They are different!

In response to Jennesas18 on politics:
Change is indeed a major goal; hopefully all of the presidential candidates agree. A big part of change is: how do we go about change? This has been an issue recently discussed between and about the democratic presidential candidates, Obama and Clinton. One thing I notice about Clinton is how she talks about governmental programs as the solution for all problems. I only hope her ideas about these programs support us, the people, and not bureaucracies.
Next, many people say a major difference is their stance on Iraq and Iran. The Republican Guard Corps were being accused of being terrorists by many Americans and politicians, including Clinton; she voted yes on the Kyl-Lieberman bill which concluded Iranians as terrorists and harm to Iraq… I’m not comfortable saying this is any of our business? Also I feel she is doing the same as today’s republicans and using the fear of terrorism.
Today Obama speaks about some of their differences starting with “special interests in Washington and how much they dominate the debate”. And what about the federal gas tax holiday? Obama explains this is the talk of the Whitehouse instead of more important (and sane) issues. Instead of trying to temporarily fix something, Obama has talked about “permanent middle-class tax relief and longer-term planning for energy independence and alternative energy sources”. Another issue includes the clean needle exchange program, which is exactly what it sounds like. Clinton opposed this while Obama did not. Finally, many people criticize Clinton for her bullying against Obama. Many say she is polarizing and “obsessed with the bickering”. Obama sums this up well: “I’m a proud Democrat but I’m a prouder American and I think it’s important for us to be able to speak to one another and disagree without being disagreeable.”
I just hope we can all find solutions and compromise on some things and I wish they would just run together?

Whine Wealthy, Whine!

The income of the three major presidential candidates is astonishing: a household income of $4.2 million dollars for the Obama family; a jointed $109 million dollar income for the Clinton family; a $406 thousand dollars for John McCain, not including his wife, who files her income separately because of an inherited brewery (worth over $1 million!). New York Times wrote an article about this which I found appealing to my opinions.
What if you didn’t have any of your own money to campaign to our country? Yes, selling books apparently works, my democratic friends. But still, how do you even put your foot in the door with no money? There could be some answers tomorrow, Tuesday April 22, 2008, during a “legal challenge” to the Supreme Court. When a member of the House spends more than $305, 000 of their own money on campaigning, they are entitled to Section 319 of the McCain-Feingold law of 1971:

U.S.C. 441e) is amended—

(1) By striking the heading and inserting the following:

`CONTRIBUTIONS AND DONATIONS BY FOREIGN NATIONALS'; and

(2) By striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
` (a) PROHIBITION- It shall be unlawful for--
` (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
` (A) a donation of money or other thing of value, or to
Promise expressly or impliedly to make a donation, in
Connection with a Federal, State, or local election to a
Political committee or a candidate for Federal office; or
` (ii) a contribution or donation to a committee of a
Political party; or
` (B) For a person to solicit, accept, or receive such
Contribution or donation from a foreign national.’

A prior candidate for Congress, Jack Davis, from New York in 2006, is appealing this amendment claiming his opponent had three times the amount of contributions that he had, just because he didn’t have enough money himself. He felt that this would push the wealthy away from running and is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Even though people like Davis thought this, more candidates actually spent more than $1 million of their own money on campaigns. He also feels uncomfortable having to report the expected amount of money that will be spent on a campaign; isn’t it is all a zero-sum game Mr. Davis?
In concurrence with the article I read, “[wealthy candidates] certainly don’t need any extra help.” Stop whining!

Not McCain

In response to Christopher's Awesome Blog:

I agree that John McCain is a heavy leaning republican and likes to take whatever he can get. I don’t, though, like the man for many reasons and I am not even going to touch the subject of his POW issues.
In an article titled “Conservatives, don’t ignore McCain”, the author makes sure McCain is seen as a conservative by talking about some of the ridiculous things he has said or done.

McCain's been a consistent pro-lifer (which distinguishes him from pretty much everyone else in the race so far). Until recently, Giuliani argued passionately for partial-birth abortion as a constitutional right. McCain has voted to confirm every conservative Supreme Court nominee, including Robert Bork. He voted "guilty" in Bill Clinton's impeachment trial. He campaigned for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004,even after Bush beat him.

Giuliani's chief selling point seems to be that he'll have "what it takes" to be tough in the war on terror. That may well be the case. But Giuliani's foreign policy experience is, at best, limited. Meanwhile, McCain's experience is deeper than the rest of the field's combined. There's no evidence that Giuliani is more of a hawk than McCain, who has spent the last four years arguing that Bush needs to be more aggressive in Iraq and who argued for a troop "surge" years before anyone used the word.

After 9/11, Giuliani earned his reputation for showing his sensitive side. After 9/11, McCain said to our enemies, "May God have mercy on you, because we won't."

