Cabinet Picks

What can we learn about the Obama war cabinet picks and what does this say about the current state of American Politics? Well, it says a lot of things. Obama is well known for his academic credentials, Editing the Harvard Law Review, among other achievements. But his approach to politics seems to be the same one: that of an academic. This is also evident in his choices for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and his choice for Secretary of Defense, who also served under the Bush administration, Robert Gates. It seems as though he is more impressed with academic credentials and governing record rather than loyalty or familiarity with a secretary or other Whitehouse position. This could play out in one of two ways: the academic vigor of his picks will eventually pay off in that they make the most logically sound decisions for the country. That, or the lack of experience by himself and others like Clinton will decrease the strength of American diplomacy, and the Obama presidency will be worth little more than popularity. 

But if intelligence is the defining guideline that secures American foreign policy, instead of experience, then we're in good shape. Of the 18 nominations, 12 were educated at an Ivy League school, Stanford or MIT. The academic vigor of this cabinet and ability to make sound decisions will allow the Obama camp to take risks, and maybe act on the themes of change that ubiquitously resounded over the course of the campaign. Fortitude and confidence in decision making, traits necessary in this time of war, will be present. Big personalities were chosen for their use in persuasion with foreign diplomats, this strategy used instead of force abroad. With intelligence he can trust, and a Democratic congress behind him, Obama should be able to promise at least some of the change he promised in regard to foreign affairs. Lets hope all goes to plan.

Millennial Monies

It appears that Obama raised the most amount of money of any candidate running for office, ever. An article on Politico today shows some figures that assess the gross funds that Obama was able to raise, and also how he was able to do so. It seems that funds raisers, the people that contributed to the campaign from their own pocket, were determined not to let Obama's hopes die. The article points out that Obama's estimated $750 million raised over the course of the last two years was more than the combined raised sum by Bush in 2004 and his rival John Kerry. The article also points out the uncanny ability for the Obama camp to raise money without even asking for it. They reportedly raised nearly $10 million the night of the Republican National Convention, between the back-to-back speeches of John McCain and Sarah Palin. 

No doubt this money was able to be raised because of the internet. The use of the Obama website, allowed numerous donations to be make without even asking for it. This is evidenced in the fact that early in 2007 when Obama was first thinking abot running for office, he had about 20,000 people on his mailing list. He now has 10 million. And of these 10 million names, nearly one half of them turned into donors, some more than once. 

The increased use of the internet allowed for fundraising records to be set in the 2008 election. The electronic age has ushered in an easy of operations that will surely be copied and studied in years and elections to come. 

Auto Trouble

It seems that another one of America's biggest niche markets is in trouble, the auto industry. Ford Motor Company is asking Congress today for a $9 billion "stand-by line of credit" to help stabilize the company in this recession, but has no plans to actually tap into it. This is obviously a very special issue, since if one of the three big American auto makers goes bust, Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, the American auto industry is all but gone. What I found interesting about the article in the LA Times is the fact that this line of credit that Ford is asking for they don't intend to use, ever. Of course if they have to, they will, seeing as the current economic situation of the country doesn't bode well for a market where the asking price is $15,000+ for one of their products. Ford CEO Alan Mulally has made a public statement to help convince Congress to allot tax-payer dollars to dig out the auto industry.

"Mulally said he'd work for $1 per year if his firm had to take any government loan money. The company's plan also says it will cancel all management employees' 2009 bonuses, scrap merit increases for its North American salaried employees next year, and sell its five corporate aircraft."

Now, these seem like drastic measure, and I'm sure they are, but I don't believe for a second that a CEO of formerly one of the largest companies in the world will accept basically no compensation is his compan goes under. Call me crazy, but Ford may have played a part in making this recession, why should our tax dollars fish them out? 

This is a big issue. GM and Chrysler have said they could collapse in weeks if not given some kind of booster to their market, and will probably present their cases to Congress later this week. With billions owed to creditors, its clear that the great American auto industry that has thrived for a decade could now be on its last leg. 

