Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Edwards Endorses Obama; Dobbs Endorses Nonsense

I'm glad I caught Edwards' speech endorsing Barack Obama - I turned it on just as he was winding down his awkward Hillary Clinton comments, which, with me being someone who can't stand Clinton, was perfect timing. I thought Edwards' speech was actually very inspiring and hope filled, reminiscent of the message Obama focused on in the beginning of the primary season. All in all, a great speech, a great endorsement for Obama, and another nail in the Clinton coffin.

Unfortunately, CNN cut Obama's speech short to get analysis from Lou Dobbs. Dobbs, after getting some basic thoughts on the speeches from two panel members, declared that the Democratic primary failed - the Democrats were hoping to avoid a "brokered" nomination, and that's exactly what it got. Dobbs repeatedly questioned the panel members as to why this should be accepted, and ranted that it was damaging to the party.

Dobbs, it seems, believes that the importance of the superdelegates this election cycle makes the nomination worthless, and that this recent surge ins upport for Obama is effectively making the voter's choices worthless. He was undeterred by the other pundit's explanations that there was simply no way possible for either candidate to win the needed number of votes without counting superdelegates, or that, if the superdelegates needed to choose someone, they were doing the most democratic thing by backing the person with the most public support from voters.

Dobbs continued to insist that the nomination was brokered, and unfair. He had trouble understanding why Florida and Michigan couldn't be seated, and also with the way the superdelegates are counted. What he's failing to realize is that, flawed as the system might be (and is now recognized to be by most), the rules are the rules, and to call this nomination brokered is utter nonsense. The people have voted, the superdelegates have concurred, and Barack Obama looks to be the next Democratic nominee for President.

The pundits, those "experts" we are told to listen to, really need to read the rulebook more carefully - I'm sure someone could explain it to them if they really need.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

August Here we Come

I just thought I would drop some notes in, even though the final results aren't quite in yet.

1) The polls seemed to be just about right in Indiana, where Clinton currently has about a four point lead, but not so much in North Carolina, where polls recently had Obama in the single digits for a lead but he looks to have won by about 14-15 points. These polls have turned into quite the roll of the dice, no?

2) It looks to me like Obama will increase his delegate lead tonight, but I'm already hearing from the pundits that the ClintonS (yes, with an "s") won't listen to anyone because Hillary thinks she's entitled to this year's nomination. Of course, that was on Fox (CNN was on a commercial break), but I'll drink that Kool-Aid. This isn't ending soon.

3) I guess it's a good thing, voter participation and all, but 400,000 people voted in both Indiana and North Carolina for the Republican primary? I must admit I thought that was interesting.

4) One comment not just about tonight - I'm in the camp that thinks this gas tax holiday is a bunch of baloney; the economics just don't make sense, and we're making the problem worse. Still, I can see the strategy of McCain and Clinton, and maybe they have their beliefs and opinions, which is great - but let's turn the rhetoric down. Hillary, I know you're trying to come from behind and win, but am I really supposed to buy your line that the reason Obama opposes the gas tax holiday is because he doesn't care about regular people? That he doesn't want to cut working Americans a break? Please. There's a line of legitimacy that she seems to be losing track of.

I'll check back in the next few days to see what new developments come up. Until then!

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Which do we prefer? Elitists or regular folks? Based on the media, we're very confused.

America - the land of freedom and opportunity, where any man or woman can rise from poor and difficult upbringings to achieve great things. We all love this idea that our nation was founded on, the idea that we are all equal, and that our government should be run by those who accurately represent us, not those who would treat us as subjects.

All this being said, it's odd that we can't make up our mind regarding the Presidency - do we want someone like us, or someone better?

This election cycle has been extremely interesting, as the term "elitist" is being thrown around with the same hatred we usually reserve for those who commit atrocities or crimes against humanity. It also appears that being labeled with this description can come with statements that could possibly be interpreted as suggesting elitism (such as using the word "bitter"), and not with outright statements that some people are better than others. Of course, when you do consider our history and feelings about our nation, it would be easy to understand why we do not want someone who thinks they might be royalty, or inherently better than the people he or she is supposed to be representing, in the highest position in the land.

