Obama: Hot or Not?

One thing I've noticed from talking to people about the upcoming presidential election is that a lot of girls and guys think Barack Obama is hot. This video makes me laugh and it just proves that a politician can be sexy.

Tuesday, Barack Obama held a speech in DC, people showed up in droves. I did not go as I had rugby practice, however a lot of my teammates skipped practice to go to his speech. Upon return to practice the next day, the most common thing I heard them say was Obama is a good-looking dude. Now if this guy can make a bunch of manly rugby players admit that they think he's cute, it makes me wonder can this guy win the election based on the fact that he's the most attractive candidate?

Even Dick Cheney admitted that he thinks Obama's "an attractive guy."

I decided to ask some female friends of mine their viewpoint on the Obama hot-or-not debate.

The majority of the girls I asked thought Obama was attractive. One even admitted she a little crush on him. Only one girl out of 5 said she didn't get what the big deal was.

Girls want Obama and guys want to be Obama. If men can contain their jealousy, maybe America can have their first attractive president since JFK.

Voting History

The websites of the presidential candidates on both sides of the political spectrum are loaded to the gills with flowery descriptions and passionate videos of the men and women championing their beliefs and promising change of all shapes and sizes. What those websites don't have however, is the candidates voting history.

Hillary Clinton's site, http://www.hillaryclinton.com/, is quick to boast of her lifelong commitment to "strong advocacy for children," but says little in all the flowery prose of what she's actually done. Some description is provided, but there is little in the way of substantive information, and almost nothing of what Clinton has and has not voted for during her time in the United States Senate.

The same appears to be true of every other candidate's site. Fred Thompson's site, http://fredfile.fred08.com/, posts a number of video blogs by the former Senator. One such video is his address of the problems and decaying state of medicare, for which he speaks of the need for reform, but seems uninterested in giving any explanation of how or what kind. The closest it got to his voting record was that, had he been in the Senate in 2003, he would have voted against the medicare bill.

A lot of useful information appears on the candidates sites, it's true. Also true is the fact that a candidate's voting record is easily accessible. But the public deserves more than canned answers and vague descriptions of how the candidates feel.

Those who've served in the Congress, which is the bulk of candidates, should have their voting histories and an explanation for why the voted how they did on each and every bill should be readily available on every website. Instead, we get half truths and vague promises on sites like that of Mike Huckabee, http://www.mikehuckabee.com/, and John Edwards http://johnedwards.com/. We should also have readily available a full list of what bills governors and former governors running for the presidency have vetoed and made other actions on. The candidates should have nothing to hide, instead they should embrace their voting history, give their justifications, it is essential to the public's understanding of how the candidates feel.

Who Will Save You Now?

“How dare you make such unpatriotic comments,” was a comment made about my last blog post. If you do not remember, I argued that Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani needs to stop mentioning 9/11 every chance he gets and talk more about the change he is going to bring. And apparently I was not the only thinking about this. Amanda Ripley wrote an article in Time Magazine, “Behind Giuliani’s Tough Talk,” which seemed to be in direct response to my blog post. Amanda explained that because Giuliani has decided to focus on terrorism, 9/11, and his first hand experience dealing with both he “has raised an interesting question. What does it actually mean to understand terrorism?”

There is no question that the Iraqi War and terrorism will be two of the most debated issues on the campaign trail in 2008. The American people want to feel safe, and I don’t know if they will be safer with Rudy Giuliani as their President as they are with President Bush. So who is going to make them safer? Two candidates, who do not even stand chance, stick out in my mind. John McCain is the first. As the article said McCain was a Navy pilot for more than 20 years and is the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. McCain has one problem; he has already had his chance. He is the, been there done that candidate. The second choice is Senator Joseph Biden. He is so over looked. Since 1973 Mr. Biden has served this country in the Senate, and he is currently the Chairman of the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, a committee in which is has been in for over ten years and has gained tremendous respect in foreign relations and national security knowledge. If you are looking for real safety forget Clinton, Obama, and Giuliani. Biden has already proved himself.

Why Are We so Different?

At twenty-one, our drinking age is higher then that of any other western country. For some reason in this country we have come to the idea that kids should exist in a relative drug free bubble until the age of twenty-one, expecting that the over protected youth will then be able to somehow cope with the outside world.

However by the time we turn twelve in many states one is able to obtain a hunting license. On our sixteenth birthday we are able to drive a car. Once eighteen is reached we are able to marry, vote, have an abortion, purchase/perform in pornography, serve on a jury, be executed, and serve in the military. I've always wondered why I am allowed to own an M-16, but not to drink a beer. To me one sounds far more dangerous then the other.