John McCain’s campaign page, talks about where he stands on many issues.

“A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq”.

I don’t know if you have any friends in Iraq? I do. I would rather him come home soon than be there for the rest of his career; his child’s lifetime and possibly their children’s lives will still be fighting to help “democratize” the Iraqis.

McCain says:

"Increasing U.S. troop levels will expose more brave Americans to danger and increase the number of American casualties. When Congress authorized this war, we committed America to a mission that entails the greatest sacrifice a country can make, one that falls disproportionately on those Americans who love their country so much that they volunteer to risk their lives to accomplish that mission. And when we authorized this war, we accepted the responsibility to make sure those men and women could prevail. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional troops is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed when they are given that order. Then they will shoulder their weapons and do everything they can to protect our country's vital interests in Iraq."

He also wants to overturn a supreme court ruled constitutional consequence of Roe vs. Wade… lets just pretend like that never happened? Just ignore that the people voted on that and embedded in the constitution? I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound cool to me?
I found it funny that since 2003 McCain has repeatedly said we need more troops. He talks about this on his website to show his stability on the situation, but to me it made him look stubborn more than anything. You would think after trying the same thing over and over, one would think of another approach to deal with a problem.

August 2003: "We must win this conflict. We need a lot more military, and I'm convinced we need to spend a lot more money."
November 2003: "To win in Iraq, we should increase the number of forces in-country, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations”.
"We need more troops.... [W]e have to be much more robust and do and send whatever troops are necessary."
April 2004: We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces
September 2004:"I think that we need more troops in Iraq. I've thought that for a long time, election or no election
June2005: "I think we need - I think we need more troops there ... because we're not staying once we attack and clear. We've got stay and expand."
June 2006: "You know, I've always said that we needed more troops over there. I have said that for years."
January 2007: "We will need a large number of troops."

I just feel we need to be a blue country for many reasons, this being one of the last. McCain will not change anything and the war and negativitey will continue for sure. There is a chance with either Democratic candidtates that there will be a change.

Obama's Speech on Race

If you watched the Obama speech on race in America, I would be surprised if you were not impressed by his words. This guy is an exceptional and convincing speaker! Many critics, Clinton supporters, and Republicans are not convinced with many of Obama’s promises. Not only was I, an Obama supporter, impressed with his literal speech, I was impressed with the topic. Besides defending himself from “incendiary language” from a friend, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he is explaining how he has been through the worst and the best of things. When he talked about his family and their races, it really allowed him to speak comfortably about white and black people.
The truth is not everyone, including me, is a racist. And Obama is totally right when saying we as a unity need to get over the crap and work together to solve the real issues. “Two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”
“The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” Quoting William Faulkner, Obama made a point I strongly agree with. Things repeat but things also change.
My grandpa told me that “today is history and tomorrow will be too.” As a veteran of two wars and a history teacher he always emphasized that history repeats itself over and over. War and things like race will always be an issue…but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a negative issue anymore. We can change today and hope for tomorrow, but we have to start now!
In class, our teacher asked if we thought Obama’s speech was great; in my opinion it is. If in fact Obama does becomes president and follows through with his words, I think this speech will be just as important as some of Mr. King or Malcolm X’s speeches.
I wonder if this sounds like rambling, but it is something I feel strongly about and it is hard for me to put it into words. I am tired, as a white American, of being accused of being racists by other races just because of color; the truth is, as Obama explains, everyone feels struggle, resentment, and prejudices. People are blaming each other for problems they have today when the only way to help is to come together for tomorrow. In the beginning of our country, we came together because of struggle and pain. In order to come together about race… there will be struggle, but we will do it.

McCain says Obama shmobama

After reading Frank Rich’s, a colomnist for The New York Times, article titled “McCain Channels his Inner Hillery”, I have learned some new things about McCain and about the author himself. Before going over the article, I read Mr. Rich’s biography; graduating with a B.A. degree in American History and Literature, Rich has worked with media and critiquing since the 1970s. Soon after joining Times, he became chief theater critic in 1980 and then Op-Ed columnist in 1994, and in 1999 he wrote the 1st double-length column for the Op-Ed page.
Frank Rich uses some sarcasim when explaining his thoughts about John McCain explains how you shouldn’t “look too hard at the fine print” when looking at McCain. He ridicules McCain quite a bit. He quotes Senator McCain about Mr. Limbaugh being a clown: “I would like to extend my apologies to Bozo, Chuckles and Krusty”. Those were McCain’s words on a Fox news show.
The author gives facts to belittle McCain; McCain is “closer to the Democrats on immigration, campaign-finance reform, stem-cell research, global warming, oil drilling in Alaska, waterboarding, Gitmo and, until a recent flip-flop, the Bush tax cuts”. These are good things for Democrats except Rich wonders if the liberal’s votes that go to McCain could be a deciding factor. McCain and Clinton have ganged up on Obama by speaking about Obama’s words about getting “Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan’s mountains”. McCain did not mention how Obama explained this would only happen with adequate intelligences and if Pakistan’s president would not agree.
Rich claims that McCain “offers voters no tangible exit strategy from Iraq”. He also concludes with McCain and Clinton’s statements about “Mr. Obama’s race, middle name and tourist snapshot in Somali dress”. He talks about how McCain claims Obama is making impossible dreams, but that Obama’s attitude claims Americans who are “hungry for optimism”.
Rich wrote a good article and gave straight facts to back his opinions. I am, though, a little unclear who he would vote for: McCain or Obama? A big political implication for McCain. says Rich, is “he knows that history will judge him exactingly on how he runs against America’s first black or female presidential nominee, win or lose”.

