina, before, during and after, was inexcusable. We have got to eliminate in the future any red tape that helps families– er, that helps the devastation.

ANAM: Geez, what’s devastating is your face.

NIK: Yeah…So if you’re running for president, wouldn’t you at least try to lose some weight and attempt to look ruggedly handsome? Isn’t that in the playbook, a prerequisite, to be telegenic?

SARAH: He has no chance against dreamboat Edwards. I mean look at the guy— he’s a contemporary JFK, I tell you, a JFK!

Group starts throwing fruit snacks at Josh.

CLINTON: I couldn’t run as anything other than a woman.

ANAM: Um, because I thought you were going to run as a man?

SARAH: Or as Invader Zim?

COOPER: On sending troops to Darfur… You say U.N. troops. Does that mean American troops?

RICHARDSON: United Nations peacekeeping troops— and that would be primarily Muslim troops. Enough of our troops are in Iraq.

ANAM: Yeah, I guess he means troops from Arab countries, because there are no Muslim troops that are also American troops!

NIK: That’s a lovely coral pantsuit you’re wearing, Hil, I thought they didn’t wear color in New York?

KUCINICH: …now if people want to send that message to Congress, Anderson…

COOPER: Okay. Senator…

KUCINICH: …they can text “Peace,” 73223.

Everyone awws at Kucinich and then yells “Text peace! Text peace!”

GRAVEL: George Bush does not have the boots on the ground to invade Iran.

ANAM: You want some Werther’s Original, America?
Edwards: While the Iraqi parliament is on vacation, is George Bush going to be on vacation in Crawford, Texas? What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.

NIK: Oh my god, if I was a housewife in Arkansas named Rose-Claire, I’d totally be in love with him… what a stallion!

SARAH: I think he’s performing the best. He’s so suave.

ASHLEY: And coiffed.

JOSH: Like Dodd’s hair.

COOPER: Gov. Richardson, you have had to implement No Child Left Behind in your state. Would you scrap it? Revise it?

RICHARDSON: I would scrap it. It doesn’t work.

ASHLEY: Why is he a fatty?

ANAM: TEXT PEACE!

Who's Ron Paul? Does any body know?

2008-01-30T13:35:00.000-08:00

In all the hours of presidental race coverage I've watched over the last several weeks, one canidate has completely been left off the radar. Republican canidate Ron Paul isn't even included in the reported cuacus counts. Some call him cooky, others call him radical, and then there are some that call him a genius. No matter what people call him or how many like him, I still think every canidate should get coverage.

Ron Paul is the only republican running that did not vote for the war. I think that is a pretty substantial difference between him, McCain, and Romney, yet the only attention I've seen him get is a handmade sign on the freeway that says "YouTube Ron Paul." Few people I've talked to know what he stands for (myself included), so I decided to follow the signs advice. Among videos claiming that Paul actualy won in the New Hampshire caucuses over McCain (click here to see one of those), there was another which I though communicated his ideas pretty well. If you're interested, check it out.

So what do you think? Who will Edwards endorse?

2008-01-30T13:28:00.001-08:00

Edwards is out, so who will he support?

2008-01-30T12:11:00.000-08:00

With this morning's news of John Edwards' withdrawl from the democratic presidential races, the question of the day becomes who will he endorse? He's worked alongside Obama and Clinton for over a year, heard their bickering and knows their policies. Where they stand on key issues will oviously be a big factor in who he choses to support. So do you know where they stand? Click on the following issues to compare Obama, Clinton, and Edward's stances on healthcare, Iraq, immigration, social security, taxes, same sex marriage, abortion, gun control and stem cell research. Make sure to compare them to the oppinions of republican front-runner John McCain too. Obama and Clinton't ideas on national security and Iraq will be a key topic of discussion with McCain who strongly supports military control in the Middle East.

So about that youth vote...

2008-01-29T20:05:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of cnn.com

John McCain addressing Floridian voters after his win in the Sunshine State.

John McCain wins Florida.

That also means he obtained 57 delegates, and has been boosted past Mitt Romney into the Republican frontrunner seat with 95 total delegates.