Don't get me wrong I do believe there should be a drinking age, just not twenty-one. Most of the statistics cited by groups such as MADD largely pertain to those who start drinking before the age of fifteen. In this case of course it becomes absurd that a middle school student fresh into puberty should not be allowed to freely drink.

I am firmly in the camp that believes responsible drinking comes from parental guidance. From personal experience I can tell you that the people who were transported freshman year were not the ones who had tolerated alcohol. They were always the ones who, once escaping parental supervision, had gotten a hold of alcohol for the first time and had been unknowing in how to handle it. Any like minded individuals should check out this website for rational reasons against the current drinking age.

Technorati

Candidates and their blogs

I am new to the world of both blogging and politics. I think it is important to follow politics but I find it very hard because I am always so busy. The last thing I want to do after a long day of classes or work is to start talking politics. I chose the Candidate positions II group because I want to become more informed on politics and more importantly on the presidential candidates. Instead of searching long and hard on the internet for issues surrounding the candidates, I thought it would be best to go straight to them. I want to take a better look at each candidates website and monitor their positions on press issues, debate issues, democratic discourse issues, and comments on the media. After observing their websites, I will then turn to news sources to see how the candidates are portrayed in the media.

I started out thinking that I would examine all of the presidential candidates websites... But this was taking much longer than I anticipated. So I decided that for this post I would only cover 4 candidates, 2 democrats and 2 republicans. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani were the presidential candidates whose websites I looked at. I was impressed by all of them. I had to literally sign in, meaning I gave my name, email, and zip code, to get into all of them except for Rudy Giuliani's. What a great way to keep in touch with supporters. I was surprised to see that all the candidates had their own blogs established. Is it necessary then for other independent organizations to be asking candidates to respond to their blog sites? I'm also curious as to if we could link our blog to all of the candidates blogs? If it's possible then I think it'd be a great way to monitor the candidates.

I will definitely need to spend some more time on these websites to get more information about the candidates. This was just a brief overview of how accessible the candidate's positions are to voters. Spend a little time each week looking at these sites and one can stay informed. I've provided a link to Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Giuliani's pages if anyone is interested. Furthermore, for those of you that know more about blogging, is it possible to link our blog to their blogs?

Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton
John McCain
Rudy Giuliani

Technorati

Technorati Profile

Fight Face

Although I doubt that the United States is the only country lacking in exciting political debates, it certainly proves interesting to compare are structured, organized political debates to similar debates in other nations. France for example, which just had a presidential election last May, takes a very different approach to its presidential debates.

As can be seen from this clip, the debate between presidential candidates Segolene Royal and Nicholas Sarkozy was quite heated. The two candidates face each other and in many cases fire questions directly to their opponent. Emotions here seem to run a bit higher than in our presidential debates.

The next clip comes from the British House of Commons. The clip is taken from shortly after Gordon Brown assumed his current position as prime minister. The House of Commons is known to became quite rowdy, and Mr. Brown faces a fair quizzing, in this case from the opposition leader David Cameron.


The third clip is taken from the Australian House of Commons. Prime Minister John Howard and and opposition leader Kevin Rudd blatantly insult each other in this short video.


In comparison to these three clips I have chosen to also include a clip from the presidential debates of 2004.


The difference between the first three clips and the last one is quite shocking. Granted, there are one or two similarities. The French presidential candidates like their American counterparts are situated in a formal setting. However, outside of this, there are very few similarities that can be drawn between the first three clips and the last one. It is unfortunate that political debates in the United States or not as open-ended as debates in other nations. If politicians were forced to face the tough questions Americans would be able to gain a better understanding of each politician's platform. Forcing politicians to answer the tough questions would also make them a hell of a lot more accountable and therefore, possibly, potentially, maybe a little more responsible.

Fool me twice, 2008 edition

Head first into the 'invisible primary' contest, I caught wind of a not-so-fantastic Mitt Romney ad today that read:

"If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order," Romney says, speaking directly to the camera. "We can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."

Let's dissect this gem, shall we?

"[Republicans] can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending," begins Romney's litany. However, a look at federal budget deficit numbers since 1970 seems to conclude otherwise. To spare you a painstaking glance at the obvious, the bar graph demonstrates that in 1983, 1992 and 2003, when Republicans were in office, the US budget deficit (adjusted for inflation) was at its highest. Granted, Democrats had their big spenders too. Clinton's shocking budget surplus from 1999 onward occurred, in part, due to Republican congressional support. But the graph, to an extent, proves Romney wrong. The Republicans are just as reckless at spending as their left-leaning brethren. The score: 1-0, simple common sense.

