Monday, May 12, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
What Happens in Panama Stays in Panama
While I don't care one way or another ways who wins the Republican nod for presidential candidate, I can't help but sympathize with John McCain on the recent Panama Canal controversy. The race is getting tight, and candidates will do anything to stir up controversy but the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal to American citizens should not disqualify him as a candidate. I think this is ludicrous and is simply another ploy to safe guard the other candidates. From Obama's college drug use to Huckabee's Mormon beliefs, the media and candidate supports look try and look for anything to shuck a potential candidate but I don't think McCain's being born in Panama really matters. He's still a viable candidate in my opinion. And I say this without any intention of voting for the man. Keep the race for America's next president clean.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
More Money No Problem
Obama is the Trump of politics. In the battle for cash, Obama's out beat all the candidates. His campaign funds continue to climb with numbers speeding past Clinton and tripling that of Senator John McCain's. Not only has he amassed more green than all the current presidential candidates, his campaign total thus far is the second highest record of any past presidential candidate. JFK holds the leading record, and that was in 1964. While Clinton and Obama began the race on somewhat even turns, Obama quickly outmatched Clinton's overall $121 million with his $138.2 million.
January and February really turned the table for Obama when he received public endorsement from Oprah and received millions from several high end donors. Beginning in February with $10 million to spend in primary and caucus battles, his number has climbed to $19 million. Obama's numbers left the Clinton trail behind with Clinton's $9 million figure at the beginning of February and current reported $5 million left.
And just before you thought Obama couldn't get any popular, Saturday Night Live takes him on for a weekend of comedy and lots of Hilary bashing:
January and February really turned the table for Obama when he received public endorsement from Oprah and received millions from several high end donors. Beginning in February with $10 million to spend in primary and caucus battles, his number has climbed to $19 million. Obama's numbers left the Clinton trail behind with Clinton's $9 million figure at the beginning of February and current reported $5 million left.
And just before you thought Obama couldn't get any popular, Saturday Night Live takes him on for a weekend of comedy and lots of Hilary bashing:
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Superdelegates.
Dear Superdelegates,
The democratic race between Obama and Clinton is tighter than Richard Simmons' track shorts, and it's up to you: the elite, the unpredictable, the superdelegates. So, why aren't you standing up for my vote? I'm extremely disappointed that some of you have bought into the idea that you can just vote for whoever you want to with no loyalty to how your state voted.
It became pretty apparent after the past two elections that the electoral college was ignoring my vote, and that of many others. But I thought we were tired of that? I thought we had learned our lesson.
But no, there you sit on your high horses, or donkeys shall I say, and claim that you will vote for the good of the party regardless of what America says. Well some of you say that, others have started to realize that maybe "it's not the most democratic way of doing things." Thank you Captain Understatement Sam Spencer (ME).
According to former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown superdelegates are the "keepers of the faith."
"You have superdelegates because this is the Democratic Party. You don't want the bleed-over from the Green Party, the independents and others in deciding who your nominee will be," Brown says.
Wow, it doesn't get any more partisan and elitist than that. If you're not blue, then shoo says Brown. And you wonder why wasted-vote syndrome exists among non-partisan voters?
Sincerely,
Super-pissed-off Voter
The democratic race between Obama and Clinton is tighter than Richard Simmons' track shorts, and it's up to you: the elite, the unpredictable, the superdelegates. So, why aren't you standing up for my vote? I'm extremely disappointed that some of you have bought into the idea that you can just vote for whoever you want to with no loyalty to how your state voted.
It became pretty apparent after the past two elections that the electoral college was ignoring my vote, and that of many others. But I thought we were tired of that? I thought we had learned our lesson.
But no, there you sit on your high horses, or donkeys shall I say, and claim that you will vote for the good of the party regardless of what America says. Well some of you say that, others have started to realize that maybe "it's not the most democratic way of doing things." Thank you Captain Understatement Sam Spencer (ME).
According to former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown superdelegates are the "keepers of the faith."
"You have superdelegates because this is the Democratic Party. You don't want the bleed-over from the Green Party, the independents and others in deciding who your nominee will be," Brown says.
Wow, it doesn't get any more partisan and elitist than that. If you're not blue, then shoo says Brown. And you wonder why wasted-vote syndrome exists among non-partisan voters?
Sincerely,
Super-pissed-off Voter
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Media molding the minds of society
It seems people have gotten more involved with the presidential race this year than ever before. Even young adults, usually seen to be apathetic towards politics, have shown an interest, wanting to see a change and feeling concerned about their future. But no matter how much people get involved, a majority of Americans will see only what they see on television, and nothing more.
We, as Americans, live such fast paced lives, and the truth is we don’t always have time to do our homework. We vote for the names we hear on the six o’clock news. We vote for who’s leading in the polls. Whether we give them credit or not, the media has a huge impact on the way we view political candidates, and in turn who we cast our vote for in the polls.
So with all of the influence media has on society and molding our views, how can we ensure we are getting the whole picture, and not just the candidates they choose to shine a light on?