Had the Democrats awarded their winner 57 delegates as well, Hillary Clinton would have hopped past Barack Obama to take the lead in the Democratic race.

But that's not the story of the day.

Instead, let's talk about McCain. He took Florida with 36 percent of the vote...the man who can be considered the furthest candidate from being connected with the youth vote. Now, is it possible that not only did McCain not get the youth vote from Florida, but that appealing to the elder community actually helped his campaign?

With all the attention paid to the youth voter, it is easy to forget about the other end of the spectrum. The Wall Street Journalreported that McCain's 71 years of age might have given him the edge in Florida, a state where the senior citizen population accounts for 16.8 percent of the total, compared with 12.4 percent nationwide.

And these voters bring something to the table the youth vote cannot...guaranteed support with a guaranteed vote.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the over-60 demographic played a large part in Mr. McCain’s win in South Carolina, where the U.S. senator from Arizona won 42 percent of the votes in that age group.

With all that said, there is a place for the youth vote, as it has played a huge part in this year's Democratic race. But when it comes to the conservative voters in this country, maybe America's past is just as important as America's future.

Click here to get video of McCain addressing his supporters after the big win today.

A Vote for Hillary is a Vote for McCain

2008-01-29T18:33:00.000-08:00

I’m young.
Now wait, I’m not bragging. And don’t get scared, I’m no “To Catch a Predator” decoy, I swear. If I ever saw Chris Hansen, I’d give him a swift kick between the nuts; not because I think his show victimizes pedophiles or gives pedophilia an unfair rep. I just don’t like the guy. He’s a slick opportunist, constantly flossin’ and flaunting like he’s the NBC peacock. Do you know who I am, peder guy? I’m the NBC peacock! Get over yourself, Chris.
But I digress. My point is that I can do all the things any healthy 21-year-old can do: drink heavily without worrying about a hangover, smoke like Kurt Vonnegut without worrying about cancer (because young people are invincible!), and have nightly Roman orgies that would make Caligula blush a bit. (I’m just being ironic; healthy people don’t do these things. And don’t you think it’s interesting that the word “romantic” has the word “roman” in it?)
But I digress. My point is that as a 21-year-old I am in a very sought after age group. Because not only can I watch primetime television, I can also vote. With analysts predicting record voter turnout for the upcoming Super Tuesday primaries—especially among the 18-25-year olds—that kids my age wield an electoral power the likes of which haven’t been seen since the first “American Idol.” Hot damn, it’s a great time to be young and registered!
The rest of this entry will be directed at you young voters because I’m sure the mature voters, Romans, and pedophiles have already gone to their MySpace pages by now. So that leaves you.
This will also only address the democrats in the crowd. Let’s face it proud Elephants, your nominee is as good as chosen. Mitt Romney has been shredded during debates about the economy and is too wealthy to compete with John McCain’s war record; Rudy Giuliani’s pro-gay-marriage-and-stem-cell-research platform is too moderate for Republicans trying to forget about neo-conservatism; Mike Huckabee has been quick-witted during the debates but is completely broke; Ron Paul, bless him for trying, is too good to be true; and Fred Thompson? Well, you can’t be called an “Appalachian catfish wrestler” by Stephen Colbert and expect to become the most powerful man in the Western world. Republicans, McCain is your man.
Back to the Donkey devotees. This is very important. In 51 weeks, if you want a Democrat to be living in the White House, do NOT vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton on Super Tuesday. My reasons have nothing to do with her qualifications as a politician, as a wife, as a mother, or as a human being. It stems from the fact that I don’t think she can beat John McCain head-to-head.
He has absolutely bulldozed her up to this point. Look at it this way: the key to her campaign against Barack Obama has been her superior experience. She says she is ready to take office on day one unlike her rival the junior senator. But her experience is going to be mean absolutely nothing up against McCain’s “I was in the Hanoi Hilton while you were sipping Cosmos at Yale” routine.
The scrutiny could suffocate the Clintons. According to Frank Rich’s latest New York Times column, the New York Post uncovered evidence that the Clinton Library was partly funded by Saudi Arabian contributors. I can see the commercials now: (Spoken in the voice of one of those gruff movie trailer announcers): What does a Clinton supporter look like? The Clintons won’t reveal who contributed to their library. It’s no wonder. (Pan into a picture of a grinning Saudi holding an AK-47 and a barrel of oil; show how much money the Saudis contributed along the bottom) What does a Clinton supporter look like? See for yourself.
You don’t think the common voter will believe that? The same voters who thought a Purple Heart winner was less of a war hero than a man who railed lines of china all day on an air force base in the States? The same voters who twice elected a man who asked wondered aloud whether humans and fish could coexist peacefully? You get my point.
And let’s not forget that the only thing Republicans hate more than the Clintons are Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Sean Penn. What better way to reunite the party than with Bill Clinton-is-a-cheerleader-for-his-wife jokes? I can see the flash animations already—Bill in a frilly tutu wearing a blue dress and a cigar hanging out of his mouth. The horror.
But I digress. My point is that it is not a slam-dunk for Democrats this election, regardless of how poorly the previous president wielded his power.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a romantic orgy to attend.