"We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration," Romney says next. Much as I may dislike the guy, he's correct on this one. The Christian Science Monitor, shattering some hopes and dreams last May, indicated that anywhere from 7 to 20 million immigrants presently live in the US, though official census records estimate there are approximately 8.5 million. Specifics aside, that number is astounding considering how often politicians referenced immigration along the campaign trail.

Yet Romney, who likely experiences a boatload of immigration troubles up in the great state of Massachusetts, said little else on the issue. There was no mention of how the US could secure its borders without disturbing Mexicans' access to the jobs the American economy takes for granted. And certainly, Romney's remarks failed to address a recent ICE report that stipulated it would cost nearly $94 billion to detain and deport all the illegal immigrants currently living in the US (what was that about big spending?). 2-0, informed voters.

Finally, Romney articulates that "We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno." To a degree, I can't take that away from the man. The biggest problem Americans (ought to) have with their political system is inadequate representation; that partisan politics, when combined with big bureaucracy, seem to upset any notion of political efficacy. But my problem isn't with what Romney said, it's how he intends to accomplish that goal. In my mind, not a single politician on either side of the political fence has done his or her part to clean up Congress' tattered reputation. And perhaps its the traditionalist in me talking, but I see lying to the voting public (what Romeny et. al. do when they mislead those who stare intently at such advertisements) as unethical as hiding thousands of dollars in your freezer.

So, it's 3-0, in that respect. Romney really misses his target. But amidst the same-old same-old that optimistic pundits constantly reassured us we would not see, it really does seem like we've lost, now doesn't it?

Taking It Out of Context

I need voice a concern that was raised after comment on my last blog post: taking quotes out of context.

Have you ever entered into a conversation at the wrong moment and totally misunderstood what was being said?

Here is my point. As students whom are trying to bring about change we need to be careful to read the whole story. We need to be conscious of the context in which things are said and read the whole thing first, than draw conclusions or arguments.

I want our blog to be seen as credible and worthy of people’s attention and hopefully criticism because that means we are doing something right.

CHEERS!

Licoln vs. Douglas 'The Smackdown' Pt. 1

In order to attempt to reestablish a more 'meaningful' political debate, in what is considered to be modern day democracy, it is necessary to reflect on a historic political debate dating all the way back to 1858. Yes, ladies and gentlemen we are speaking of the epic smack down that was Abraham Lincoln versus Stephen Douglas.

The first step to creating a good, honest political debate is to gather two or more men with opposing views on a variety of issues, or maybe only one key issue, and have them duke it out, verbally speaking, to try and almost convince each other, and the public, that one way is right, or at least better, than an opposing way. So once Lincoln and Douglas had decided to have these debates they also decided to have one in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois. That's right folks, nine rounds, battle to the death, for the legislature.

Luckily for our ancestors the style of a formal debate used to be much more free-flowing in which each speaker would have adequate time to say their speeches and really tell the public what their all about. Unlike today where our trained circus animals run around spewing premeditated garbage in our faces, insulting us by thinking we're so naive as to believe these perfectly orchestrated answers are really their own. Not to say politician's are lying, although I'm not saying their not, but they simply are not given an adequate environment where the public can truly listen to what they have to say.

Humor

I am part of the humor group so I decided to do some research. I googled "Political humor" and came up with some interesting results.

First of all, I found a hilarious clip from the John Stewart Show. It's a spoof of "Sex and the City," which I love, and it's about America having a female president. I don't know how to put the link in any other way besides to copy-and-paste it..so here it is: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=103031

Another clip I thought was funny is when O'Reilly had Colbert on his show:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=6&f=00&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=9&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DDJvY_RftA4I

And when O'Reilly comes on Colbert's show:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=81003&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_video%3D81003&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

I hope these links work!

Thanks,
Anna

Politics Today

I honestly can say that I really don't have any idea about what is going on in the world today... In other words, politics really isn't my thing. I took "Writing for Mass Comm." last semester, and we had to read the newspaper every day, so I was caught up back then... However, as of right now I just don't have enough time. As selfish as this sounds, I have my own life to deal with, and I'm pretty busy! Anyway, the point of this entry is just to say that I really need to get more involved with politics, especially with this important upcoming election. I say I'm a democrat, but I really don't have any idea about what the different arguments are. All I know is that after this war and the fear that seems to grip our society today, a change is definitely necessary.
I actually met someone today, he was a customer at the restaurant where I work, and we got to chatting about politics. Being in D.C. and working in a restaurant in Dupont means that I run into a lot of political junkies. I was on my break, so I was wearing normal clothes -- a t-shirt, capris, and flip flops. This is important because he actually said to me "I can look at you and tell you're a liberal hippie -- the flip flops, the hair (it was in a ponytail..how this would identify me as a liberal hippy I'm still trying to figure out...), the bag you're carrying." I wanted to ask..what does that even mean? Is politics getting to be something that we can judge just by looking at someone? Personally, I can't just look at someone and decide that he or she associates with one party or the other. I wasn't offended, I was just confused! I don't even know exactly what I think about Democrats or Republicans! How can he?