As journalists, we are taught to be fair and objective. We are to give voice to the voiceless. We are to tell all sides of the story. But when it comes to covering politics, it’s just that: politics. And things can get pretty political when reporting it.
When a candidate sheds tears while speaking to a crowd, is it the media’s job to play that moment up to the fact that she gets votes the following day? Does it then become a political move to do so?
When a candidate gets 8 percent in a state, should the media say “Oh that’s what we expected of him.”? Or should they then ask, “You have rightly earned 8 percent of the states population. What do you have to offer us that you feel another candidate does not?” Or do we simply tell him he cannot participate in the upcoming debate?
Decisions like this affect our society as a whole everyday. The decision to shed one candidate in a brighter light than another could give a voting citizen the idea that he or she should vote for the winning candidate. And if we have a majority of Americans going to the polls voting for who they think will win rather than who they want win, we have another problem altogether.
I feel like the media’s job is to report the facts at face value. If one candidate gets 4 percent in one state, while another gets 5, don’t shed more light on the one that gets fifth place just because he or she wasn’t supposed to place where they did. So if at all possible, lets try to report politics fairly, and upon doing so, take the politics out of it all together.
We, as Americans, live such fast paced lives, and the truth is we don’t always have time to do our homework. We vote for the names we hear on the six o’clock news. We vote for who’s leading in the polls. Whether we give them credit or not, the media has a huge impact on the way we view political candidates, and in turn who we cast our vote for in the polls.
So with all of the influence media has on society and molding our views, how can we ensure we are getting the whole picture, and not just the candidates they choose to shine a light on?
As journalists, we are taught to be fair and objective. We are to give voice to the voiceless. We are to tell all sides of the story. But when it comes to covering politics, it’s just that: politics. And things can get pretty political when reporting it.
When a candidate sheds tears while speaking to a crowd, is it the media’s job to play that moment up to the fact that she gets votes the following day? Does it then become a political move to do so?
When a candidate gets 8 percent in a state, should the media say “Oh that’s what we expected of him.”? Or should they then ask, “You have rightly earned 8 percent of the states population. What do you have to offer us that you feel another candidate does not?” Or do we simply tell him he cannot participate in the upcoming debate?
Decisions like this affect our society as a whole everyday. The decision to shed one candidate in a brighter light than another could give a voting citizen the idea that he or she should vote for the winning candidate. And if we have a majority of Americans going to the polls voting for who they think will win rather than who they want win, we have another problem altogether.
I feel like the media’s job is to report the facts at face value. If one candidate gets 4 percent in one state, while another gets 5, don’t shed more light on the one that gets fifth place just because he or she wasn’t supposed to place where they did. So if at all possible, lets try to report politics fairly, and upon doing so, take the politics out of it all together.
Is Hilary Hiding?
As a Hilary supporter I'm disappointed with the way the Potomac Primaries turned out. I'm even more disappointed in her reactions to the primaries. Where is the Hilary from Super Tuesday? Where is that eloquent and inspiring woman, who for a brief moment in time, was downright likeable, even to people who didn't support her. If she's going to pull back ahead of Obama in the final stretch of primaries, Hilary needs to go back to the heart of things.
It's a wobbly tight-rope that she walks, balancing being human and feminine while still being powerful and credible as a presidential candidate. If we could just see the Super Tuesday Hilary a little more often I think she has a real chance at this. I hope she does.
It's a wobbly tight-rope that she walks, balancing being human and feminine while still being powerful and credible as a presidential candidate. If we could just see the Super Tuesday Hilary a little more often I think she has a real chance at this. I hope she does.
My Man
It seems that my "main man" Obama is gaining some clout and perhaps even a bit of an advanatage agains't Mrs. Clinton, which I could not be happier about. Barack Obama, to me, is not only the best candidate this election, but the best candidate we've had run for office in a long time. I have, of course, many reasons why I feel this way, though one of them stands out to me the most.
As an American of Arab descent, I care very much about the politics of the Middle-East. The politics of the last office weren't exactly friendly to the Middle-East, choosing to sterotype and incite public dislike of Arabs. I don't feel, that John McCain would do any diffierent, himself being a veteran and a bit of a Cowboy. Hillary doesn't seem to concerned either. She would rather give the cold shoulder to Iran, who let's face it, we can't ignore on the global scene anymore.
If recent history has shown us anything, it should be that this is a war that we can't win with the military. The Middle-East is desperate for diplomacy and, in some cases, democracy; and the more we decide to spread these things with military action, the more we help create new conflicts and new enemies. Iran, for those who don't know, is suspected of funding nearly all anti-Israeli terrorism groups in the Middle-East, including Hezboallah, whose actions have jeapordized Lebanon's independence, the only true, democratic nation in the Middle-East.
Obama, though he is not from the Middle-East, or a Muslim, is the only Candidate who truly cares about America's footprints in the Middle-East. I know this isn't extremely important to a lot of people, but taking this all in context should make anyone care. Obviously, quite a bit of Oil comes from the Middle-East, as well as many other natural and industrial resources. Destabilization in the region is not good for anyone. If we are trully going to fight terrorism, we can't just do it in the present, we have to do it for the future too. And the only way we can accomplish that is diplomacy now. Diplomacy now will make sure that we don't have to use the military later.
