McCain: 0, Obama: 0.1

I think it's safe to say Friday's debate was a letdown for all of us.

All the hype leading up to the debate was intensified when McCain decided to, very vaguely, put his country before himself once again, and put off the debate.  This "tactic" did not roll over well with anyone, and apparently didn't settle well with McCain either, leading him to quickly change his mind.  Media hounds and pundits very, very lightly entertained the notion that McCain was not ready for a big stage performance, but wisely did not push it very far.  After all, McCain was ready to go, and we had a debate.  Well, kind of.

For sure, we had two much higher qualified candidates than in 2004; both candidates speak better, have more confidence, and appear far more intelligent than both George W. Bush and John Kerry combined.  There is much more excitement surrounding this election than there was in 2004 and and more than there has been in recent memory.   Monumental decisions must be made, as the candidates in this election need to address both issues of foreign policy, and the current economic crisis.  But for all these important decisions surrounding the American people, not much was decided.

During the first question of the growing dilemma enveloping our economy, neither candidate seemed even mildly confident about arguing with each other, in fact Obama had himself agreeing with McCain and seemingly waiting for McCain to start the argument.  Mediator Jim Lehrer had to openly invite Obama to direct his comments to McCain, which shouldn't have been necessary.  The Lehrer boost certainly got Obama rolling and soon enough he was not only challenging McCain, but had a response for everything McCain had to offer.  McCain began to liven up as well, but as expected, didn't fully arise until the war issues came about.  McCain became more lively and confident, and it was Obama who was backpedalling.  

But why was Obama so hesitant to speak directly to McCain?  The blame here lies squarely on McCain.  The amount of disrespect McCain has for Obama became more evident as the debate progressed.  For someone who wants Democrats and Republicans alike to unite, McCain made a very poor showing.  If McCain wants to appear bi-partisan, he failed to do so, but he also needs to be focused on being tolerant with Obama, as it might make him seem racist.  So far, it looks like he has some work to do.  And for that reason alone, the lack of respect that McCain opted to show, gives Obama the slightest of edges in the first debate.  Overall, it lacked substance and if you missed it, you didn't miss anything at all.  Let's just hope McCain decides to brush up in his common courtesy, more for himself than for what he looks like to other people.

Debate is On

This is ridiculous. Why would he suspend the debates? He himself in not going to single-handedly fix the financial crisis. Although he's going back to Washington after the debates, theres no point. I dont think the maverick move will work to his advantage, it just looks like he made a mistake in trying to seem above politics and is now trying to cover it up. 

I think right now its more important for them to explain their plans to fix things rather than have social hour in DC. I think its going to be interesting to see what each candidate has to say. 

"Let's Do the Time Warp Again!"

Well, I guess that McCain won the debate. I mean some of those responses were incredible. The one about creating a giant, protective bubble of love over the United States? Brilliant. Or how about the one where he said that he would take Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out for ice cream so they could "hug their problems out"?

Confused? So were several other people when they stumbled across ads claiming that McCain won the debate-- despite the fact that it hasn't taken place yet. For the full story, see The Washington Post. Either he's taken his "maverick" status to a new level and actually gone through the trouble to travel through time so people don't even have to watch the debate, or someone made an error at McCain headquarters. Whoops.

Stupid campaign tactics and ads are getting obnoxious on both sides. I wish that for once, candidates could be clear and honest, and simply present their positions without trying to bring the other person down, or without trying to pull any big tricks. Unfortunately, I don't forsee anything like that in our future. But who knows, I could be wrong. Maybe I'll ask McCain if I can borrow his time machine.

Matt Damon comments lead to joke trailer

Matt Damon's recent likening of the possibility of a Palin presidency to a bad Disney movie was followed up by College Humor, who created this trailer.

[http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461]

Top Ten Reasons Not to Make David Letterman Angry

After last night's David Letterman show, perhaps John McCain is wondering if maybe he should've waited to suspend his campaign until he taped his originally scheduled spot on The Late Show.




If Winograd and Hais are right in their assertion that candidate's who best exploit emerging communication technologies tend to prevail during a political realignment, McCain's failure to grasp the potential for snubbing a late-night institution like Letterman does not bode well. Not only did Letterman rake McCain over the coals the entire show, but as of the time of this post, the YouTube clip above has been viewed over 1,161,384 times online. Uh, make that 1,161,385.

Some arguments in favor of delaying the Veep Debate

John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his presidential campaign and his request to possibly hold the first of three presidential debates on the night originally scheduled for the sole vice-presidential debate has set gossip-addicts on both sides of the political spectrum afire with examples of how McCain and Obama might sleep easier at night knowing their respective running mates would never have to make it through a 90-minute debate without putting their foot in their mouth.