Thanks,
Anna

Commissioning the Presidential Debate

For years, presidential debates were sponsored by the networks and the League of Women Voters. However, for every debate since 1988, including the upcoming 2008 debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates has had control of the debates.
The Commission, formed of bipartisan members, gets to decide who can debate, where the debates will be held, and who will moderate them.
According to Common Dreams, the Commission has a history of advocating for an even stronger, more defined, two-party system. When Ross Perot joined Clinton and Bush the First in the 1992, the networks experienced record-breaking audiences. While this increase in viewers is likely due to the novelty of a three party debate, at least it got more people to pay attention.
Maybe a little more novelty is what we need. The presidential debates today are boring to everyone who isn’t a political geek, and most of them already know the candidates’ positions.
Why not allow the candidates to ask each other questions, to rebut each others’ assertions, to discuss topics at length? And why not – get your tasers ready – let the audience participate? Would it be a little disorganized? Sure, but debate should be disorganized, and no important issue fits neatly into a nice, 30-second box.
Of course, this would require the Commission, so invested in maintaining the status quo, to either open its mind or step off. A number of citizen’s groups have advocated just that. Check out the Citizen’s Debate Commission (http://citizensdebate.org), which proposes a new way to run the debates.
Need more reasons why this system needs to change? NPR commentator Connie Rice has 10.

Dating, Deals, and Debates

As I grew up, I was infamous for making deals with my mother. My sisters had to share a room while I had my own room until I went to college, as long as I didn’t get my ears pierced until I was eighteen. I was allowed to date this boy I liked when my mom thought I was still too young for dating if I gave up chewing gum. When I wanted to go to prom at my friend’s high school that was known for a very lax administration, my mom said that I could go if I watched one of the presidential debates with her.

Unlike me while I was in high school, most people are not bribed to watch presidential debates. The people who do watch debates are often the hardcore political junkies who already know which candidate they support. How do we actually get average citizens interested in the issues and candidates enough to sit down and watch a debate? I think on some level people need to be interested in the issues because they realize that this is what shapes the world we live in. People need to watch the debates in order to become informed voters and learn more about the government that runs much of their lives. True that the Lincoln-Douglas debate style might be more interesting, but if people don’t care about the subject matter, they aren’t going to care that the debates are more interesting.

So I pose a question to other bloggers: if the debates are more interesting, will more people care about the subject matter? Or does the culture need to change before the Average Joe and Jill find the debates stimulating?

Politicians Stances on Important Issues

To begin researching the presidential candidate's stances on hot topics I started by Googling a few key words, which yielded good results. The research has only just begun, but I've found a few sites that are doing basically the same thing we are - monitoring the candidates actions and their positions on specific issues.
One site (http://www.2decide.com/table.htm) had an interactive table that neatly lists all the presidential candidates and their positions on many important debate topics. Be sure to have a look at that, for people who might know who's running but don't know where the candidates stand - this is great.
The second site (http://mediamatters.org/) acts like an online watchdog. It not only covers what the candidates are doing and saying in the 'Candidate 2008' section, it also has good information on other topics themselves. Go here and find the 'Issues/Topics' button at the top and a list will pop up where you can decide on an issue (i.e. Media), a sub-issue (Propaganda/Noise Machine), then a specific topic (Hillary Clinton, etc.).
I don't know how to add in picture links, or else I'd put a visual of the table mentioned above - if anyone could give me any pointers on blogging, it'd be appreciated. I'm new to this whole media revolution game.

Debates? Honest or memorized?

Lincoln-Douglas debates were viewed as the ideal democratic debate between two opposing parties in a nonpartisan environment where each debater could express their own opinion without being interrupted. However, when reviewing political debates in the modern day it is easy to see how not only the subjects of debate but the debate itself has changed.