Thats why I'm glad to see Barck Obama making steps forward in the race.
As an American of Arab descent, I care very much about the politics of the Middle-East. The politics of the last office weren't exactly friendly to the Middle-East, choosing to sterotype and incite public dislike of Arabs. I don't feel, that John McCain would do any diffierent, himself being a veteran and a bit of a Cowboy. Hillary doesn't seem to concerned either. She would rather give the cold shoulder to Iran, who let's face it, we can't ignore on the global scene anymore.
If recent history has shown us anything, it should be that this is a war that we can't win with the military. The Middle-East is desperate for diplomacy and, in some cases, democracy; and the more we decide to spread these things with military action, the more we help create new conflicts and new enemies. Iran, for those who don't know, is suspected of funding nearly all anti-Israeli terrorism groups in the Middle-East, including Hezboallah, whose actions have jeapordized Lebanon's independence, the only true, democratic nation in the Middle-East.
Obama, though he is not from the Middle-East, or a Muslim, is the only Candidate who truly cares about America's footprints in the Middle-East. I know this isn't extremely important to a lot of people, but taking this all in context should make anyone care. Obviously, quite a bit of Oil comes from the Middle-East, as well as many other natural and industrial resources. Destabilization in the region is not good for anyone. If we are trully going to fight terrorism, we can't just do it in the present, we have to do it for the future too. And the only way we can accomplish that is diplomacy now. Diplomacy now will make sure that we don't have to use the military later.
Thats why I'm glad to see Barck Obama making steps forward in the race.
Let's get ready to rumble!
As the election season churns on, we find that candidate's attacks turn more and more deadly. Even now, over at CNN.com there is a story about Clinton attacking Obama. Here's a piece of the story:
Reacting to Clinton's charges, Obama spokesman Bill Burton said his candidate "doesn't need any lectures on special interests from the candidate who's taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any Republican running for president."
"Sen. Clinton may have said that attacks and distortions are the 'fun' and 'exciting' part of the campaign, but they're exactly what everyone else in America is tired of," Burton said.
I agree with Burton. I'm tired of the fighting. Why can't each candidate just stick to what THEY are all about and not what others have done or said. I understand that a candidates history should be a part of their campaign, but what is the use in dragging another candidate's name through the mud. The back and forth cat-fight is getting on my nerves. If it keeps up I may have to look to the other side of the aisle for a candidate that doesn't talk so dirty about their party-mates... Can't we all just get along? I quote the legendary band War,
Why can't we be friends?
Election 2008: Whoever wins, we lose.
I know as a student about to get out into the real world, I’m supposed to have a sunny outlook for the future, but let me go ahead and apologize in advance for saying that that is not the case, and the choices we face this election are to blame.
This election has every indication of being the perfect storm of party meltdowns. With two identical Democrats hell-bent on a venture into socialized medicine and taxing wage earners into oblivion, and a Democrat running as a Republican with a history of being wrong on just about everything in the past eight years there is no doubt that whoever wins, we lose.
Now before you Obama fans get uppity and spill your latte on your new Macbook, you have to come to a realization: Clinton and Obama are the same candidate in different suits. According to the National Journal, of the 267 senate measures that both candidates voted on, they only differed on 10. That figure, broken down into a percentage shows that Clinton and Obama voted differently only 3.75% of the time.
One of the campaign platforms that they do differ on is the means by which they’ll drag the already government-mired health care system even farther into the cesspool of incompetence. And either way, it can only lead to a real crisis.
In one of the only moments the country has ever seen Hillary Clinton be genuine, she came straight out and said that she would “garnish the wages of those who do not wish to comply” with the national healthcare system. In English, this means that regardless of whether you need health insurance, want health insurance, or can even afford health insurance Hillary will make it so the federal government can seize the money you earn to pay for her budget annihilating scheme.
So far, Obama has only hidden behind a wall of generalities saying that “reducing the cost of healthcare” is the goal of his plan. This sounds dandy until that Economics course you took in sophomore year kicks in and reminds you that prices for services in any market don’t just drop because someone in a suit and tie tells them to. Prices drop when the supply of a service outpaces the demand from the public. However, if either candidate’s “fix” is applied, it will artificially and exponentially increase the demand (since the purchase of insurance/plans will be forced it is still considered a demand.) Now, the government can come in and try to place limits on the inevitable rising price, but this can only further limit supply leading to a complete breakdown of the healthcare market (and it is a market). It’s at this point that doctors will probably seek jobs in consulting. So when the Democrats breathlessly preach about “change,” it’s in this direction they want the change to take us.