Confused about when all the primaries and caucuses are? Here's an update:

2008-01-29T16:53:00.000-08:00

Bloggers, YouTube can help show the “whole” election picture

2008-01-29T16:42:00.000-08:00

Los Angeles- Barack Obama doesn’t have a lot of experience; Hillary Clinton is an uptight control-freak; John Edwards has been called derogatory names by a number of political pundits painting him, at best, a soft-liberal; John McCain is too old, sick, and probably senile; Mitt Romney is devoutly Mormon and Mike Huckabee a religious nut; Rudy Giuliani is a one-hit wonder.

If they’ve watched or read any news at all in the past few months, residents of the 23 states hosting primaries and caucuses next Tuesday will undoubtedly bring these media-generated narratives with them to the polls.

As so many past presidential campaigns and elections have proven, we have a tendency to quickly link candidates to a certain character trait or policy stance that sticks with them throughout their race for office. Such defining narratives prove unforgiving historically, both in the media’s coverage and at the polls.

In the same way Al Gore was cast as a “liar” in his election cycle and President George W. Bush a “dope” in his, a number of presidential hopefuls have already fallen victims to such categorizations, many of them grossly exaggerated. History shows that as we near November, it’s only going to get worse.

Sometimes it seems as if our media outlets believe no one is fit to lead the country for the next four years.

Fueled by late night talk shows, comedy sketches and 24-hour televised political analysis, the stories that “sell,” according to many journalists, are the ones that fall within the context of whatever we already think to be true about a candidate, true or not. And stories that “sell” make up the majority of stories that “run.”

NYT, TXA and GCI are the ticker symbols of three of the most influential news-media outlets: the New York Times Company, Tribune Company and Gannett Company; They are companies with investors, and are accountable for how much revenue they generate, and
in turn, how much they sell. This helps shape their coverage.

But all hope is not lost. The most recent political environment has given us a new hope for some legitimate social discourse and an informed voting demographic. There is a distinctly different aspect unique to this election and none other so far. In a word: access, and lots of it.

The average voter has more access than ever to engage in discussion and learn about the candidates. Every major news outlet has an election site and recent Google search yields 3,440,000 results to the query “2008 presidential election.”
There is a new group of players in this game coming out in full force for this election cycle and they will either prove to compound and add to this damaging tradition or will, contrarily, weaken and break it.

Many of them have no quotas to fill, investors to please or agendas to set; a lot of them just want to have a say, and some have proven to be wildly talented and popular. They’ve taken to the Internet and made films, written articles, created pod-casts and taken pictures.

Wonder who it is? It’s you.

The American population is a “part” of the process more than it’s ever been before and with citizen journalism on the rise and thousand of blogs popping up every day, the average voter has the ability to revolutionize the process by utilizing their newly-found access.

What we do with the access will determine how this new reporting niche will act for years to come. Will the individual bloggers become obsessed with beating the news media conglomerates and report the same stories and chase the same broken narratives like the “real” media has done for years?