For your consideration, a few examples:


1. Katie Couric and Sarah Palin discuss John McCain's record as a deregulator...sort of.



2. Palin cites Russia's plans for an air invasion from the Bering Strait




3. Joe Biden dusts off a two-fer in the gaffe department when he explains to Katie Couric how FDR went on TV to console the nation when the stock market crashed in 1929




4. Joe Biden invites wheelchair-bound state senator Chuck Graham to stand up and be recognized

Palin - She Sure Looks Good!

According to an article in The New York Times today, Sarah Palin spent yesterday meeting with foreign leaders, in an effort to gain some foreign policy experience (besides that of her geographic proximity to Russia).  However, it doesn't seem like she got much real work done.  She mainly chatted with the leaders and their wives about New York City, and, what worries me most, about her looks.  Really, is that what we want?  The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, hit on her when they met.  "You are even more gorgeous than you are on the (inaudible)...If he's insisting, I might hug".  Even the Pakistani information minister, Sherry Rehman, couldn't resist Palin's charms.  "How does one keep looking that good?"

Okay, I think everyone wants the U.S. to be a respected force in the world, instead of a hated imperialist occupier, like we are under the Idiot-In-Chief.  But I think we can all agree that we would want to be respected because of our ideals and government policies, rather than because our vice-president is a hot hockey-mom.

Foreclosed Voters

There are over a million voters who have lost their homes over the last two years, and most of them have not changed their voting address.  This means that when they show up at the polls, they can be turned away because they aren't registered for that site.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of these voters are Democrats.

An article by The New York Times today outlined the problems faced by these foreclosed voters.  According to Rosemary Rodriguez from the Federal Election Assistance Commission, the biggest fear is that "many of these voters will stay home or that poll workers will give misinformation".  For example, one voter who had his home foreclosed had not updated his voter registration address, because he did not know it was required.  Luckily, the Democratic Party is on top of things, and is working with the Federal Election Assistance Commission to inform foreclosed voters of the process to update their registration.  As it happens, the highest numbers of foreclosures happened in swing states (Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Michigan).  And the majority of foreclosures happened to black or low-income voters, who tend to be Democrats. 

And so, this issue gains a political dimension.  Many in the Democratic Party are worried that the Republicans will use foreclosure lists to remove voters from the rolls.  Hey, remember when it was revealed that McCain's Michigan campaign headquarters was located in a building owned by the foreclosure specialists Trott and Trott?  And that the founder of Trott and Trott had raised up to $250,000 for McCain?  Apparently, so does Obama.  His campaign recently filed a lawsuit in federal court, hoping to stop the Michigan Republican Party from using foreclosure lists to single out and challenge voters.  Of course, the Republican Party denied planning to do this, but I do hope you'll excuse me if I call them out on this - LIES!!  I DON'T BELIEVE IT!!!!!  Because, according to an article from The Michigan Messenger from September 10, the party chairman James Carabelli told a reporter from The Michigan Messenger that, "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses".  HA! Gotcha!  Oh, but a correction as to why they would be checking foreclosure lists: according to William Nowling, spokesman for the Michigan Republic Party, "Our voter integrity efforts are solely designed to fight voter fraud perpetrated by the Democrats".  Uh huh, sure.  Somehow, I don't believe it.  Do you?

NYT reports Rick Davis paid by Freddie Mac

The New York Times ran a front page article today confirming that a firm owned by John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was given $15,000 a month by the mortgage giant Freddie Mac from 2005 until a month ago when it taken over by the government. This news comes a day after McCain's senior campaign adviser slammed the Times for reporting on Monday that Davis "had been paid nearly $2 million by Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to head a group devoted to defend the mortgage giants against the imposition of stricter regulations." It also contradicts a claim made by McCain in an interview that took place on Sunday, in which he stated that Davis has had "nothing to do" with them:

HARWOOD: You mentioned cronyism and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington, and you've criticized Obama for self dealing here. How do you square that with the fact that your campaign manager, Rick Davis, was involved in some lobbying activities on behalf of Fannie Mae? And secondly, what specifically would you prevent, would you outlaw--what activity would you outlaw in Wall Street to make sure this doesn't happen again?

Sen. McCAIN: Now, on Wall Street, I'd--obviously we need to stop--we need to more--have more transparency. We need to take the regulatory agencies and merge them together in one effective agency. These regulatory agencies, this alphabet soup, was really designed for a different era. We're now in global transactions. We need more transparency. We need to combine the regulatory agencies, and we need to give them some more authority, if necessary, to do so. You know, Secretary Paulson had a package of recommendations sometime ago that basically did not really go anywhere. Maybe we can look at those and other recommendations in the future.