The Republicans don’t exactly have a stellar lineup either. With the only candidate able to produce a message other than the status quo, Ron Paul, marginalized the party elite are marching the direction of the GOP to the left with the touting of McCain as their front-runner. You don’t have to listen to Rush Limbaugh to realize that the conservative base of the party absolutely detests McCain. Since his loss to Bush in the primaries in 2001, McCain has been doing everything in his power to thwart the administration’s domestic agenda. After grandstanding against the Bush tax cuts, refusing to stop the Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees, and putting forth a bill in congress that was functionally amnesty for illegal immigrants, there's not much room left for McCain to spin that he's anywhere near conservative. McCain even sent advisors to the Democratic Party in 2001 to test the waters for a party switch. McCain cannot win without the conservative base, and instead of trying to deal with it he would rather dismiss them as irrelevant. McCain could easily be Bob Dole, part two.
I’m no conservative, but this election season has completely shut out those of us who favor less government without the religious theocratic spin. And though I’m politically aware, I’m definitely considering voting libertarian or not voting at all this year. And I think this general attitude is far more widespread than the media and candidates would like you to believe.(G)Obama
As of Valentine's Day 2008, the Republican and Democratic nominees for president are all but done for the shootin'.
Obama and McCain are well on their way to a collision course come November and there ain't nobody that's gonna stop them. After the cataclysmic defeat Clinton suffered in the Beltway this past weekend her chances are around slim and none (and slim just left town).
For those who still have hope, I'm gonna tell you like this. There ain't no way a Clinton is gonna win Texas. Without the Big TX in her backpocket Hillary might as well just pack up shop and go home.
Right now her body is burning in the street and Obama is about to put her out with gasoline.
Obama and McCain are well on their way to a collision course come November and there ain't nobody that's gonna stop them. After the cataclysmic defeat Clinton suffered in the Beltway this past weekend her chances are around slim and none (and slim just left town).
For those who still have hope, I'm gonna tell you like this. There ain't no way a Clinton is gonna win Texas. Without the Big TX in her backpocket Hillary might as well just pack up shop and go home.
Right now her body is burning in the street and Obama is about to put her out with gasoline.
Super Chooseday
In the most recent primary, it became evident that aspiring for change and hope for the future was the primary (mind the pun) focus for some, and possible decade long repetition was the focus for others.
This is quite possibly the most important election of my generation as well as for any one alive at the time, and as I've previously stated, change and hope for the future is the momentum carrying Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton in terms of the Democratic party. Obama is the black J.F.K., pushing for America to be the country it was meant to be where as Clinton has the focus upon health care reform, an issue that has extreme opposing views. Mainly, from those who can afford to get sick. Around the dinner table in the south, it is assumed that Obama would be capitalizing on the "black vote." However, it's easy to see he was capitalizing on the "hope vote." Clinton, on the other hand, has capitalized on the votes of the young, but it is obvious that her persona and behavior in previous debates has pushed away voters. That's not to say Obama didn't have anything to do with her behavior or had poor intentions himself; he's just better looking
It is with little surprise that the Republican party has yet to come to terms with the failures of the current president and the victories of John McCain have pushed the party even further to the right. Now don't get me wrong, this is a good thing for Republicans. McCain is the ideal strong conservative, much like that of George W. Bush. His stance on the war in Iraq is that of the stance of a conventional war, unlike that of his opponent Ron Paul, who veers to the middle in that respect, hence why Paul won no states this primary.
Mitt Romney tailed behind McCain in this primary but suspended his campaign shortly thereafter. Why? For philosophical reasons concerning his party of choice. Now, that's all good and well, but it doesn't do anything what so ever for anything. Wait; it actually helps out ol' Mike Huckabee, whose Chuck Norris backing and bass guitar slapping have made him a personality favorite among many. A recent Rolling Stone article on Huckabee told of how the reporter himself became doe eyed in the presence of the man. Now that's personality.
Hmm, does this mean that personality is a strong factor for both parties in this primary? Not from the Democrats! No, not from the Republicans! It's sad, but true. It seems like both Obama and Clinton can get the job done, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are strong from the Democratic standpoint.
From my perspective as a liberal American, I think the Republican party has their eyes on keeping things to the right while us guys have our eyes on anything not George W. Bush.
This is quite possibly the most important election of my generation as well as for any one alive at the time, and as I've previously stated, change and hope for the future is the momentum carrying Barak Obama ahead of Hillary Clinton in terms of the Democratic party. Obama is the black J.F.K., pushing for America to be the country it was meant to be where as Clinton has the focus upon health care reform, an issue that has extreme opposing views. Mainly, from those who can afford to get sick. Around the dinner table in the south, it is assumed that Obama would be capitalizing on the "black vote." However, it's easy to see he was capitalizing on the "hope vote." Clinton, on the other hand, has capitalized on the votes of the young, but it is obvious that her persona and behavior in previous debates has pushed away voters. That's not to say Obama didn't have anything to do with her behavior or had poor intentions himself; he's just better looking
It is with little surprise that the Republican party has yet to come to terms with the failures of the current president and the victories of John McCain have pushed the party even further to the right. Now don't get me wrong, this is a good thing for Republicans. McCain is the ideal strong conservative, much like that of George W. Bush. His stance on the war in Iraq is that of the stance of a conventional war, unlike that of his opponent Ron Paul, who veers to the middle in that respect, hence why Paul won no states this primary.