So, how come when our candidates do act like regular people, we punish them for it?

Hillary goes into a bar and drinks a beer and does a shot (granted, it was of the most elitist alcohol out there - found that one funny Jon Stewart, thanks), and instead of praising her for showing she has a real side, we condemn the behavior. Obviously we don't want a drunk in office, but who doesn't have a drink every once in a while? Most regular people can relax with a shot, so why can't the candidates, who we don't want to be elitist?

Barack Obama gets irritated with some bozo who is in his face demanding that the Senator takes a picture with him, and we take him to task for getting frustrated. How would you, or any other "regular" person out there, react? Of course we need someone in office who can handle difficult situations with grace, but there should be a limit to what they need to put up with. Any regular person would have punched this guy in about half the time Obama dealt with him. Instead, Obama is criticized for getting slightly upset.

Our president, and other elected officials for that matter, should be expected to act with a certain manner in public. They have a responsibility to do so, as they are representing our nation and must act in our best interests. However, we need to make a choice. Do we admit that these politicians, with their expensive and prestigious educations, vast experience running campaigns, and ability to create legislation and work with other politicians to support their constituents, might indeed have more skill, intelligence, or other better qualities than we do? In that case, we can indeed hold them to a higher standard of behavior, in return for admitting they might be the elite. Or, do we understand that these people have their bad days like we do, that they might stumble in speeches, get facts wrong occasionally, and perhaps make incorrect decisions even with good intentions? In this case, we can't expect them to act in ways we wouldn't be able to ourselves.

I'm well aware that the best case scenario is a middle ground between the two discussed options. I'm also aware that in this era of cable news networks, blogs, and constant coverage and video recordings, that each candidate's actions and words will be over analyzed. However, we need to think back to our nation's founding, and understand that none of our politicians have been given Divine Right to rule, and that they are not royalty. Just as we would never allow ourselves to be treated as subjects, neither should our candidates be expected to be infallible rulers who are better than we are.

Our options are, in truth, not limited to "elite" or "regular", so why should we try to force candidates into certain labels? We should spend our time trying to understand candidate's positions, not labeling them with inaccurate descriptions. Until we understand what we have to work with, our government will never improve. As we saw in tonight's debate, getting sidetracked with non-issues is a problem we need to end.

PS - If you liked the topic of the above post, there's a post on Communicative Action about a similar thought. Check it out when you get a moment.

Speak to you soon!

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Quick Hits from an Insomniac

Hey all,

I spent the entire day cooped up doing a book review and some other research, and now its 2AM and I'm nowhere near tired, so I thought I would pop in and throw out some quick discussion points that are running through my head at a hundred miles per hour. Give me some responses to let me know what you think - let's get the discussion going!

I. Political Notes

a. I don't get the Barack Obama "bitterness" furor. What did he say that was wrong? Wouldn't you be bitter after three decades of hardships and broken promises? I wish some Pennsylvanians would stand up and say "Hey! He got it right! I AM bitter! Now FIX it!" I'm bitter about a lot of things regarding politics and I'm only 22. I can't wait for the day when we can actually admit how we feel.

b. Hillary can't keep her own husband quiet and she's going to run our country?

c. One would think being associated with Bush would crush anyone's political future, but a new poll suggests having Condoleeza Rice on the ticket could help McCain beat any type of Obama/Clinton ticket in true blue New York. Go figure THAT one out.

II. The Sports Report

a. The coverage Tiger Woods gets is incredible. I wonder if anyone would pay any attention to golf at all if it wasn't for ESPN and SI's obessive discussions over each shot, and debating whether he's falling apart or the greatest golfer ever, based on his last round's score.

b. Andruw Jones will figure it out.

c. I'm not that sure about the Tigers.

d. I can't say I pay much attention to hockey all that much, but it's my experience that the NHL playoffs might be one of the most exciting sports events of the year. Those guys leave it all out there every game, and each one is edge-of-your-seat stuff. If you haven't given it a shot, now's a good time.