Expectations Through 2012

The months after the highly anticipated election in 2008 leaves the American people with much to be desired. Slogans of hope, change, and a new tomorrow resounded with voters, but the question still remains whether this presidency will actually translate into a safer and brighter tomorrow. Well, thats for the future and other countries to decide whether they like us again. But an article I read in The Nation  tells us, or reminds us, rather, that some of the "fundamental differences" that strengthened the Obama camp may not be so fundamental. Though not particularly riveting or profound, Nichols does add a bit of pessimism to the "revolutionary" campaign strategy launched by Obama. To begin with, naming Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State further extends Obama's vision, and does not add any opposing view to our alliance with Israel. It also brings a Clinton, one of the most prominent political families of our time, back into the Whitehouse. And as much of a beloved president as Bill was, is it really in keeping with Obama's theme to introduce some of the pre-Bush diplomacy back into the Whitehouse, and the man at the Oval Office desk? I guess what Clinton voters didn't get in presidency they made up for in the most important position in the cabinet. 

This isn't to say that Clinton was a bad pick, though. The article notes an important message by Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and one of the most "determined opponents of the war in Iraq." Obama and Clinton still haven't staked out distinct opinions on U.S. actions overseas. However, he does point out that Clinton is extremely well researched and well read on almost any issue in foreign policy, and is undoubtedly well known after her husband's tenure as the head of the country. I guess what I'm really saying is that the "fundamental differences" in foreign policy, differences that may have won Obama the Democrat's support, weren't really that fundamental or different after all. But you knew that already. 

Murdoch likes Obama

I recently viewed a video on You Tube where Rupert Murdoch, media mogul and owner of FOX News, admits to favoring Obama, and allowing the New York Post to endorse Obama in the New York primary election. I just find this interesting that the man who controls arguably the most biased right-wing news corporation supports Obama for president. What does this say about the hypocritical  elite and the influence they have over voters? I was in Alabama over the weekend, McCain country, and I literally heard a middle aged man trying to persuade his buddy that, "Hell sure, Fox is good. I get all my information there and it hasn't led me wrong yet." I wish I were kidding. You would think that Murdoch, an educated man in his own right, would realize the influence he has on the voting public, and provide them with the opinions reflecting the views of the owner.  

Winograd and Hais would argue that this election will act as pivotal and could possible change America forever. If Obama wins, he strengthens our vague sense of culture by embodying democracy in its truest sense. The unusual experience of having a black president would set a new precedent for future generations, as a national intermediary that extends beyond, and will possibly change the media. Either way, we face some national challenges in the coming years. Gas prices will inevitably go up as we crawl out of the recession, we have a war to finish (quickly), and an entire new generation to provide jobs for. Equality has finally broken through political doors and will hopefully break down many other social, economical, and educational barriers in the future. Our culture will rise from its imperialistic ashes to create a new face for America in equality, consciousness, and progressivism.  

State of Terrorism

A video on YouTube, a debate on Firing Line in the '60's between conservative intellectual Bill Buckley and MIT Linguistics professor and leftist intellectual, Noam Chompsky, gives outdated but relevant opinion on topics of war, terrorism, and US foreign policy.

The video highlights many faults of US diplomacy, and also the political theory that Chomsky and Buckley found their opinions on. This established their critique of the subject correctly, civilly, arguing with words instead of malicious slander. Buckley raises issues of morality in war terms and debates military force as a tool for diplomacy, while Chomsky argues the justification of the Vietnam War that can be used as rational in this generation's War in Iraq. Buckley then reasons that the goal of such military diplomacy is to stabilize a region through force, a method archaic and unnecessary, and also one that will lead to continued hatred towards America's foreign policy. It seems that the only way the political right knows how to fix things is by offensively defending American military hubris with our tax-funded "Defense" Department. Perhaps the opinions of the academic elite of yesteryear can shed some histrical light on today's situation. 

Record Turnout

Record turnout numbers are expected at today's polls. Obama's carefully constructed political narrative is the reason. His political strategists have constructed his political campaign as a blank slate, allowing many new voters to attach to Obama's image rather than his little known career in the public sector. A new generation is now of voting age and are expected to overwhelmingly support Obama. This expected surge of young voters could cause some trouble, though. Long lines at the polls, registration, and a slew of other potential complications may lead to voter discrepancies or problems. 