No Delegate is Safe

In the article titled, "No Delegate is Safe", "opinionator" Tobin Harshaw discusses the issue of Clinton possibly trying to "steal" Obama's devoted delegates. Harshaw interviewed a few people about the subject and asked them what they thought. These people were Roger Simon at the Politico, Christopher Orr at the Plank, Mark Kleiman at the Reality Based Community, and Ana Marie Cox at Swampland; none of which I have ever heard of.
I tried to figure out who Harshaw is and what his political past is, but nothing was found. He writes for The New York Times for The Opinionator. The Opinionator seems to be mostly controlled by another editor, Chris Suellentrop. He is a former staff writer and political correspondent for the online magazine Slate. From what I can tell, he edits writers in The Opinionator and chooses blogs and opinions to share and discuss in The Opinionator of
He states, "If you're trusting me to provide a fair, balanced or comprehensive look at the day's opinions, don't. As I wrote above, The Opinionator is by necessity one person's idiosyncratic sampling." This being said, a lot of what The Opinionator is about gut feelings, rumor, or wishful thinking.
It seems to me that his audience is mostly people who are interested in "the subjects and topics that opinion writers and bloggers discuss" and not necessarily the critiquing of a subject. Most of these people are bloggers who found this article from another blog.
Harshaw tells how Clinton may be trying to take over some of the already decided delegates from Obama. One person interviewed, Roger Simon, explains how delegates are not necessarily permanently "pledged". He explains that it has always been this way but that, by the time the convention has begun, the victor is clear.
Christopher Orr at the Plank feels if she does this she will be "overruling" voters by taking the delegates the people had already elected. By switching sides, he says, the delegates would be breaking their pledge, though not "legally-binding".
Clinton is criticized and is being called "positively Republican" where "winning-is-everything".
A good point made by Ana Marie Cox at Swampland, is that even if it is just a thought by Clinton's campaign, "we are in for a nasty, delegate-by-delegate fight if she fails to gain the nomination via primary contests.”

All in all, there was not too much opinion put in by the actual author and instead more opinions from other people he talked to. Although this could mean his opinion is the same as the interviewed, he never actually takes a stance and says his own opinion. After reading it though, it did leave a sour taste for Clinton and made her seem like the bad guy... or in this case, girl! For me, already not dedicated to Clinton, this just swayed me more in the direction of trusting Obama more.
The whole thing to me seems trivial and just makes Clinton look selfish... how is she supposed to be though when trying to win presidency.

Jobless may be left out of Senate stimulus

The article I chose from the LA Times is about the stimulus package in question. Of course this is going to cause extreme amounts of debate, time, and money. This is very important to all of us since we or someone we know could be affected positively or, unfortunately, negatively and still broke. When we had talked about the stimulus package last Monday, it seemed that everyone should expect money sometime in the future; they then assume that the American public will put the money right back into the economy which would help. The most recent discussion about the package is about who it will go to. Majority Leader Harry Reid, a democrat with Nevada, proposed that the package go to the senior citizens and the the people fighting to pay energy bills. The question then is, what about the unemployed?
The senate and probably most of the American public, respect the elderly and realize social security money and benefits for the elderly are slim.
“Long the most faithful voters, seniors are courted assiduously by both major parties every electoral season.”
Suposedly the seniors and anyone who felt strongly about the money going to the elderly sent emails to Capital Hill, where the package is considered for a Bill; if you recall School House Rock this will be a very long process.
Other democrats also hope to allow some of the money to go to over 250,000 disabled veterans. Once again, we ask who wants to leave the elderly and disabled in the rain? What about the unemployed already in the rain? It seems strange to me, a democrat, that the unemployed, which is growing, was not discussed as much. Many republicans, on the other hand, feel as though we do not even have the room for the package in the first place.
I am very interested in what everyone thinks about where the money should go. At first the talk was that the tax payers would get a rebate, but details change and change and none of this is going to happen anytime soon. Don’t give your hopes up and start saving for that TV made in China!