"I Will Never Surrender In Iraq"

The other night I heard John McCain on the news, and what he was saying honestly scared me. He was giving a speech to some supporters, but kept getting interrupted by anti-war protesters. Finally after one stood up and shouted something, McCain replied by saying to his audience, "I will never surrender in Iraq, my friends, I will never surrender." This made me sick to my stomach that people were applauding him and that he was saying he would never surrender. What does that even mean? You will NEVER surrender? So we are supposed to just stay at war forever? McCain's an idiot, I am sorry. This war sucks and anyone who wants to stay there for "100 more years" is stupid. A former press secretary of Bush's just came out with a book that talks about the war in Iraq being unnecessary. He is a huge loyalist to Bush, but says that the president used propaganda for the war and that his staff was so focused on making it look good, that they ignored the facts that did not do so. This is the problem with the way Washington works--everyone is always in campaign mode and cares about what looks good, rather than what is good. Now McCain and the RNC is trying to use the war in McCain's advantage, playing up the fact that Obama has only been to Iraq once, and that McCain has been there several times. I don't know why they are trying to advertise this as if the people don't already know where the two stand on the war issue. It is not that surprising to me that Obama has not been to Iraq much, when he was against the war from the start, while McCain was not. The RNC's website (http://www.rnc.org/) has almost the same amount of info and pictures on Obama as you would except the DNC to have; however, their info and pictures are obviously negative. I think its funny that rather than have McCain up on their site and talking about why he is a good presdient, they have all of their focus on negatively attacking Obama. I went to the DNC's website (http://www.democrats.org/index.html) and it was the same thing, but not as bad. The first picture is of Bush and Cheney at the private fundraiser this pas weekend and there are a few other parts about McCain. Why don't these websites focus on their candidates more and less on cutting down the others' credibility? Especially when the nominations are not even for sure yet......

RNC Jumps on Obama's Mistake

Article found at : http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/the-nazi-death.html

This is a video clip of Senator Barack Obama at an event this weekend in Las Cruces, N.M. In it, he talks about his great uncle, Charlie Payne, being in one of the U.S. troops that liberated the Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz. However, it was the Soviets' Red Army that liberated this camp, and the Republicans have made sure not to let this mistake go unnoticed. The RNC said, "unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there’s no way Obama’s statement yesterday can be true. Obama’s frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief.” I think that it is being made a bigger deal than it is. The RNC is making it sound like the whole story was false or that there were elements that did not add up. This was not the case, he simply mis spoke and said the name of the wrong concentration camp. It was actually the camp in Buchenwald that his great uncle helped liberate. Considering these aren't the easiest names, I don't think its so unbelievable that he gave the wrong camp. Sure, the RNC or anyone has the right to point out his mistake, but I don't think that they need to make it sound like he intentionally lied or that the name of the camp is such a crucial aspect of the story. It's not like he gave the speech at the camp in Auschwitz. The point of the story was not the camp or where his great uncle liberated the Jewish people; what is important in the story is that his uncle was among some of the great U.S. troops that helped liberate the Jewish people from the Nazis. What camp or what city doesn't seem to be THAT important to me. I expect it to cause a little commotion, but they are making it seem like it's an atrocity that he mis spoke. They say his 'frequent exaggerations and outright distortions' cause questions, but I don't think that the stating the wrong camp is an exagerration at all, nor is it a distortion. The article asked an important question: "What's worse, Obama's apparent gaffe or the RNC pouncing on a Holocaust-related historical mistake for political advantage?" It seems like everyday someone new mis spoke, exaggerated, lied, or offended someone or some religion. I don't know if this is because we are now able to catch every single word, which we were never able to do until technology became so advanced, or if this election is just obsessed with every word that leaves someone's mouth. Granted, there have been some comments that deserve the scrutiny that they have gotten, but I don't think Obama's mistake about the name of a camp is one of them.

