"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.

More Comments From Religious Leaders

In case people haven't heard enough about Reverend Wright's comments, another religious leader has made controversial comments of his own. Pastor John Hagee, who endorses McCain made comments about Catholics. He referred to them as "the great whore" and said that they were anti-jew, among many other remarks. However, he has issued an apology to the head of the Catholic League expressing "deep regret for any comments Catholics found hurtful." The Catholic church has accepted the apology, but the Democrats are not. Surprise surprise. I am sure that they just want to make this a bigger deal so that people don't think as badly of Rev. Wright's comments. I think that all of this attention on these old religious freaks is stupid. Who gives a damn what they think. Obviously you don't if you aren't their religion or don't belong to their church. Do you know how many things are said in churches everyday that many people wouldn't agree with? We just don't have to hear about them, but now with the campaigns we have to. Religion should not be a part of politics. The comments shouldn't even be a big deal because they only represent the person saying them, not anyone who associates with them. I don't even like McCain, but I think it is stupid that they are associating this with him, just like I thought it was stupid that they did so with Obama and Rev. Wright. We are giving these dumb asses the spotlight when they don't deserve it. Let them talk out of their ass....what do we care? People need to remember that religion is separate. If they have a problem with it, it should be a problem with whoever said it, not a problem with the person endorsed by them. If I have to hear anything else about this, I am going to scream. What these people are saying is dumb, and the way people are reacting by associating them with candidates is dumb. Everyone has said things that people wont agree with, when you start digging-chances are, you are going to find something dirty.

Another Gas Solution

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil14-2008may14,0,6063899.story

Senate reacted to the gas prices with another solution today, one that goes against President Bush. They voted almost unanimously to stop filling the underground petroleum reserve. So much of the majority voted to stop the deliveries, that it is impossible for Bush to veto their decision. All of the presidential candidates were for this decision. Senator Byron Dorgan said, "Why on earth should we be putting oil underground at a time of record high prices?" The reserve was established in 1973 after the Arab oil embargo; it is to protect us in case of a supply cutoff. The reserve now holds approximately 702 million barrels in the underground caverns. Bush claims that the 70,000 barrels that are delivered to the emergency stockpile each day have little impact on the 21 million barrels that our nation uses each day. He claims that such a small impact for the nation's security is worth it. Suspending deliveries to the reserve could save motorists 2 to 5 cents a gallon, maybe more. I think that it is good that they are suspending the reserve, but I am just a little nervous that this is just another scam to make it seem like they are doing something about gas prices, when really it is just a quick fix. Plus, 2-5 cents does not sound like much to me. I don't really understand the whole reserve thing anyway, it says we have 702 million barrels and that we use 21 million a day.....so wouldn't that emergency reserve only last us for like 33 days? Not much of a supply if we are cut off, since I am sure a cut off would last longer than that. Everyone just seems to be fighting over what to do and it all just seems like bull shit because we are trying to reserve, stop reserves, cut taxes, etc when in the end it is all the same - we use too much gas, are running out, and it's too expensive. Not that I have a solution to it, but it is getting kind of old hearing all the politicians fighting over little fixes that don't really solve anything. Those up for reelection wan to support anything to make it look like they are doing something about the problem, and those that are not up for reelection--like Bush--don't care what the people want. Between this and the gas tax holiday, I feel like nothing real is getting done; we are just getting our hopes up with these plans, only to discover they will really only save us a few cents per gallon, or $30 all summer. I would love for someone to come for a real plan, to either cut the costs. Or we should really start focusing on coming up with fuel-efficient options, because sooner or later all this bickering won't matter when the oil runs out.

Funny Hillary vs Obama Skit Part 2

I just found this skit which is the second part to the previous one below. I don't think that this one is nearly as funny as the first, but it is still pretty amusing. It is also a little more recent, so it touches on and makes fun of things that have come up later in the campaigns. I don't think that any of these skits will actually affect anyone's decision, but they put a little laughter and fun into the whole political process. I think this because most people who are watching these, probably are already informed and are not relying on youtube skits by actors to give them real info. Also, you have to have some knowledge of what has been going on to understand most of the jokes. So I think that theses are just a fun thing to watch for those of us that are so interested in politics, and want to have a laugh.

Funny Hillary vs Obama Skit

This is a pretty old skit from youtube, but I just cam across it again and remembered how funny I thought it was. It totally pokes fun at each of the candidates, but it was way before the elections got as divisive and serious as they have. It hits on Obama's drug use many years ago, and Clinton's affair with Lewinsky. It was before Rev. Wright, before most primaries, etc. This was before we had any idea of who may be the nominee, although some may argue that we still do not know. I think that it is funny that people obviously take the time to make these skits up, record them, post them, etc. Especially when it is pretty much just for amusement; there is not really any actual bias or point to the clip, since it is pretty fair in the comments from both sides and attacks both evenly.