Debate no longer has it's beautiful shine and unyielding luster of truth. But instead is a collection of 30 second memorized answers that any given candidate can spit out when they are asked basic questions. This does not hold true to the idea of debate or the foundation of democracy that our fair country rests on. Democracy can survive only if the candidates can give the public honest and maybe even blunt answers to the hardest questions. Modern day debates seem to be lacking the honestly once bestowed upon them because behind our candidates rushed answers sits a campaign manager and a sheet of paper reminding them how to relate to the public.

If a candidate can't honestly relate to the public and can't accurately describe their opinions to even the most dreaded questions how can we expect them to rule our country without corruption and hold up the ever shifting ideals of democracy?

Fairness? Democrcay? Meaningful Political Debates? Is there even a place for such lofty ideals in a political system as morally bankrupt as ours?

Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better for me to be a more single-minded individual, a thought exacerbated by the situation I currently find myself in. The problem is, well, I have a million things to say, all relevant, all meaningful, and yet, somewhere in there I'm supposed to find one, just one that is truly meaningful to me that remains obscure and generally not discussed in blogging circles. Apathetically lamenting the imperfect world we live in that will never be anything but corrupt and an affront to democracy and freedom isn't much of a help either. I guess I'll start at the beginning and see where if anywhere it takes me.

The question remains, what exactly is a meaningful political debate, and how does one go about creating it? Personally, I find little in the way of meaning in the modern political climate. I see elections as a choice between the lesser of two evils, not as a test of who will be better for the country.

We live in a world where only the most conniving and deftly political creatures are amoral enough to thrive.The honest human beings, the genuinely good people who aren't planning their next flanking maneuver on the political battlefield but are instead focusing on improving the country in meaningful and lasting ways just aren't ruthless enough to actually make any headway against the scores of politician's politicians. What's more, the sole driving goal of those who wield the power to create change are using it not as promised, to create useful legislation and lead the country into a better, more productive, safe and free society. Instead the singular focus of those men (and a tiny handful of women) is to get reelected. And when they can't get reelected, they have their children or their siblings or their wives run.

Perhaps more than anything, it is these legacies that anger me most about the political climate in this country. Virtually inheriting a job always struck me as very un-American and inhibitive of true progress and democracy. The idea of government of, by and for the people just doesn't seem to work when people imply a virtual aristocracy in a country who lists among its founding principles the fact that "all men are created equal." Call me crazy, call me an idealist, but I was under the impression the founding fathers meant for political offices to be contests among a host of different people, not a cycle of one super-powerful political family after another.

Getting Back.

I am sat on my computer for numerous hours pondering what I was going to blog about. I can imagine that I am not alone in this. Personally, I am not truly inspired by the topic of this blog. I have to admit that politics bore me and my interest is quickly lost.
I would like to mention one thing though, one of my summer readings was Work Hard, Study and… Keep out of Politics by James A. Baker, III, I will let the title speak for itself. Here is an excerpt from his book:
“Disagree agreeably. Listen respectfully. Treat everyone, allies and adversaries alike, with dignity. Return phone calls. Count the votes. When you’re ahead, call the question. When you’re behind, work harder. If you can’t get everything you want, get what you can. When you can’t win, fall back and fight another day.
Respect the press and get to know reporters. Talk to them on background most of the time, but on the record with necessary. Help them understand the administration’s position. And never lie to them.”
Taking these words from one of my personal heroes lets get the presidential candidates to talk and get back to the real issues. Let’s forget about who Oprah is voting for, who has raised the most money this week and get the candidates to talk about homeland security, the war, social security… The issues that matter.

Formatting

A few things I've noticed about the blog. We definitely need to put in up categories so it is not one giant string to posts for people to read (or not read). Second, I was thinking about having an opening page with the sub-sections and giving a bit of a tease as to what you would see in each sub-section for that particular week. I think that would be really cool and would wet peoples' appetites for the blog. This blog should look good and function well and I think these additions would make these goals possible.

A New Kind of Debate

Setting out on my first blog post I was set upon finding the strangest, most off the wall or amusing debate fun facts that I could find. While doing some research however, I stumbled upon an interesting press release about a group intent on making presidential candidates more approachable to the general public. According to the piece, in 2004 Cranium, Inc. (the company responsible for the games Cranium, Hullabaloo, and other family friendly games) invited both Democratic and Republican candidates and their families to a Cranium Turbo Edition Game Night. The goal of the evening was to provide Americans a look at the candidates in a more casual, laid back respect. The questions were not rehearsed and off-the-wall. According to the Cranium executives in charge of the event, the goal of the event was to bring Americans a fresh new outlook at the candidates. Instead of stuffy suits and pre-meditated debate questions, the candidates were allowed to be fun and off-the-wall. Personally, I think that this is a great idea. We hear candidates repeat their speeches from word for word from one city to the next. Often Robert Redford’s character from the 1972 film The Candidate comes to my mind. In one clip he sits in the car reciting the same speech over and over, driving himself insane. These new debates might be a great way to let the American public see how our candidates really feel about issues when they may speak about them in a more casual setting. Isn't it about time for us to see our candidates in a more human light? Let's hear about what they have to say when the speeches and carefully anticipated responses are gone!