Clinton's Comment on RFK

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/19235624.html?location_refer=Nation

Some people are really outraged because of Senator Clinton's remarks from last week. She was justifying and explaining why she is staying in the race and said, "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don't understand it". I think that it is fine that she is justifying staying in the race by using the example of her husband who did not win until June, but the RFK comment took it a little too far. People were really devastated back in the 60's when there were so many assassinations--MLK, RFK, JFK--and it still a touchy subject to bring up. I don't think that Clinton meant to allude to the fact that Obama may be a target of assassination though. I think that she is just trying to find any facts to back up her decision to stay in the race. But I think that it has gone on long enough; people seem to want her to drop out and they are going to continue attacking her and making huge deals about any comment that's a little offense until she does. I think that the sooner that she drops out, the better it will be for her. I think it would make her look much better if she just stepped back elegantly and without trying to fight so hard to stay in when it doesn't seem possible. If she was alluding to the possibility that Obama may be assassinated, then shame on her. That would be so horrible; I can't imagine how upsetting it must have been for all those people who were inspired by those in the 60s and who put all their hopes in them, only to have them taken from those with a gun. Obama has inspired many people and gotten many new people involved in politics. He has gotten the youth very motivated, excited, and inspired. If something ever happened, it would be devastating for many people and for the country. Obama responded to Clinton's remarks by saying, "I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that". I think that he handled it very well, but probably just didn't want to attack her even more. He was probably a little bothered by the comments, but I think it was wise that he handled it the way he did. It makes him look respectable and just makes her look even more stupid for saying a remark like that. I can't wait til she just drops out. It seems like everyone knows Obama is the winner, except for her.

Clinton Appeals to Blogs rather than Mainstream Media

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/us/politics/20web-seelye.html?hp


Senator Clinton has recently blamed the mainstream media for ruining her chances of being the Democratic nominee. Personally, I think that that is a big claim to make and puts a lot of blame on the media. I think that they do have an affect, but they are not the reason she is not going to be the nominee--Obama is the reason, and the fact that people like him more. Therefore, Clinton has turned to the internet and blogs. On Friday, she held her first blogger-only conference call with about forty bloggers from the campaign trail going on in Oregon. The campaign has also started using Twitter a lot more. The article from the NY Times that I got this information from says that Clinton's actions are due to the fact that she is getting less and less attention these days. It is becoming clear to people that she's old news, everyone but her that is. The article also explained that techpresident.com reported that "according to the blog search tool Technorati, Mrs. Clinton is being mentioned less than half as often as Senator Barack Obama in teh blogosphere and that mentions of her have even slipped below those of Senator John McCain." Parallel to what we learned after writing our papers analyzing the three candidates' websites, the article said that Obama has been credited with using the internet much better than Clinton, especially for organizing and social networking. I think the decline in attention on Clinton in both the mainstream media and even more so in the blogosphere, shows that Obama is our guy. Sorry Hillary, I really wanted a woman president, but the numbers don't lie.

75,000 People Rally for Obama in Portland, Oregon

Obama's Response to Bush's Remarks

Obama's New Video - CHANGE

This video was sent to me in an email from Obama's
campaign.  It explained how on Saturday, May 10th,
so many voters across teh country came together at
over 100 "Vote for Change" kickoff events.
There was at least one in every single state. 
The people at these events heard from speaker
such as Kathleen Sebelius, Kansas' Governor, and
Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts.  They
discussed how to register new voters and then hit
the streets in their own communities to get more
people signed up and involved.  Obama said in the
email, "We're not just building a campaign.  We're
going to change the political map in this
country by reaching out to people whose voices too
often go unheard."  The email also included two stories
of people who participated in the event.  Erika from
Chandler, Arizona said, "It was a really great feeling
to see the community united by this effort. All ages,
races and walks of life were represented at this event
-- it was awesome to be part of a cohesive group working
forward toward a common goal."  Julie from Tulsa, Oklahoma
said, "The most exciting registrations that I worked on
were young people who were registering for the very first
 time. I assisted two of these voters, and they were both
so proud!  One was about to graduate from high school and
the other was in her first year at a local university.
Being able to vote in their first presidential election,
and to participate in American democracy, meant something
really special to both of them."  The email explained how
these events are important because it really gets the people
involved and gives them the tools that they need in order
to help make a change.  The email also provided a link
to find "Vote for Change" events near you or create your own.
 This is just another example of how well Obama is using
ordinary people to help his campaign.