Mitt Romney tailed behind McCain in this primary but suspended his campaign shortly thereafter. Why? For philosophical reasons concerning his party of choice. Now, that's all good and well, but it doesn't do anything what so ever for anything. Wait; it actually helps out ol' Mike Huckabee, whose Chuck Norris backing and bass guitar slapping have made him a personality favorite among many. A recent Rolling Stone article on Huckabee told of how the reporter himself became doe eyed in the presence of the man. Now that's personality.
Hmm, does this mean that personality is a strong factor for both parties in this primary? Not from the Democrats! No, not from the Republicans! It's sad, but true. It seems like both Obama and Clinton can get the job done, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are strong from the Democratic standpoint.
From my perspective as a liberal American, I think the Republican party has their eyes on keeping things to the right while us guys have our eyes on anything not George W. Bush.
It's the Obama Train.... and Hillary's tied to the tracks
Pardon the slightly overused and poorly constructed metaphor/title... I heard it on CNN recently (several thousand times), and thought it might just be silly enough to work. Still waiting on the final verdict. But, at least it's accurate; Obama has been absolutely steamrolling (no pun intended) through the last several primaries. Most recently he's kicked the Clinton 's collective tail up and down Virginia , D.C. and Maryland
Hillary's recent move of showcasing her support for herself by donating $5 million to herself is a signal theClinton
Side bar: At this point, the inevitability of the McCain nomination for the GOP makes writing about it, for me (being a independent with more liberal leanings than a notion), boring, and a waste of space... although seeing as how this is the Internet, space is unlimited! Nevertheless, I, like most political pundits, find the Democratic race to be immensely more interesting, and at times downright entertaining.
I'm an Obama fan and an absentee ballot voter inOhio Alabama
Hillary's recent move of showcasing her support for herself by donating $5 million to herself is a signal the
Side bar: At this point, the inevitability of the McCain nomination for the GOP makes writing about it, for me (being a independent with more liberal leanings than a notion), boring, and a waste of space... although seeing as how this is the Internet, space is unlimited! Nevertheless, I, like most political pundits, find the Democratic race to be immensely more interesting, and at times downright entertaining.
I'm an Obama fan and an absentee ballot voter in
Primaries: Obama's Momentum
Over the last week, the new favorite in the Democratic race has become Barack Obama. Early on, it seemed like Hilary Clinton was the favorite because of her strong political ties and the money she put it into her campaign, however, with wins in Virgina, Maryland, and Washington D.C., Obama has gained quite a bit of momentum. He didn't just win those states, he dominated Clinton in them. I think it was interesting that Clinton replaced her campain manager Monday right in the middle of the race. The biggest states to watch coming up are Ohio and Texas. Bill Clinton's former chief strategist was quoted saying "If she loses either Texas or Ohio, she's done." Hilary Clinton knows this and knows how important those states are especially Texas. "I want to congratulate Senator Obama on his recent victories and tell him to meet me in Texas. We're ready," Clinton said.
As far as the Republican primary, I'm surprised that Mike Huckabee is still in the race. I feel like John McCain has pretty much wrapped it up and will represent the Republicans in the general election. It's only a matter of time now before Huckabee drops out. I did feel like Mitt Romney dropped out a little too soon. More than anything, I think Huckabee hurt his chances the most by taking strong conservatives' votes away from him.
As far as the Republican primary, I'm surprised that Mike Huckabee is still in the race. I feel like John McCain has pretty much wrapped it up and will represent the Republicans in the general election. It's only a matter of time now before Huckabee drops out. I did feel like Mitt Romney dropped out a little too soon. More than anything, I think Huckabee hurt his chances the most by taking strong conservatives' votes away from him.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Super Tuesday was exciting to me and an accomplishment for the Democratic party. I have always held primary elections to be more important and effective than the general elections. People seem to be more passionate about primary because they focus on the stance of the candidates and make the voter feel like their vote really does count. I will not be as excited about the general election in November because of the electoral college system. I do not support this system and it makes me feel as if my vote does not really count. I am a die hard Democrat and no matter if I decide to vote or not, Alabama will always be a Republican state. I sometime feel like voting in general elections is a waste of my time. I am excited to have both Obama and Clinton as candidates for the Democratic party. It does not surprise me that Obama was picked over Clinton in certain states even though he is an African American male. This does not surprise me because black men were given the right to vote before women who did not receive that right until 1910. I think a lot of men are scared to see the country being ran by a women. I support Obama but I would not be disappointed at all if it was Clinton over Obama because I feel that both are great candidates.
The 2008 Sort, Stretch, and Sit Down
"Super Tuesday" followed through like I thought it might. It sorted out the Republicans and stretched the Democrats. That's about all it did, if you ask me.
Although journalists may be busy snaking through the countryside to interview those who are showing up at the polls, it seems to me that they must not be interviewing the voters post-hype. Talk around the city, whether I've heard it in Starbucks, classrooms, or my dining room table, shows that voters might have showed up, but in turn, they've "shut up." With such a twisting race between the candidates, the election seems to have turned into more of a sit-down-in-the-rusty-bleachers spectator sport than a go-get-'em fight to the death. It seems that the three prevailing candidates are providing enough unfolding narrative themselves without your average supporter needing to do much other than think, "Well, it'll be interesting to see who wins." A seat-warming event for sure.