The power and affordability of blogging and the Internet takes away a lot of the constraints mainstream media companies have to pay attention to, and simultaneously sacrifice the integrity of their coverage for. Most blogs can be launched for free and are easy to set up and update.

Hopefully this election acts as a springboard for a new and different type of political reporting. While there is some truth to the characteristics first mentioned about the candidates as this article opened, that should only be one part of the story, not the filter through which the voting population must look if they want to learn about the candidates and election.

In 2006, Time Magazine said “You” were the person of the year. More than ever, you can make a difference and have a hand in shaping the future of the country in ways far more powerful that solely punching a card in a voting booth.

Ted Kennedy Endorses Obama

2008-01-29T16:40:00.001-08:00

Up for grabs

2008-01-29T09:21:00.000-08:00

So the Florida primaries are underway...and should definitely not be overlooked. As we all know, Florida has long been key in the general election. According to cnn.com's election site, Republicans have not won the White House without Florida since 1924. And moving the Florida primaries up to January could potentially play a key role in the 2008 primaries.

As of this very second, according to yahoonews.com's election site approximations, John McCain is barely edging out Mitt Romney for the Republican party in Florida, while Hillary Clinton has a hefty lead over the rest of the Democratic pack.

The results in Florida could boost momentum for either McCain or Romney come Super Tuesday, just a week from today.

Democratic Frontrunners

Pictures courtesy of: yahoo.com

Hillary Clinton Barack Obama

Republican Frontrunners

John McCain Mitt Romney

(Click on each candidate's name to track his/her stances on various issues.)

Obama gets the chance to set the record strait on false attacks from Clinton, wins by a landslide in South Carolina

2008-01-28T17:25:00.000-08:00

Obama made it extremely clear at the South Carolina debates that he doesn't appreciate the tactics Bill and Hillary Clinton have used to distort and falsely report his record. He fired back and emphasized what issues really need to be talked about - healthcare, the economy, and Iraq. He got the chance to set the record straight on his vote against the war, his comments about Regan Conservatism, and a bill he pushed to help protect victims of sexual crime that Hillary claimed he didn't support. The debate seemed to help. Obama won by a landslide with 55 percent of the votes. If you didn't watch the debate, watch this video to get a taste of what you missed.

How We Fight for What's Right: Youth Campaigns Online

2008-01-24T00:26:00.000-08:00

While listening to the pre-class chatter of a crowded college lecture hall or the gossip of students gathered around a lunch table, one will hear a variety of topics… “Did you hear about Sandra and Mark hooking up last weekend?”; “Dude, that girl is flaming! Do you think her boobs are real?”; “I can’t believe Brittney Spear’s sister is pregnant.” We’ve all heard these types of shallow conversations. Even at an academically-driven school like USC, students are preoccupied with skimming Perez Hilton on their laptops during class, discussing who should have won MTV’s reality show Tila Tequila, or blabbing on about what a train-wreck Brittany Spears is. It is fairly rare to hear students in public discussing which presidential candidate has the best fiscal policy or what the best strategy is to get us out of Iraq.

Based on the infrequency of hearing these types of substantial conversations, adults are quick to judge youth as unaware of national problems, or, if not unaware, too preoccupied to do anything about them. Our parents, who grew up during the 60’s and 70’s when young people were vigorously protesting the war in Vietnam, seem to think that we aren’t interested or active enough to instigate change. “Where is your fight?” they ask.

They don’t understand that, while our battle is not being fought with picket signs on the White House lawn, it still exists, and in full force. For you see, our generation is uniting online. The web has become a forum for youth to learn about, discuss, and support presidential candidates.

If you don’t believe me, go look at the popular social site Facebook. Go to the political groups and you’ll find people sharing data, videos, photographs, polls and participating in in-depth debates. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not talking about a few people talking via chat rooms, I’m talking about thousands of young people actively talking politics. Take Barack Obama fans for an example: his fan group Barack Obama (one million strong for Barack) has 430,956 members, his group Barack Obama for President in 2008 has 65,536 members, the group Students for Barack Obama has 15,353 members, and another, America for Barack Obama, has 7,321 members . That is well over a half a million people from across the nation talking, sharing and interacting online.