Obams Stongerr Due to Beatings by Clinton?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/weekinreview/11leib.html?hp

The above article argues that the competitive campaigning between Obama and Clinton may actually have helped Obama, if he wins. One of the reasons is because she has made him a 'Giant Killer'. "No matter what happens in the fall, if Mr. Obama goes on to win the nomination, he will be remembered as the candidate who beat the Clintons." Another thing that she has done is make him angry; the article says, "Mr. Obama’s relentless hope-hope-hope campaign put him in danger of being seen as soft, a 2008 version of the “wimp factor” that haunted George H. W. Bush 20 years ago". Now, however, he has been given the chance to fight more aggressively and show that he is not as soft as some may have thought; he may in fact have what it takes to go up against McCain. The third thing is that she has led him to the working class. If he wins the nomination, he will be well aware of the struggle he faces to win over the traditional Democratic blue-collar voters that Clilnton has been so strong with, for example, those in Ohio and Pennsylvania. If not for Clinton, he may not have been aware of this challenge. Of course, there is always the possibility that because these two have fought so hard and been beaten down so much, that whoever comes out the winner in the summer may be so battered that they will lose in the fall, as was the case with Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I think that the campaigning against Clinton has made Obama stronger; however, I think that it is getting to the point where the party needs to unite. It has gone on for long enough and I think that the longer that it continues, the more divisive people will be. I think that it is EXTREMELY important for whoever does not win to make sure that they address all of their supporters and ask them to support the candidate that did win the nomination. Otherwise, we are going to get screwed with Grandpa McCain running the country.

Obama Now in Lead of Superdelegates

Clinton was once in the lead with pledged super delegates, but Obama has changed that as of yesterday. Obama gained delegates from Utah, Ohio, and two from the Virgin Islands that had originally supported Clinton. Clinton has gained one more in Massachusetts. This is the very first time that Obama has had a superdelegate lead in his entire campaign. Former chairman of the DNC, Don Fowler, said "I always felt that if anybody establishes himself as the clear leader, the superdelegates would fall in line". This means that Clinton must now win the remaining undeclared delegates by a very large margin in order to win the nomination. Obama now has 275 and Clinton has 271.5. Kevin Rodriquez, who was one of the delegates from the Virgin Islands and switched from Clinton to Obama, said, "He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and independents across this country, whether we live on the mainland or an island". The article can be found at: http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1093167

Democratic Party of Orange County

I am so excited, yesterday I had an interview for an internship with the Democratic Party of Orange County......and I got it! I am really excited because with it being an election year, there will be so much to do. It is going to be really busy starting late August and then all the way through the elections in November. One of the things they are focusing on is trying to have a Democratic beat the mayor of Huntington Beach who is a 20 year incumbent; so it would be huge to beat her. We will also be doing a lot of walks to try and get people to vote and participate in the politics of their city. The most exciting thing is if Obama wins the Democratic nomination--which it is looking like he will-- then he does a victory lap around to all the places that have been a help to him, sort of as a thank you. And the DCOP office is one of the places, so I will get to meet him and take a picture with him! Something that costs $2300 normally. I am so excited. I really hope that this provides me with insight to see if this is really something that I am interested in pursuing for my career. Also, I hope that maybe I will be a chance to meet people that could lead to potential paid positions; but right now I am just happy to have this great opportunity!

Chelsea Clinton's Mother's Day Message

Technology Hurting Mainstream Media, or Helping?

We have been learning a lot in class about how the mainstream media has been affected by all the new technological developments. The fact that people can just check for the news online, or even on their phones, makes people less likely to pick up a paper or watch the nightly news. However, it is not only hurting them. I saw a commercial recently for KTLA asking people to text message them pictures or videos that they get if they happen to be at the right place at the right time for a breaking story. This is one way in which mainstream media is benefiting from technology. Rather than only have a few reporters in the field, it is as if they have reporters all over the place. I am sure that many of their breaking stories are discovered because of a regular citizen giving them a tip. In this way, the viewers are actually reporting to the media, and then in turn they are reporting back to all of us. This is a nice way that the media and the viewers can help each other out, by informing each other whenever they know something that the other may not. It is a nice system, but it would never be possible without the technology that has recently been accused of taking away mainstream media's viewers.

Former Leader of Democratic Party Under Bill Clinton Supports Obama

Joe Andrew was the Democratic National Committee chairman from 1999-2001, under former president Bill Clinton. He endorsed Hillary Clinton last year when she declared that she was running for president; although he has now surprisingly switched and announced his support for Obama. He did so in a news conference last Thursday in his hometown of Indianapolis, in hopes of convincing others in this crucial state to vote for him as well. Also, he has written a letter that he plans to send to other superdelegates that explains his reasonings behind his decision. He hopes that the party will soon be able to agree on a nominee so that the Democrats are not divided further. Andrew said, "I am convinced that the primary process has developed to the point that it's now bad for the Democratic Party". Andrew also said that "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue the process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain". I agree with Andrew strongly on this point. I think that our country needs a break from the usual politics that have discouraged so many, and I think that Obama is the candidate that we need to break this cycle. As Andrew said, Hillary is just another politician; she will not change the way politics are done. She is going to play the game just like she and her husband have in the past. Not to say that Bill was bad, because I like Bill Clinton. But I just think that NOW is not the time for politicians like them. We need someone new who is going to satisfy those Americans who are not happy with the way things have been going.

The article where I got this info can be found at: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g90V8XQZSWr4K1yzT-vNrffP9wNQD90CMRFG0