So, Poll Officials, break out the popcorn makers and pass the salt. We don't want to miss this one.
An Acceptance of the Vague to Satisfy an Insatiable Quest for Hope
"It's time for a change." "A change is on its way." "A change we can believe in."
It may just be me, is this code decipherable by anyone else.
We hear nothing from any of those before us except plan and change. Whether it is a plan of no outline to change health care or a plan to change foreign relations, it is never really ever spelled out for any of us.
Do we know how any of our candidates intend to achieve anything they claim to bring to the table? No. Do we care? If you are among the masses who cling to the well-spoken yet vague nature of Barack Obama's campaign, then clearly not.
That is not to say those of you following the Clinton camp find yourselves in a better boat, because you are also losing yourself under the vague campaign jargon, nor is this to promote the Republican party, which is having enough trouble within itself.
Let us take in this first installment of my "Quest for Hope" series these words of Senator Obama, who seems to be capitalizing on your general acceptance of empty promises based on his constantly rising support numbers.
Barack Obama, in the typical campaign kiss-ass maneuver, praised the efforts of John Edwards to get big business out of Washington and claimed them to be an effort of his campaign as well, yet Obama's health care efforts will do nothing more than use government funds in another welfare-esque system to help the poor purchase health care from .. get this .. Corporations. Corporate Health Care providers still find themselves at the head of the table in this plan of attack.
Clinton's plan, though opening the Congressional Health Care plan to the masses, still finds itself leaving the Corporate sector to come out victoriously.
In a nation where the middle class continues to grow more and more obsolete as we move toward a society of the poor and the elite, and a nation finding itself already in the midst of recession with a $1.5 trillion infrastructure deficit and borrowing money from Communist China, can we really afford to take on yet another welfare endeavor that will only seem to make the rich that much richer?
I am a firm supporter of welfare and helping those who need it, but in a period where big business and a broke government are constantly tightening the qualifications for such programs, or even programs like pell grants and higher education lending, and the people who need it cannot get it, how much faith can be put into these "health care subsidies" to truly help those of us on the razor-thin line between qualifying and not-qualifying?
I hate to agree with Michael Moore, but if neither candidate sees the clear flaw in their plans, neither of them need to be in the oval office.
The cost of health care and insurance and medicines is becoming the single greatest cause of poverty and a leading cause of the debt problem of American citizens, and in a list of nation's with quality health care for its citizens, in a nation that spends a greater percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than any other, the United States ranks 37th. The world's only remaining "superpower", yet we are 37th in the world in terms of health care for citizens.
Canada, Great Britain and even the Castro run Communist nation of Cuba all provide what actual qualifies as "Universal Health Care."
This idea of health care across the map is satisfied through a government run health-care system. Every citizen in one of these countries can go to any hospital for any reason and the government picks up the check.
There is no denial for certain sicknesses or accidents, pre-existing conditions are of no concern, family history, sexually transmitted, whatever. Listen to this part carefully, EVERYONE GETS HELPED, FREE, NO MATTER WHAT.
Why do both of the plans before us not offer something like this? Does the phrase "Corporate America" ring a bell? That is the answer.
Somehow our democratic system lost focus and began to fail us, the normal people, and cater to the elite and big business. The Republicans and the Health Care Providers bash both ideas of "universal health care" claiming that they will require a specific hospital or doctor and take away all of your choices in the matters of health care. Of these claims, false. The only downfall to our Democratic Party candidates' plans fall in a dependence still on Corporate America and a hope that they can get costs down and what not.
Does it not seem a valid argument that a candidate so aimed at "getting big business out of Washington" would be more likely to eliminate the middleman in the Corporate providers?
The concept puzzles me as well.
If the welfare-esque subsidies are to be derived from an increase in taxes on the wealthy and by other various means, would that not lay the ground work to initiate a true "universal health care" package, government run?
This plan would collect such flak from both sides. Both depend on these corporations and their charitable donations..cough cough buy-offs cough..for campaigns and whatnot.
The easiest complaint to combat would be the first one, that there is no money in the budget to finance it. If we can find billions for wars we shouldn't be in, we can surely come up with money to provide substantial care for our own people. Of the 2007 federal budget, 16% of it was for the Medicare program, that is $440 billion. The medicaid program spend roughly $295 billion. That is $800 billion dollars a year, constantly rising, that could provide some of the funding for this. Add in the money projected from said tax hikes on the wealthy and it should just about cover itself.
They would also try to convince people that taxes were to follow. Chances are that a minimal tax would be necessary to take care of our people. Instead of taking medicare and medicaid money from your check each week, the same amount would channel into the national health care program. I wouldn't project more than maybe a few percent increase in the amount withheld, if that much. But think logically about this. No more insurance cuts from your paychecks. No more co-pays because the policy you already pay too much for still sucks. No more denials. No more costly health-care driving you to the brink of or all the way to poverty. Would a 1-3% increase in the amount withheld already for medicare and medicaid combined be so bad considering the amount of good it would do the nation as a whole. I think it would be overshadowed by the idea that we could all get..and stay..healthy. That we can have our medicine provided to us, no more settling for generics or simply picking-and-choosing which prescriptions to fill for affordability reasions.