Talk to you all soon enough!

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Hillary Needs More Memory Food

My last post was about perception and how for some things, we need to be able to all come together and agree that there is one meaning. Hillary Clinton seems to have provided one of these moments I was hoping for.

To be fair, I'll start by saying I am not a fan of Hillary. I'm one of those people who amazingly finds it insane that we here in New York randomly allowed her to run for Senate here after she moved to NY only to do so. I don't know, I'll support the people who have been more active and actually know the people they are serving, thank you very much. And I also think as soon as she got into office, all she did was begin an eight year long campaign. Chuck Schumer seems to always be involved in something, or appearing with his constituents, or at least seemingly doing something that relates to his actual job, and I must say I'd much prefer a candidate like that.

Rant aside, Clinton's claim that she entered Bosnia as First Lady under sniper fire and in dire danger, then the release of video that proves she nearly had a welcoming parade on the tarmac, seems to be one of those issues where we just have to look at the situation and understand we are straight up being lied to. It won't happen - too many people will believe that she "misremembered". I say if you misremember every important issue and come up with an excuse for every contradiction you face, it gets to be the boy who cried wolf. Eventually, we need to either believe that someone isn't fit to run the country if he or she can barely remember what they did last week, or that we are being lied to.

Honestly, I get nervous if someone is questioning me about something and I know I did nothing wrong. How politicians (not limited to Hillary) can stand there and spin yarns for stories that go out to millions of people and think that they are going to get away with these tall tales in today's technological age astounds me. It's either blatant stupidity or blatant arrogance, and I don't like either.

Is there any way we can all agree this is a terrible, intentional lie that she should be held accountable for, especially as she criticizes Obama's lack of experience?

Probably not.

But a man can dream, can't he?

Monday, March 24, 2008

Divisions over a Speech on Our Racial Divide


What I find simply amazing is how millions of people can listen to or watch the same speech or event, and each will have their own interpretation.

Something in our human existence allows each one of us to craft our own belief about our experiences, and it makes each individual unique. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, because it's not. It's what has led us to advance throughout our existence, and is what will either save us or doom us in the end. I'm not passing any judgment on it - just noting it's significance.

The reason I bring this up is the response to Barack Obama's recent speech on racism in America, brought about by comments his spiritual adviser and close friend has made in numerous sermons. It's interesting how wide the range of reactions has been. Some, including my professor at Fordham, Paul Levinson, have suggested that the speech was a huge step in race relations , perhaps one day to be ranked with Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream Speech". Others vehemently declare that Obama's refusal to condemn the remarks is proof that he agrees with them, and that this will be his downfall. How can it be both one of the greatest speeches in history and the nail in the coffin of a campaign at the same time?

Human perception is truly amazing.

If you have a moment, take a look at this article from the History News Network. Whether you agree or not for this specific case, I thought it was an inspiring reflection on Obama's decision regarding this pastor, and how, in the grand scheme of things, we need to stop scapegoating others so we can lead better lives.
I'd like to take a moment to continue with the idea of perception in politics, but to step away from the Obama issue. While I was thinking about the statements I made above, I started thinking that while there might not necessarily be a one hundred percent truth in this crazy world of ours, we should be able to come to a consensus on SOME things. Obviously we all have our own biases and personalities that will alter how we understand our world, but we should be able to look at certain things and agree. It reminded me of a line from a Lewis Black comedy routine, when he was talking about this issue of how we can never agree on anything:

"...and there has to come a point where Democrats and Republicans... where we see a piece of footage and we just agree on what the fuck reality is. And the fact is, you cannot show video of a Land Rover running over a cat and then say 'The cat was trying to kill itself. I'm going to need at least 3 days to find the note that he left.'"