Should we narrow the field?

Can meaningful political debate really be conducted between eight people?

The formal debates with the eight democratic presidential hopefuls have been progressing. This year has seen ten so far, the last being in Florida on September 9. But with eight men and women all vying for the spotlight, it has been hard to distinguish each person’s take on every issue.

In July, John Edwards approached Hilary Clinton onstage at one of these debates and proposed that they should arrange something with a “more serious and smaller group.” The way he framed the proposal was to encourage more serious discussion.

Lesser-known candidates like Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd have taken issue with his plans to exclude them from future debate. Kucinich went so far as to send letters to both Edwards and Clinton, challenging them to one-on-one debates. Neither responded in the affirmative.

So is it a good idea to debate with a smaller group? Probably. But not at the cost of excluding other contenders. The people have to know all of their options to make the most informed decision.

A Nation with the Fidgets

In a recent article, from The Nation, Nicholas von Hoffman expressed his dissatisfaction over the status of the American political debate. As he put it, “What passes for a political debate in the United States today is little more than dueling sound bites.”

His article, subtlety titled America’s Idiotic Political Debates, mentions the good old days, when the media griped about politicians who talked too much during the debates.

“If you go back to the time of H.L. Mencken or Mark Twain, the educated classes also complained that American politicians were divided into two classes, vapid windbags and screeching baboons. Yet the country prospered.

“If things are worse today it is because the windbags are gone.”

Things have changed greatly since the days of the Lincoln-Douglass Debates, when the first candidate spoke for an hour, the second spoke for an hour and a half, then allowed the first candidate an half hour rebuttal. During the recent CNN/Youtube debates, Presidential hopefuls were lucky to speak for more than 30 seconds before being shushed by distractively attractive moderator Anderson Cooper.

Although the Youtube format was a great step forward in regards to getting the public involved with the political process, not much debate actually occurred. A return to the long-winded debates of yore may be too much, but can we really even call these half-a-minute Q/A sessions debates anymore?

“In defense of their idiotic political displays, television executives and campaign operatives apparently believe that a minute of speech uninterrupted by either a murder or a copulation scene is about all TV viewers can take. America, they insist, suffers from attention-deficit disorder. It's a nation with the fidgets.” –Hoffman, The Nation

Here’s the link again: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/von_hoffman

a bit of background

I've been looking at some scholarly atricles and essays that apply to our presidential debate blog. Even with the rise of sites like Youtube, television still dominates how many Americans watch candidates debate, and in turn form their opinions on how to vote. So I thought it would be interesting to look at how this precedent was set. The Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960 were the point at which the electoral process moved into the livingrooms of Americans across the nation. An article by Liette Gidlow at historynoy.org takes a look at the rise of the television era of debate. The link: http://www.historynow.org/09_2004/historian2.html

Power to the Status Quo

The questions go unanswered. The hard hitting ones go unasked. By most, the debates even go un-noted. This is the sad reality of political debate in today’s America. Everyone knows it, and many are ready for change. Some have made complaints, and others, suggestions. But why exactly then is it that political candidates are the ones so resistant to changing the format of debate?

Perhaps it’s because politicians are salesmen, pitching a product as abstract as themselves. It isn’t a stretch to conclude that a salesman selling an abstract product has to be even more slick and sly than one who pitches a concrete one. Regrettably enough, this would explain why candidates are spending millions each year on campaign managers and PR personnel. Each member of the campaign team is a salesman, from the politician down to the lowliest intern. The thing about pitching a product is that it’s all about control.

Whether candidiates like it or not, times are changing, and people are clamoring to be spoken to, instead of spoken at, as YouTube shaker James Kotecki put it in his recent visit to our Dissident Media class. In today’s world, information control is no longer limited to a select few. The advancement of the Internet has excused nothing from the realm of public discussion, and true, public political discussion is exactly what’s being called for. While the recent Democratic ‘YouTube’ debates are a baby step in the right direction, the format of debate has largely gone unchanged since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate. If tomorrow’s political hopefuls want to be taken seriously and, maybe more importantly, sincerely, they’d do well to do away with the thirty second sound bytes and to embrace, however reluctantly, the changing face of political debate that is incontestably headed their way.