If you provided for all, the medicare and medicaid programs would become obsolete. If the elderly were free of the burden of medical costs, perhaps the depletion of the social security system could ease itself, because could it not be assumed that a healthier nation of people would be able and willing to work beyond 65, pay more in, save the benefits of the program for their later years, replenish a failing effort?
More working=more tax revenue, more tax revenue=assistance to a depleting infrastructure.
This is an all around economic and way of life stimulus package. No it doesn't come in the form of a completely unnecessary stimulus check to blind the masses to a nation filled with problems, but it comes with so much more, including increased financial stability.
No expenses on health care levels out to additional spending money to put back into a fledgling economy.
Clearly the candidates, both sides, do not want "universal health care." That is like super-gluing the lid to the cookie jar closed, cutting yourself off from the cookies. Corporate interests=money for politicians.
Beg, plead, send whatever letter to whoever you think will listen.
America needs a true, solid, iron-clad "universal health care" system. Stop settling for this vague masking of their blatant disregard for public interest in exchange for corporate ones.
We've got needs, why do we continue to vote for those who show no interest? Those who've clearly lost sight of them?
It may just be me, is this code decipherable by anyone else.
We hear nothing from any of those before us except plan and change. Whether it is a plan of no outline to change health care or a plan to change foreign relations, it is never really ever spelled out for any of us.
Do we know how any of our candidates intend to achieve anything they claim to bring to the table? No. Do we care? If you are among the masses who cling to the well-spoken yet vague nature of Barack Obama's campaign, then clearly not.
That is not to say those of you following the Clinton camp find yourselves in a better boat, because you are also losing yourself under the vague campaign jargon, nor is this to promote the Republican party, which is having enough trouble within itself.
Let us take in this first installment of my "Quest for Hope" series these words of Senator Obama, who seems to be capitalizing on your general acceptance of empty promises based on his constantly rising support numbers.
Barack Obama, in the typical campaign kiss-ass maneuver, praised the efforts of John Edwards to get big business out of Washington and claimed them to be an effort of his campaign as well, yet Obama's health care efforts will do nothing more than use government funds in another welfare-esque system to help the poor purchase health care from .. get this .. Corporations. Corporate Health Care providers still find themselves at the head of the table in this plan of attack.
Clinton's plan, though opening the Congressional Health Care plan to the masses, still finds itself leaving the Corporate sector to come out victoriously.
In a nation where the middle class continues to grow more and more obsolete as we move toward a society of the poor and the elite, and a nation finding itself already in the midst of recession with a $1.5 trillion infrastructure deficit and borrowing money from Communist China, can we really afford to take on yet another welfare endeavor that will only seem to make the rich that much richer?
I am a firm supporter of welfare and helping those who need it, but in a period where big business and a broke government are constantly tightening the qualifications for such programs, or even programs like pell grants and higher education lending, and the people who need it cannot get it, how much faith can be put into these "health care subsidies" to truly help those of us on the razor-thin line between qualifying and not-qualifying?
I hate to agree with Michael Moore, but if neither candidate sees the clear flaw in their plans, neither of them need to be in the oval office.
The cost of health care and insurance and medicines is becoming the single greatest cause of poverty and a leading cause of the debt problem of American citizens, and in a list of nation's with quality health care for its citizens, in a nation that spends a greater percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than any other, the United States ranks 37th. The world's only remaining "superpower", yet we are 37th in the world in terms of health care for citizens.
Canada, Great Britain and even the Castro run Communist nation of Cuba all provide what actual qualifies as "Universal Health Care."
This idea of health care across the map is satisfied through a government run health-care system. Every citizen in one of these countries can go to any hospital for any reason and the government picks up the check.
There is no denial for certain sicknesses or accidents, pre-existing conditions are of no concern, family history, sexually transmitted, whatever. Listen to this part carefully, EVERYONE GETS HELPED, FREE, NO MATTER WHAT.
Why do both of the plans before us not offer something like this? Does the phrase "Corporate America" ring a bell? That is the answer.
Somehow our democratic system lost focus and began to fail us, the normal people, and cater to the elite and big business. The Republicans and the Health Care Providers bash both ideas of "universal health care" claiming that they will require a specific hospital or doctor and take away all of your choices in the matters of health care. Of these claims, false. The only downfall to our Democratic Party candidates' plans fall in a dependence still on Corporate America and a hope that they can get costs down and what not.
Does it not seem a valid argument that a candidate so aimed at "getting big business out of Washington" would be more likely to eliminate the middleman in the Corporate providers?
The concept puzzles me as well.
If the welfare-esque subsidies are to be derived from an increase in taxes on the wealthy and by other various means, would that not lay the ground work to initiate a true "universal health care" package, government run?
This plan would collect such flak from both sides. Both depend on these corporations and their charitable donations..cough cough buy-offs cough..for campaigns and whatnot.