You can take a look here if you like

Yeah, it's a comedy routine, I get it. But it made a lot of sense. Certainly we are all going to have different opinions on almost every issue that comes up. But there does come a time when we need to stop allowing our elected officials to spin what's going on into a story that will simply calm us down and work to their benefit. This election has the potential to turn into one of these watershed moments, and we might indeed have the chance to hold our politicians accountable for their past actions, to send a message to anyone newly elected, and to make sure they understand that their promises need to be kept. Using our own perception is one thing - allowing someone else to tell you what to perceive is dangerous. We need to understand what is important for the American public as a whole, and demand it to happen.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Obama's Recent Speech

Forgive me for being so far behind, but I have not yet had the chance to check out the speech Barack Obama gave regarding racism in America and the words of his pastor, the Rev. Wright. It would thus be silly of me to try to give you my views on it, but I read a commentary on it earlier that I thought, if nothing else, was a great piece of writing. Personally, I thought it was worth saving and passing along - let me know what you think:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/19/commentary.ashong/index.html

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Immediate Disclosure Softens the Blow

So by now, I'm sure you're all familiar with the story of Barack Obama's minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has, for apparently many years, made speeches and sermons regarding the status of race relations and America's role in the world government that could be seen, at the very least, as in poor taste, but by some as un-American and very racial themselves. Of course, Obama himself has not supported or agreed with any of these comments, and can certainly not be held responsible for the words of another, but it is troubling to many how he could have looked up to someone with these thoughts for so many years, and have described him as a mentor and a close friend.

And I'm sure you have all been kept up to date on the aftermath of the Spitzer affair (pun intended). His successor, David Patterson, admitted yesterday that he and his wife both had extra-marital affairs during a rough patch in their marriage. While this type of admission has certainly been big news in the past, this story seemed to lack a certain pizazz factor.

Personally, in both the cases of Obama and Patterson, I don't think the issues brought to light have much to do with their ability to govern (to be honest, Spitzer's actions only really irritated me due to his blatant hypocrisy and his failure to live up to the highest standard he wanted everyone else to live up to). We've all had rough times in our life, and I think it's unfair to judge us by those we associate with and our past mistakes. We've all had friends or relatives who have done very controversial things, and our association with them shouldn't necessarily harm us if we haven't had any concrete ties to these actions. The problem is that Obama has been waving the issue away for months now, and only once recordings of the speeches became public did he actually try to deal with the issue. Now it just seems like he had something to hide.

Patterson had a similar issue to deal with, but his handling of the situation could make all the difference. In the wake of a sex scandal, he decided to come clean about his past affairs (and his wife) in the interest of full disclosure and being honest with the people of New York. While it might not be the most pleasant ideal for a governor, it made the affairs seem like a mistake by two hurt people, and applied a rational and adult-like light onto the situation, and immediately removed all of the steamy, clandestine and secretive angles the press would have used if they had found the story themselves. Unlike Obama, Patterson dealt with the issue up front, and yes, gave up the slight chance that no one would have ever found out - but immediately countered most of the damage from the admission by doing it on his own terms.

The problem that the vast majority of people face is understanding the fact that politicians, like regular people, sometimes have skeletons hidden in the closet. Maybe it has to do with the fact that we hold our Founding Fathers in such high regard that we expect our politicians to uphold some high moral standard. Of course it's ideal, but if this is the America that allows the common man to rise from nowhere to succeed in life, wouldn't it also stand to reason that the common man's faults would travel with him? Of course. As Patterson showed, it's better to throw the door open and air it out on one's own terms then allow someone to force their way in and create the story on their own.

I think why people get so angry about these issues, especially in these instances, is that each of these people was seen as someone different. Barack Obama was supposed to be a great uniting force among people, and now we find out he has followed a minister with very divisive ideas for decades. Eliot Spitzer was a champion who forced major corporations to follow the rules, but now we see he didn't think they applied to his own behavior. And David Patterson was hailed in the last week for being well respected, someone who could work with any member of government from any party, and now we see he had troubles with his own life. If these men who we had so much hope in can let us down, who can we trust?