But many ask, how will all this web-talk really affect the votes? Will it get youth off their butts, away from the computer screen and to the polls? I say yes. The web has ignited youth political awareness and activity. Their fight for change may not be as overtly obvious as that of our parent’s generation, but I believe we’ll see it in the presidential polls.

We already are at the caucuses. In New Hampshire the youth turnout rate rose to 43 percent (compared to 18 percent in 2004). In Iowa, it more than tripled since 2004 totaling 13 percent, and in Nevada, it rose to 13 percent. Of the youth voters who showed up to those caucuses, democrats made up 61 percent in New Hampshire, 80 percent in Iowa and a whopping 92 percent in Nevada (youngvoterpac.org).

What I’m really saying to adults is, don’t underestimate us. Just because we’re gossiping about Lindsay Lohan at lunch instead of politics and partying instead of protesting, we know what’s going on. We are fighting, just on our own cyber- turf. We DO want to see change, and I believe we will.

2008-01-23T16:28:00.000-08:00

Conversations about the presidential election are popping up in all kinds of unconventional places, especially on college campuses.

For everyone who thinks America’s youth is relatively uninformed, think again.

In between stories from last night’s crazy party, what girls showed up and fuzzy accounts of only partially-remembered actions, a shirtless fraternity member looks up from his steaming breakfast burrito and says, “I wonder who will win South Carolina today.”

I looked up in surprise to hear the comment, but then one of his hung-over counterparts responded and a discussion ensued.

Perhaps this is different from the typical venue considered a likely spot for academic discourse surrounding the impending presidential election.

It’s probably more likely to imagine men and women in cocktail dresses and tuxedos buzzing around a penthouse apartment with soft piano music in the background and an impeccable view behind them.

Not so here, no venue is safe, not even for young adults.

The 2009 election marks the first opportunity for involvement in the democratic process for more than half of America’s undergraduate population. More than half of USC’s population was under 18 at the time of the last election.

But whether it’s in a fraternity dining room or at the local hot spot bar, America’s youth is talking about the election in their spare time, not just when asked to do so by professors.

At each of the four social events I attended over the weekend, serious conversations broke out about the election, by people who actually had a reasonable knowledge base to bring to the table.

I overheard two third year college students arguing at the local watering hole amid hundreds of other stumbling young adults sipping their drinks and commiserating.

“I’m just so sick of all the people who talk about this election like they know what’s up,” said the guy to the girl. “That’s why I made a huge chart for everyone to hang up and actually learn about.”

I expected to turn around and see a weasely, skinny kid with a comb-over and pocket protector.
Instead, I found myself staring at a tall, average fraternity member from a reputable house.

I asked him to send me his graph. It’s rather impressive, given the amount of time it must have taken, not that I agree with it all. The column that says, “my views” are his, not mine. I will include it below.

The social discourse occurring is an essential part of the democratic process and our responsibility, given our duty to gain knowledge of the leader’s we’ll elect in less than a year. It’s comforting to see that even the newest members of the voting population are participating.

So, what are we voting for?

2008-01-22T17:56:00.000-08:00

Today is the last day to register to vote in California for its primary next month. Have you registered yet? Because in front of Tommy Trojan here on the campus of USC there are people from CALPIRG who are willing to help you submit your registration form by hand before midnight tonight. There’s almost no excuse not to register to vote anymore; it’s one of the basic rights we as Americans are fortunate enough to have—in Hong Kong they’re still pushing for a democratic election for its chief executive by 2017.

So you’ve registered to vote, now what? Call me ignorant but as an average American, I’m still a little hazy on the whole concept of primaries and caucuses. Who decides the order of the primaries? Why are caucuses so important? Who are the delegates? Do our votes matter in the primaries? Why do some states have an open primary and some states have a closed primary? Sure, most Americans studied American history or government in high school, but if I were to ask a random person on the streets to explain the whole idea of how primaries or caucuses work, they probably wouldn’t know why their vote is important in the primary next month.