The easiest complaint to combat would be the first one, that there is no money in the budget to finance it. If we can find billions for wars we shouldn't be in, we can surely come up with money to provide substantial care for our own people. Of the 2007 federal budget, 16% of it was for the Medicare program, that is $440 billion. The medicaid program spend roughly $295 billion. That is $800 billion dollars a year, constantly rising, that could provide some of the funding for this. Add in the money projected from said tax hikes on the wealthy and it should just about cover itself.
They would also try to convince people that taxes were to follow. Chances are that a minimal tax would be necessary to take care of our people. Instead of taking medicare and medicaid money from your check each week, the same amount would channel into the national health care program. I wouldn't project more than maybe a few percent increase in the amount withheld, if that much. But think logically about this. No more insurance cuts from your paychecks. No more co-pays because the policy you already pay too much for still sucks. No more denials. No more costly health-care driving you to the brink of or all the way to poverty. Would a 1-3% increase in the amount withheld already for medicare and medicaid combined be so bad considering the amount of good it would do the nation as a whole. I think it would be overshadowed by the idea that we could all get..and stay..healthy. That we can have our medicine provided to us, no more settling for generics or simply picking-and-choosing which prescriptions to fill for affordability reasions.
If you provided for all, the medicare and medicaid programs would become obsolete. If the elderly were free of the burden of medical costs, perhaps the depletion of the social security system could ease itself, because could it not be assumed that a healthier nation of people would be able and willing to work beyond 65, pay more in, save the benefits of the program for their later years, replenish a failing effort?
More working=more tax revenue, more tax revenue=assistance to a depleting infrastructure.
This is an all around economic and way of life stimulus package. No it doesn't come in the form of a completely unnecessary stimulus check to blind the masses to a nation filled with problems, but it comes with so much more, including increased financial stability.
No expenses on health care levels out to additional spending money to put back into a fledgling economy.
Clearly the candidates, both sides, do not want "universal health care." That is like super-gluing the lid to the cookie jar closed, cutting yourself off from the cookies. Corporate interests=money for politicians.
Beg, plead, send whatever letter to whoever you think will listen.
America needs a true, solid, iron-clad "universal health care" system. Stop settling for this vague masking of their blatant disregard for public interest in exchange for corporate ones.
We've got needs, why do we continue to vote for those who show no interest? Those who've clearly lost sight of them?
Democratic Shocker
Super Tuesday was destined to surprise and shock Americans. In the battle between man versus woman amongst the Democrats and conservative versus liberal Republicans, Obama and McCain were the declared winners. While the tallies were more disparate between McCain and Huckabee, the numbers appeared tied between Obama and Clinton. As for the Southern states, I felt confident in my prediction that Clinton would take the Democratic victory but was stunned when I heard that Obama proved to be the victor. You know the American public is ready for change when they pick an African American over a woman. I'm not racist or sexist in stating this but I think this is radical. America's opinion on the government and important issues affecting society is shifting, and I'm so glad the public is embracing new figures who are pushing for a new direction. Obama picked up victories in Illinois, Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Connecticut, Utah, North Dakota, Kansas, Delaware, Missouri, Georgia and Alabama while Clinton won the delegate-rich states of California and New York, the largest and second-largest states to vote Tuesday night. Clinton also picked up victories in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Arkansas, where she and her husband have deep roots.
I think what surprised me most about the primaries was the breakdown of the demographics between Obama and Clinton. While Clinton voters have tended to be more traditionally based Democrats such as Hispanics and working-class whites, Obama has typically had the most support amongst young voters. But on Tuesday, the groups changed drastically with a higher percentage of voters over 65 siding with Obama and more white women going with Clinton.
I wish I'd focused more on the Republican side of the fence but I'm a strong democrat and am fascinated along with America by the Democratic battle. I think it's a given a Democrat will win but as for who will win, I can't say. But it's certainly starting to look like Obama.
by Ashley Boyd
I think what surprised me most about the primaries was the breakdown of the demographics between Obama and Clinton. While Clinton voters have tended to be more traditionally based Democrats such as Hispanics and working-class whites, Obama has typically had the most support amongst young voters. But on Tuesday, the groups changed drastically with a higher percentage of voters over 65 siding with Obama and more white women going with Clinton.
I wish I'd focused more on the Republican side of the fence but I'm a strong democrat and am fascinated along with America by the Democratic battle. I think it's a given a Democrat will win but as for who will win, I can't say. But it's certainly starting to look like Obama.
by Ashley Boyd
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why do people vote the way they do? Are moral conservatives really as conservative as they lead others to belive? Is a candidate's stance on the war in Iraq really a vote getter? Is it better to choose a candidate because of their education background and previous political experience over the potential for change and betterment of the government? I haven't quite decided. I think if you wrote out a list of ideas and issues and how they should each be addressed, then choose the best from the bunch, that's the person that should be there ideal leader, not who looks the best, sounds the best, or snubs his opposers the best.
Voters should start concentrating more on the issues at hand instead of posting scores like they're judging a beauty contest.
Voters should start concentrating more on the issues at hand instead of posting scores like they're judging a beauty contest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)