The Politician Suit

Recently, I did a little research on one of the candidates for the upcoming election, a guy by the name of Fred Thompson. At first, this guy seemed to be something original, unique from the usual politician full of bs. I have never gotten into politics because honestly politicians really annoy me. Maybe I'm a little uneducated but it doesn't matter what party they come from, they all seem to be the same. Politics seems to be very monotonous as it always a white protestant man with white or grey hair blathering on about something he means to do but never actually gets around to doing it.

Anyway, back to Fred Thompson, Thompson's website is http://www.fred08.com/index.aspx. On this website you can check out videos on his life, his political accomplishments, of which some are impressive and his announcement that he intends to run for presidency.

I watched most of the videos and was impressed by his employment record, this guy has done everything! Delivered mail, made bikes, been an attorney, acted and been in senate. He really impressed me until I watched his video showing his intention to run for presidency.

Hearing all his ideas just showed me that no matter how interesting a guy is before he runs for president, he will turn into the same old boring politician that I'm used to if he runs for presidency. It's as if people running for presidency are given a politician suit, which completely destroys any outlet for creativity or originality. Thompson is republican and his ideas mirrored those already in place in the Bush administration. I find it annoying that this guy would even think to continue the same way Bush was, when its very clear that this country needs a complete turn around or in 10 years, we're going to be in a very sticky situation.

That's my rant on Fred Thompson, hope you enjoyed it. Please let me know what you think of his website.

Getting everythign up and running

Hey all,

Blogger is a very easy tool for blogging. The tools are very simple. Simply write whatever you like and use the font tools on the top left to spice things up again (like color, font, font size, etc). You can also very easily link anything you'd like into the blog using the link icon (which looks like a chain link over a picture of the globe). The centering aspects are the exact same as in word, and should not be too hard. To embed a picture simply click on the landscape icon next to the spellcheck button. It is just as easy to embed a video by clicking the film icon. Hopefully everything works out well for all of you. Have fun.

Other bloggers interested in same cause

As I approached this first blog entry, I was unsure as to where to go with it. Candidate positions on press issues, debate issues, democratic discourse issues, comments on media? It seems so general, so many things one could say about them. Yet, what to say? I wanted to see if any of the 2008 candidates had any response to Newt Gingrich's demand for meaningful political debates, the social cause of our blog.
So I went to Google and typed in ________(insert politicians name) meaningful political debates and was shocked to find that most of the results I got from Google were of other blogs reporting on how candidates performed in debates or how they thought the debates should be changed to become more meaningful. There were hits for blogs at abcnews.com, cbsnews.com, usatoday.com, mainstream media websites, as well as hundreds of other lesser-known and alternative form of media publications. I did find one article on the first page when I searched for "obama meaningful political debates" that wasn't just a blog posting. It was an article from cbsnews.com from August 20th that reported on how Obama would be decreasing the amount of debate appearances he would be making after a busy summer, "saying the demand is just too great. If they agreed to accept every such invitation, the campaign said, there would simply be no time left over for the important things, like, you know, actual campaigning" (Ververs). Here's a link to the article.

Keeping Up Appearances

Super! Looks like we have one marketing-related issue out of the way: this green looks like somebody ate a hefty portion of moss and promptly vomited. So naturally, we must now search deep within ourselves to come up with the perfect color scheme. It might be fun and/or helpful to consider this in terms of epithets, e.g.:

• Soothing-- think reverting back to your carefree childhood, chamomile tea, warm milk, Mommy, etc. Maybe warm pastels?
• Funky/Wacky!!-- for some reason, the first colors that comes to mind are the borderline-offensive oranges and purples of Bed Bath & Beyond's line of college furniture, but of course any combination of bold colors would apply here.
• D.C. Professional-- black, white, grays...you know, if we want to cater to a lofty, boring older crowd.

Or not. Whichever.

In any case, feel free to leave a comment if you feel particularly passionate about a certain color (personally, I'm pretty fond of seafoam green and teal) and the suggestion will most certainly be taken into account.