So this is how it works. Before the general election, each party must elect a representative for the presidential election. Ten states hold caucuses; seven others host a combination of primaries and caucuses, while the remaining thirty-three states hold primaries. Each party must request state legislatures to pass laws whether the hold primaries and caucuses.

Caucuses are when registered voters attend a meeting to select delegates who demonstrate support for their presidential candidate. There are different types of delegates for each party. The Democratic Party has pledged delegates and superdelegates. The former are elected to the position and he or she will show support for a particular presidential candidate, but are not bound to vote for the candidate. The latter are Democratic National Committee members and Democratic members of Congress, former presidents, vice presidents, governors, congressional leaders etc. who are not required to indicate a preference for a candidate and do not compete for privilege like pledged delegates. The Republicans have pledged and unpledged delegates. The latter are not required to show a preference for a candidate and are elected just like pledged delegates on a state and local level.

Primaries are elections when registered voters directly vote for their candidates through a secret ballot. For the Democratic Party, the popular vote percentage is directly proportional to the number of pledged delegates given to each candidate. But a candidate has to have at least 15% of a popular vote to get any pledged delegates. The Republicans do not require a 15% threshold like the Democrats do, but individual states have their own rules. Some states use a “winner takes all” system where the candidate with the most popular vote gets all the delegates, and some states use the same proportional system as the Democrats do.

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary were the most important because they were the earliest contests—the votes there would determine the race for the rest of the presidential elections.

Confusing? I thought so. Don’t get me started on the Electoral College. But this means that our vote as the general population does matter. Every vote counts.

I May be a Black Woman, But I Care About the Economy

2008-01-22T15:53:00.000-08:00

As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the two leading democratic candidates, fight for South Carolina’s votes in advance of Saturday’s primary, one issue has taken center stage—even as many voters try to distance themselves from it. Questions about whether the state’s black women—whom analysts estimate will make up more than one-third of democratic voters—will vote for their race or their gender have been increasing steadily over the past few weeks.
The intrigue surrounding the possibility of the first black or female president in history has been discussed in online forums, “talking head” cable shows and late-night show monologues for months. But now that the donkey party’s three-ring nomination circus has set up in this typically conservative (and historically racist) state, the race vs. gender “debate” has reached a fever pitch. But should this really be an issue?
A Jan. 21 article on CNN.com titled “Gender or Race: Black women voters face tough choices in S.C.” was one of the most popular articles written that day. In it, the author visits a popular hair salon (many of which are being targeted by candidates because they are popular places for women to gather and talk) to listen in on the day’s political debates; namely, what dem candidate will get the vote? While most of the conversation—both in the salon and the body of the article—centered on issues like the economy, healthcare, and whether experience will play a role for voters, the title of the piece would lead readers to believe the theme was more sociological than political.
Readers took serious offense to the website’s suggestion. CNN.com received dozens of angry and sarcastic emails from readers angered by the notion that they would think only about their race or gender when determining a candidate best suited to win the White House. One said: “Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"
To the website’s credit, an editorial was published within hours featuring many of the email’s responses. There was no apology or explanation given beyond what the emails brought up.
Not that there should have been. The original piece—and the subsequent editorial—broached an interesting concept. Naturally, a candidate’s policy and their ability to stick to it are of more concern to a voter than their skin color or sex. But the distinction is historical and deserves to be discussed. Black women, especially those in the south, are faced with a unique pressure to vote their race. For the first time in our political history, the voting process has been affected by the perception that race trumps gender.
Sensationalist media outlets deserve to be checked by its readers. Otherwise, we’ll be getting our election coverage from The Globe and TMZ.com (Duff? Nah. We got pics of the other Hillary taking body shots in Acapulco!) But while the article could have gotten a less leading headline, the story never actually deemed race and gender a voting prerequisite. Sarcasm may be hard to resist, but we should only check that which deserves to be checked.
Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, and we can all discuss this with scrutiny and humor like adults. At least, the candidates are.
At Monday’s debate, Obama was asked about Toni Morrison’s comment that Bill Clinton was America’s first black president.
“I would have to investigate more of Bill's dancing ability…before I accurately judged whether he was, in fact, a brother,” said Obama.
To which Clinton responded, “I’m sure that can be arranged.”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/blackwomen.voters/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail --gender or race article
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html?iref=mpstoryview – editorial

So What Does The New Hampshire Youth REALLY Think?