Does this mean that Americans are once again interested in politics? You bet. We haven't seen Democratic excitement in an election since 1960, when a stoic and tanned Kennedy was introduced to the public. As beloved and missed as Kennedy is within the left, Obama could replace him in history as the one of the most popular presidents in the last hundred years. Obama has broken barriers and acts as a role ideal role model to many young and black voters. He is the embodiment of the American dream and thats why so many are going to vote with him. His policies are so emphatically supported by Democrats because they search beyond politics to the roots of liberalism: that of helping the underdog, righting social wrongs, and creating strength in America by another means than militarily. An enlightened youth population will most likely remember this election as the one that defined their generation. 

McCain's camp has tried to use this same popularity card with the Palin pick, hoping to draw middle class, middle educated folk who really don't know what they're voting for. The Palin factor could pose a moderate threat to voting tallies, but Obama should have nothing to worry about. Everything I'm reading points that McCain come back from poll numbers to "upset" Obama.

Last Minute Muckraking

The final two days of this long election cycle has given John McCain the opportunity to spend the last of his campaign money on more negative campaign ads. Big surprise. His ads touch on issue of gun rights, American "weakness", inexperience, foreign affairs, and small town beliefs. The campaign ads are a last resort effort to sway voters by the key points McCain has been criticizing Obama on since the DNC. What might this say for the future of American politics? What message does this send to Americans if you want to achieve at something? It is telling them not to be confidently humble and honor his opponent, but to dig up any muck or flaw and exploit the shit out of it. This has been McCain's strategy since the beginning: not to elevate himself above his opponent by sharing intelligent proposals for his campaign, but by slandering his opponent and argue against his credibility. McCain has done this in the past too, not surprisingly because of his terrible temper. Numerous videos have surfaced on YouTube showing how out of control he can get. Any slight hint at questioning his honor or pride is vehemently protested by McCain, sometimes to the point of irrational remarks that could land America in a lot of trouble, more than we're in right now. I feel uneasy allowing a president with a temper like a bomb access to the most coveted prize in politics, the presidency. I feel McCain isn't running because he thinks he can improve America, or even because he thinks his ideas are better than his opponent. I feel McCain is running for office to gain a leg up on his father and grandfather, both high ranking Military men. Selfish prize chasing isn't the reason for wantng to become president, its to serve the American people. 

Voting for Ignorance

Millions of voters will turn out for tomorrow's polls still uneducated and uninformed about the candidates. This may cause some uneasiness, especially when voting for president, but it makes the vote that much more important for those of us who are qualified to make an educated vote. Education is a very important issue to address in this campaign from both candidates, since with  education comes awareness, relevance to campaign issues, class structure, and opportunity. It is the most important issue because it allows us to understand and reason with campaign policy, as well as how to help others become informed citizens.

Both candidates have educational reform policies on their websites, but one stands to be better than the other. Since 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act has been implemented throughout America's public schools, setting basic guidelines as to the intellectual activity and test results of middle America. The act places primary focus on standardized tests for students, grossly impairing the students ability to find other points of interest or pursue an individualized curriculum. Naturally, those with the money to send their kids to private schools have enough wealth to so because they are educated as well. This is most concerning in primary and secondary education, places where most Americans form their foundational belief system based on personal experience within a homogenized public school. Obama would like to change this act, lifting the burden of students to regurgitate the same curriculum every year, challenging teachers to entice students with exciting information that would lead to higher education. The more educated we are as a nation, the better we become. In this way, Obama realizes importance of the lower and middle classes to be properly educated, stemming from drooping educational ratings among other countries, so he proposes college vouchers and new programming starting in kindergarten. American knowledge strength comes from a strong public system. His proposal may be more reform than would happen, but at least his desire and outward articulation of educational importance is at the forefront of his campaign.