Giuliani: One Hit Wonder

Six years and two days ago we witnessed the worst attack on U.S soil. On Tuesday we commemorated that day and for the first time family members did not read off the names of the victims. Instead it was the rescuers who read the names of the people they could not get too. Hundreds of New Yorkers and people from around the globe stood in the drizzly rain to honor the fallen. Some of the participants included former New York mayor George Pataki, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York City major Rudi Giuliani. Several months ago there was a controversy about Giuliani showing up at the ceremonies. Many families believed that he would turn this date of remembrance into a presidential speech. I agreed.
After 9/11 Giuliani became “America’s mayor.” When he spoke everyone listened, everyone was sympathetic, and everyone was on his side. However, now I feel that he was lost his touch. After all this is the candidate that answers 9/11 to every question. In fact he has become worse than President Bush in reminding us that we should live in fear and buy duct tape and gas masks. So I agreed that he should not have spoke at the ceremony. And although, he did not talk about his candidacy, I believe the main point of the protest was to tell America about his policies. His policies to disregard the American public, build up defense stay the course, and committee more soldiers to uncertain future. It is obvious he has the wrong talking points and if he really wants to talk to us, he needs to stop mentioning 9/11 and start talking about the change he is going to being to the White House.

"You have to be a real, low-life piece of **** to get involved in politics"

Politics and I don't get along anymore. Once a self-proclaimed political junkie, I grew weary of the petty partisanship and idiocy of everyone involved. Political discourse in America is basically non-existent. As I watch the entirety of the political spectrum being devoured by the extremists from both the left and right, finding an independent voice in the media has become an exercise. Whether it's Ann Coulter's book on the 'God-less liberals' or Michael Moore's book on social security, all anyone does is insult each other. The only outlet of (semi) intelligent voices is the internet. But with this brand new technology we're faced with a completely different set of issues. Here there is absolutely no quality control, and no qualifications are necessary. Anyone is able to post their blog, and this is how the truly unbiased and central views can be heard.
The biggest problem we face is reigning in the forces of extremists and promoting the voices of independence beyond the internet to the mainstream news media. Our candidates do little to help this goal. They promote and reinforce the political extremism of the popular culture and, therefore, never focus on the true problems and issues, but on a party and an ideology. Now purely about beating the competition (as opposed to true love of the game) it's a high-stakes game in which there is nothing but total victory for one side. The conservative domination of the political landscape has found its way into the very ideology and institution of the mainstream media. The networks, newspapers, and personalities of the media elite have chosen their sides and it is up to the American people to take the control out of their hands. The voices on the internet, the informed bloggers, are exactly those who, according to our founding fathers, provide a stable and true Democracy. It is their job to promote an independent voice in our media, and help to ensure (and not expose for the sake of exposure) freedom and lawfulness within our government.

Ron Paul: A Politician Idiot?

Upon sitting down at my trusty laptop to compose what would be my very first blog entry, I told myself that of all the presidential candidates, the one I would most certainly avoid writing about would be Republican Representative, Ron Paul. I figured there had been too much discussion about Paul in class, and I wanted to dig deeper into the dark depths of the candidate nation. Unfortunately, my big dreams of unearthing a less mainstream contender were squelched when, in my research, I stumbled upon a rather intriguing statement of Paul’s. According to The News Observer, Paul reportedly stated in an interview with ABC news on Tuesday, September 11, “If we as Republicans want to change things, we have to deal with the authority the president was given -- we have to remove that -- and we have to remove the financing, which we could do.” He continued, "But this tinkering around with how many soldiers are there and whether there's progress or not -- I think it's kind of missing the whole point.”
If assessing the resulting casualties and the calculated progress of an active conflict is not hugely a part of “the point” in a debate about the necessity of a war, especially the one we find ourselves hopelessly trapped in today, then what is? Clearly there are many facets to consider in determining how successful (or not) a conflict resolution is proving to be. But I think Paul would be hard-pressed to find a following for his notion that the number of troops in Iraq and status of the operation’s success are trivial factors in what has become one of the most heated political debates in our nation’s history, the debate about the proclaimed War on Terror.
The important thing to note about this statement is that it is offensive regardless of one’s opinions about continued action in Iraq. Political parties set aside, comments of this nature not only demean the significance of every life that is at stake (not to mention those that have already been lost), but also seek to bury any doubt or future debate about the war’s progress. I think it’s safe to say we can all agree that the question about the Iraq War’s future is and should remain at the forefront of the presidential debates.

Let's make it pretty

Good-golly gumbo green! Floss the spinach that’s in-between your teeth and eat your vegetables because the green has got to go. But don’t get too excited we have lots to do before we’re one of those shiny, moderately attractive, marketable blog sites.

What do we really want our site to feel like? A political whirlwind of red, white & blue or more of a college-style forum about our next door political bigwigs? I have made a list of some things to think about.

Layout: content inside columns, archive organization, tabs
Design: colors, headliner, blogger profiles, graphics

Post your comments on some ideas so the marketing group can get started ;)

Ideas

If anyone has any specific ideas on improving how we look, just send an email to Mescalero101er@gmail.com! Thanks!