2008-01-22T15:43:00.000-08:00

In past election years, the youth vote has been deemed difficult, if not impossible to receive, for the majority of young voters have not shown up at the polls. Much of America's youth had little if no interest in politics, and the indifference was felt in the numbers. But this election year is different. There is a revival of American youth's interest in politics, and candidates are trying to tap into the demographic for voting support.

With Super Tuesday fast approaching, it remains to be seen how influential the youth vote will be for many states' outcomes. However, there has already been a significant rise in the youth vote in this month's primaries in New Hampshire and caucuses in Iowa compared to four years ago. The youth vote was even credited for helping Barak Obama with for the Democrats in Iowa.

According to AFP, a global news agency, 13 percent of voters under 30 turned out for the caucus in Iowa, against four percent in 2004, while youth turnout in New Hampshire surged ahead from 18 percent four years ago to 43 percent.

As I am also from New Hampshire, I was able to survey a few members of the youth demographic from there to get an idea about their views on voting and politics. Their answers follow. Each person's answers will be in a different color to tell them apart.

How old are you?
21
20
22
Did you vote in the 2008 New Hampshire primaries?
Yes
Yes
No
If you answered “yes,” please answer the following questions:
Who did you vote for?
Rudy Giuliani
Rudy Giuliani
Why did you vote for him/her?
The things he did in NYC Sept. 11.
Because im a registered republican and it was a tough call on who to vote for.
Do you feel he/she appeals to the youth vote (18-24)?
No
Not really, no
If yes, why? If not, why not?
I feel he is not a publicized as the others.
I think the younger generation today is looking for a change aka a woman or an african american president, the younger generation today wants to make history and a difference.
Do you think it is important to exercise your right to vote?
Yes
Yes, it is such a privilidge as an American to be able to vote for a president, we are very lucky to have a say as to who runs our country.
Were you old enough to vote in 2004?
Yes
No
If yes, did you vote then?
Yes - George W. Bush
Do you feel like your vote counts?
Yes
Absolutly...if people didn't vote, we wouldn't be anywhere as a country.

If you answered “no” to the second question, please answer the following questions:
Why didn’t you vote?
I just never made it to register. I wanted to though.
Do you think it is important to exercise your right to vote?
Yes, if you don’t vote then I think you shouldn’t get to voice your displeasure about the government.
Were you old enough to vote in 2004?
Yes
If yes, did you vote then?
Yes
Do you feel like your vote counts?
Yes

Whether or not you voted, please answer the following questions:
What do you feel are the most important issues surrounding the 2008 election?
Health Care and Foreign Relations
The war in Iraq is number one I believe
The war in Iraq and the looming recession are pretty big issues.
What are you looking for in a presidential candidate?
Someone to figure a way to boost the economy and do positive things for people in all different social classes.
Positive change for America to make our country a better place where everyone is treated equally and given a fair chance.
I look for strength in hard times, good moral fiber and preferably a military background in a presidential candidate.
Is it important to you that whomever you support appeals to the youth voter?
No
No, although I believe our youth is most important considering they will be the next in line to make big decisions having to do with running this country.
No, not really. He/she should appeal to as many people as possible, not just the youth.
Do you feel like you are well informed about the issues surrounding the 2008 election?
Yes
I feel like I definitely could be, although its not a huge interest to me at this point and time.
Yes, I don’t think anyone could say that the media isn’t doing its job.
Do you feel like you are well informed about each candidate’s platform?
Yes
Yes
For the most part, with all the commercials and talk shows each candidate does. But it has really become a popularity contest and not so much about the real issues.
Do you believe most of your peers are engaged in the 2008 elections?
No
No
Most of my peers don't even know who is running. But my age group does I believe.

To get some data on past numbers from youth voters, click here and scroll over the states on the map.