The hardest, but most necessary lesson to learn here, is that, like us, politicians have their faults. It's extremely naive to think that Barack Obama is the only Senator with friends who have radical ideas, that Eliot Spitzer is the only governor to have ever hired a prostitute, and that David Patterson is the first official to have an affair. Indeed, without any stats or proof to back me up, I'd say the vast majority of our elected officials could say they're done two out of the three. What we need to do as an educated public is to continue to hold our politicians to a high standard, but to also hold ourselves to them as well - and more importantly, to realize that these are not the true issues at hand.

We cannot continue to allow ourselves to be distracted by non-issues. We might not like that a governor had an affair, or that a congressman made a shady business deal ten years ago. However, we're at an extremely crucial time in our nation's history right now, and we need to focus on the real issues - the economy, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, health care, education, etc. If the neighbor down the street has an affair, does it affect you in any way? No, even if you are interested. But if he's stealing your lawnmower while you're gossiping on the phone, THAT'S a problem. And that's what's happening in America. We're all so focused on the nonsense that our nation, our lifestyle, might be slipping away while we worry about the behavior of our politicians in their personal lives and not in the government offices.

I'm not condoning any of these actions, and I wish we did have someone we could see as a savior figure that would restore morality to our government. I'm just saying that none of them are perfect (not even the Founding Fathers, as history has shown), and that the quicker we come to terms with that, the quicker we can get to the real issues and put this nation back on the right track.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

A Month of Motion and We're in the Same Place

Hey all,

Obviously it's been a long time since I've last posted, and as I started to prepare to write this entry, I was wondering about all of the things that have happened over the last month in both politics and sports - countless primaries, the Roger Clemens hearing, more NFL Spygate stories, John McCain clinching the Republican nomination - and then it occurred to me that in the grand scheme of things, we're largely in the same place we were a month ago!

This isn't to discount the importance of what has happened over the last month; especially concerning the upcoming election, but let's look at things in a broad sense - Obama and Hillary are still virtually tied and the momentum is swinging back and forth like a pendulum, we STILL don't have proof over whether Clemens did steroids (but we saw how partisanship can even be an issue when sports and Congress collide) or whether the Patriots are worthy of their Super Bowl titles, and McCain was the front runner after Super Tuesday anyway. A huge amount of pomp and circumstance (and money spent) just to tread water, wouldn't you say?

I think, in fact, that this stagnation might be part of the problem with our political election process. With campaigns starting earlier and earlier each cycle, it feels like there is a lot of dead time with nothing going on but the candidates spitting on each other. It's obviously beneficial to have more time to learn about each candidate, but really, how much name calling do we need? How many times can I hear Hillary question Obama's experience, and listen to Obama call for change? I GET IT - now let's get on with the show. Now, we have SIX WEEKS before another meaningful primary - I know Pennsylvania wasn't supposed to have an impact, but you think maybe someone should have planned for a close race. Now we are all going to be subject to the same droning on about the issues we've already beaten to death, and frankly, who wouldn't be sick of the whole thing by the time we hit the convention?


On the other hand, while I might be less disgusted with John McCain by the time the general election starts, I do think that his clinching the nomination while the other two continue to fight will actually hurt him, if only because he will be out of the public eye. I think he could ask Rudy about how important public awareness and momentum are in these types of things. So maybe this whole thing is a vicious cycle - the more intrusive your campaign, the more people get aggravated with you, but the less intrusive, the more people forget about you. Which is the lesser of two evils?

I'm about to dive into "Why Americans Hate Politics" by EJ Dionne; a subject I've always been interested in myself. I think the items mentioned above might have something to do with it, but I'll keep you posted on anything interesting from the book. However, the idea that we've spent a month dealing with all of this to no real end certainly makes me aggravated.

Or maybe I'm just trying to run away from my guilt of not posting in a month by blaming the political system. You can be the judge.