In Washington, I still think that it was the special interest money that went--and Fannie and Freddie money that went, and everybody was involved in this--not everybody, but certainly Senator Obama got next amount of money, except for the two Democratic chairman. His vice presidential search team was headed by Mr. Johnson, and...

HARWOOD: And your campaign manager?

Sen. McCAIN: And my campaign manager has stopped that, has had nothing to do with it since, and I'll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.

Davis' connection to Freddie Mac is almost laughably ironic when one considers that the McCain camp recently released a video attempting to link Obama to the economic crisis, claiming that Obama has received advice from the former CEO of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines. The ad claims that Raines gave Obama "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines immediately denied providing advice to the Obama campaign, and campaign a spokesman denied seeking or receiving any advice from Raines. A fact checker for the Washington Post reported that the only evidence substantiating the claim was that Raines had "a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign" and that the McCain campaign "is clearly exaggerating wildly". It's yet another example of the misleading distortions put out the campaign, which is now using dishonest tactics to protect its own members and attack Obama, all while reaching new levels of hypocrisy. How low will they go to put McCain in office?

McCain Campaign v.s. NY Times

On Monday, September the 22nd, The New York Times ran an article highlighting the fact that McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis used to be president of an advocacy group pushing for looser regulation of the now-bankrupt mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Today, The New York Times ran an article about the McCain camp's response (consisting of insults) to the yesterday's report.  McCain's senior campaign advisor Steve Schmidt, when talking to reporters, stated that the Times is no longer "by any standard a journalistic organization", claiming that the Times is "completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate".  He went on to say that, "Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective."  Oh, really?  So when a reporter writes an article that shows a possible conflict of interests in a campaign group, that means that they're rooting for the other political party?  I thought that journalists try to uncover any such of conflicts, no matter which political party it pertains to, because that's their job.  But I'm not surprised that Schmidt's playing dirty by accusing the Times of partisan politics.  He's just trying to deflect the news of Davis's prior job, and by any means necessary - even insulting the integrity of a major national newspaper that, as Bill Keller, executive editor, said in response, "is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively".

Fake News and Former Prime Ministers

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair explains his support for the war in Iraq and his relationship with President Bush on the Daily Show. Equal parts satire and substance, The Daily Show under John Stewart is a unique television animal, especially considering it's purportedly the place where most college age voters get their news.

McCain sudden change of view

The video of Senator Obama blaming lobbyist for financial crisis points questions McCain's effort to actually improve the government. Obama claims that McCain talks about all the experience he had in the where he helped create the chaos that is faced today. He voted on the same disaster policies over and over again that hasnt improve anything which contradicts the fact that he is " the one" that can fix the mess in Washington. Obama also questions the fact of his ability if he helped cause the mess so electing him to actually fix what is wrong wouldnt make sense if he supported the problem.

The Iraq War: McCain vs. Obama

The War in Iraq has reached a new all-time high. If this statistic was referring to approval ratings for the war then this would be a positive statistic, but in actuality it refers to the percentage of Americans who feel that the war was a mistake. To be exact, according to gallup.com, 63% of Americans feel the war was not worthwhile. This is two percentage points higher than the 61% reached during the highly unpopular Vietnam War.

With data like this in mind, the candidates must be careful when addressing their plans for handling the war. Obama, who has plans for withdrawal will have an apparent advantage on this issue.

Obama's strategy in regards to the Iraq war is to have a "responsible and phased withdrawal" (barackobama.com). He plans to begin withdrawing troops at a rate of approximately one to two brigades per month. This pace for a withdrawal would take about sixteen months. Obama and Biden also plan to leave a "residual force" in the area to be used in combating terrorism as well as protecting Americans in the region.

As the poll discussed above highlights, Obama's plan for handling the Iraq War will sit far better with the majority of voters than McCain's. McCain's strategy for the war revolves around his belief that it is absolutely "strategically and morally essential" for the United States to succeed in Iraq. In stark contrast with the opinion of the American people, McCain feels that the road we are on in Iraq is the "right road" and that the war is "necessary and just" (johnmccain.com).

It seems undeniable that McCain will have some difficulty gaining public support for his strategy considering how adamantly the people of America oppose this war. Since his policy seems so out of touch regarding the voice of the people, it magnifies how Obama's strategy is exactly what the voters are asking for. With policies that are far more favorable to the large number of people against the war, it is apparent that on election day, Obama, in regard to the Iraq War, will have the upper hand.

Sources:

Gallup, "Opposition to Iraq War Reaches New High", April 24, 2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/106783/Opposition-Iraq-War-Reaches-New-High.aspx

johnmccain.com

barackobama.com

A Heartbeat from the Presidency

As I am sure we all know by now, John McCain has nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. Since this controversial pick by the Republican candidate came last Friday there has been a firestorm surrounding her qualifications.