It's not easy being gray

2008-01-21T00:50:00.000-08:00

RomneyHuckabeeObamaClinton! Oh no, oh my! News coverage of elections become literal sports commentary: big, bold flashing graphics, easy numbers, little interpretation. Who’s ahead? What do the polls say? We want facts, not discussion. With everyone fluttering around numbers, it’s easy to get lost in the plot. But what about the electoral college system itself?

With over 2,000 political parties in the world, it's a shame the United States champions only two of them. Travel to Germany and you'll see five major parties listed on the ballot with more than 20 smaller ones. Travel to India and you'll find people voting for the Bahujan Samaj Party, the Nationalist Congress, the Bharatiya Janata.

A glaring difference between how the government works in the United States in comparison to nearly all those democracies abroad is its heavy reliance on an uncomplicated two-party political system. With one side naturally pitted against another like a team sport, much of American philosophy and thought has become polarized into diametric frames of thinking as a result.

This divided system has inadvertently perpetuated a left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, liberal vs. conservative, "us vs. them" political mentality. Think about it - are you a proponent of national health care? You're labeled a liberal, a Democrat, a blue-stater. Against abortion? You're automatically considered a conservative, a Republican, red as a stop sign. The labels are easy, they're quick, they're convenient.

They're also incorrect.

It is not human nature to think in pure terms of black and white and it's not natural to polarize people's belief systems in completely opposing blocs that are so large its members cannot agree on the same issue.

Without a proportional voting method, however, minority parties will never be counted as whole votes unless they win an entire constituency. The system must be reformed if we ever want a country that is more than two simple, stale and staid political parties whose standpoints often bleed into one another, and more often than not, cannot be distinguished from one another.

Perhaps it has to do with the fact that it's much simpler to throw people into two opposing sides. It takes less thought and less brainpower. But the truth is humans are meant to think without concrete party labels obstructing their view. They shouldn't have to deal with flashing words and absolute ideas. At least they should have more options. They cannot think, "I really don't believe in this, but I think I'm supposed to since apparently I'm liberal/conservative/red/blue/bleeding heart."

Indeed, most people, myself included, find themselves frequently thinking outside party lines on certain issues, stuck in the gray area between the two extremes. This is why the centrist members of a particular party can so easily gain control. Because in a form of government that is neatly divided along the middle, the moderates always win since parties' leaders are too afraid of delving into either extreme. Yet, as a result, the raw political flame of change has blown out and the end product is compromise, concession, moderation, flip-flops, apathy and disregard.

An old senator once said, "Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts."

I like that. And perhaps poor Dennis Kucinich does too. Read about his exclusion from the Las Vegas debates here.

YouTube embed test

2008-01-20T19:22:00.000-08:00

This is an embed video from YouTube:

This is another embedded video from YouTube:

Here are instructions on how to embed video into Blogger posts.

FW: Multimedia message

2008-01-17T23:05:00.001-08:00

-- FW: --Original Msg--
From: 3108045207@mms.att.net
Subject: Multimedia message
Date: 9:28pm 1/17/08

2008-01-17T21:26:00.001-08:00

Oh Liana...so cute!

Multimedia message

2008-01-17T21:21:00.000-08:00

Anne Hsu is looking beautifully surprised in Intro to Online Media.

2008-01-17T21:17:00.000-08:00

My first mobile post! How exciting!

Reading assignment for Week 2

2008-01-16T22:10:00.000-08:00

The Poynter Institute has put together this great timeline on the history of online news. Please read it so we can talk? take a quiz? blog? about it next week.

This is a mobile post

2008-01-16T21:00:00.001-08:00

Apples In Stereo at Spaceland

test

2008-01-13T17:18:00.001-08:00

This guy is not-so-scary in person.

Test headline downstyle

2008-01-13T16:26:00.000-08:00

This is a test. I am testing and bolding and linking and...

"Adding block quotes," says a presidential candidate.

Colors can also be fun.

blog
link
add photos
post video

Italics

And various fonts should be tested.

Add a picture and make sure it is placed on the page correctly.

Add another picture to see what happens.

These pictures are too small. Let's add a bigger one.

Who will John Edwards Endorse?
	Hillary Clinton
	Barack Obama
	Niether

pollcode.com free polls