1) She was a city council member for Wasilla, Alaska from 1992-1996. (Pop. 9,780 as of 2007)

2)She was then elected mayor of Wasilla from 1996-20023)Finally she was elected Governor of AlaskaWhile she does have executive experience, it's relevance to her vice presidential nomination is non-existent, considering she would be essentially going from a population of approximately 9,780 to approximately 305 million.Even more interesting than her apparent lack of experience is the way with which the conservatives have gone about defending McCain's VP choice.


"I'd also suggest that governor Palin's experience is not significantly less than that of our current President before he entered the oval office." (Alder, Jonathan, National Review)
"But, with what's at stake this fall, conservatism appealing to more people--and a rockstar conservative motivating more people to get to the voting booth--sounds great to me."(Favazza, Katie, Right Wing News)

These arguments in defense of Palin are a mixture of poor thought and hypocrisy. First of all, I am shocked that Conservatives are bold enough to compare Palin's experience to the experience of George W. Bush. This comparison is not flattering to Palin considering that George W.'s overall approval rating has hit a low of 28% for the first time since President Carter's rating hit the same number in 1979.

Finally, the hypocrisy of the second argument is startling. The way that her lack of experience, which has been a major target on Obama's back, was completely overlooked because she is "a rockstar conservative" is completely absurd. Especially due to how McCain has attacked Obama publicly calling him "the biggest celebrity in the world", and then posing the question "Is he ready to lead?". With Palin only "a heartbeat away from the presidency" as Bill Warner put it, shouldn't we be asking the same question of Palin?

Sources:
Alder, Jonathan, National Review, "Palin's Experience- Useful Comparisons", Tuesday, September 2, 2008, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U3ZmMwY2M4OThlOGZhY2U1NTcyMTQ3Mzk0MmNiMDU=

Favazza, Katie, Right Wing News, "Is Palin's Experience Lacking?", September 4, 2008, http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/09/is_palins_experience_lacking.php

Jones M., Jeffrey, May 8, 2008, http://www.gallup.com/poll/107128/Bush-Approval-Rating-Down-60-Among-Republicans.aspx
"Obama Campaign Highlights Palin's Zero Experience", http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080829171140.5123i228&show_article=1

On the Attack

As in any presidential election, there are an abundance of politically charged and fiery attack ads that are aimed at the two major party candidates. These attack ads are important and worth noting, despite their inaccuracies, because as CNN commentator Darrell M. West stated these ads, "run emotional and inaccurate content designed to play on voter's fears and anxieties" (West).

Due to how these ads manipulate and feed upon the fears of the voters, they can be a candidate's worst nightmare. In fact, one of the first attack ads, which was created by the McCain camp, immediately appealed to the American citizen's uncertainty regarding national security.The ad, displays a picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, next to a picture of Barack Obama. The message is simple but explosive: "Is it OK to Unconditionally Meet with Anti-American Foreign Leaders?" As reporter Jed Lewison writes, " the visual imagery [suggests] that Barack Obama is somehow aligned with one of America's enemies" (Lewison).

The idea Obama is aligned with Ahmadinejad is ridiculous. Although, what makes this ad work is how it never directly ties Obama to the Iranian President, it just sends the message subliminally through its visual depiction. What is somewhat concerning about this ad is how it is successful at appealing to America's fear of anti-American leaders. While the majority of voters are hopefully able to see through this smokescreen, there are voters who's decisions may be altered by the alleged threat of an Obama- Ahmadinejad "alliance". While McCain may have been one of the first to sling the political mud, he was not the only one to get their hands dirty. In fact, it would be foolish to think that while McCain went on the offensive, Obama just sat on his hands and played nice.According to West, Obama's campaign has made claims that McCain: "supported a 1,000-year war in Iraq and therefore was not worthy of the presidency" (West).

This attack also appeals to voter tensions. At this point the majority of Americans do not support the U.S. effort in Iraq. In fact, an ABC news/ Washington Post Poll shows that 61% of Americans feel that the Iraq War is not worth fighting. That makes Obama's claim that McCain supports a 1,000 year war seem extremely unappealing, resulting in a negative view of the candidate.Despite inaccuracies and erroneous claims, attack ads, especially in an election of this magnitude, can have a huge impact on a voter's decision. Hopefully, the voter' will read up enough to navigate their way through the partisan smokescreen.

Sources: West M., Darrell, CNN, "Commentary: 2008 Campaign Attack Ads Hit An All Time Low", Sept 15, 2008, http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/15/west.negative/index.html

Lewison, Jed, The Jed Report, "McCain Launches First Negative Attack Ad of General Election", June 8, 2008, http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/mccain-smears-o.html