McCain's proposal seems to have missed the mark. His website states little in the sense of reform, alluding to vouchers being the best option. This proposal doesn't begin to fix inner city public high schools, those which suffer the most, and doesn't make better secondary education free, just "more affordable", presuming you have excess money, maybe a few thousand per year, to send your kids to private schools. Most Americans can't, and this underdeveloped proposal will not make America more knowledgeable, nor more inclined to pursue academic interests in higher education. And though the media does play a large role, acceptable youth education should rule out any possibility of FOX news becoming a credible news source in anyone's eye.

The Other Election

With most most media attention snagged by this historic presidential race that will climax tomorrow, less attention and thought have been given to the House and Senate campaigns that have just as much importance to this year and the future of American politics. All mainstream media attention is given to the campaign, and I think most Americans are severely under informed about their Senators, not to mention the presidential candidates. Though seemingly less important to the title of Commander in Chief, Senatorial office holds essential powers in government, and speak on behalf of their districts, as a more direct voice in government. So why is it that more Americans know less about their Senators than the little they do know about Obama and McCain? Governmental detachment by citizens and notions of an "evil government" with too much power, bad connotations, dismisses interest in politics for Americans.  Knowledge about how to change an unpopular government leads to political optimism in voters.

 As it were, all signs point to a realignment and a Democratic takeover of Congress and the Presidency, and probably the Supreme Court if the other two were to fall into place. A recent New York Times article points out several key points. First, Congressional Dems are outspending Republicans by a margin of about 2:1, going after seats in Colorado, Nebraska, Washington, and my home state of Maine. Assuming Dems will hold their current seats, picking up battleground states, those which were strongly Republican in the 2004 election (VA, NC, AK), they could reach a total of 59 seats, strengthening their majority in the Senate. Retirement also plays a part. Among other main reasons, the surge from the left has sprung from the presidential campaign, where Obama acts as a pseudo voice for the entire party. His civic idealism has crossed racial borders, changed Republicans to Democrats (my father included), and led our country into the most crucial and historic presidential race of American history. This is unquestionably a realignment election, if not, in the very least, historically crucial. The campaign has opened a new generation's eyes to the possibility of leadership; undeniable optimism that will hopefully last for at least the next four years. 

Six Days and Counting...

If you go over to the DailyKos, you will be provided, at no expense, a map of the United States with colored states according to voting predictions. It appears that Obama has already won this election. Even if he loses Florida, Penn., Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia, he will still come out on top as predicted by preliminary Red states. Carrying Illinois, New York, Michigan, the West coast, the Northeast and some of the Midwest, Obama is in good shape to still come out on top. Losing the states I mentioned, Obama would still win by a 276-262 margin. But losing by that close of a margin is still too optimistic for McCain. With only six days left and dwindling money, McCain should give some serious thought to some intense muckraking. Assuming McCain will carry Florida, he will still need to win Ohio and Pennsylvania, and hope for some key swing states to help him out, and fend off a realignment. 

What did he just say?

A recent post on Politico yesterday highlights elitism and its relativity to the campaign and its voters. In the interview between Brian Williams and Palin/ McCain, the Republican ticket gives interesting insight into their definition of the American elite.

Sarah Palin describes the elite as those "who think they are better than everyone else", apparently without regard to education, political power, or wealth, terms which are the characteristics of ALL American social elites. So, according to Palin, you don't have to be wealthy or educated, or politicians, to be part of the elite network of American culture, a notion completely untrue and manipulative in that it positions the Republican ticket as serving the interests of the middle class. She has clearly been taught how to be ignorantly vague in hypocritical subjects. These remarks further lead to the candidates using the media to denounce elitist "outsiders",  surely of which they aren't a part. 

Later, they directly contradict each other, Palin defining the term itself instead of its application, while John McCain claiming those arrogant elites (who?) have fundamental centralized locations in DC and NYC. What might that imply, Mr. McCain? I find it hard to understand how McCain claims not to be part of the elite if he has friends among them, and runs a campaign that spends 150K at Neiman Markus and Saks for the VP. Yes, those scummy elitist snobs who "think that they can dictate what they believe to America rather than let Americans decide for themselves". 

Iraq War

Nearly every American was decidedly pro-war after 9-11, but after a string of shaky presidential decisions, the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, and questionable legitimacy of a continuing war, there has been waning support. What is also true is that there is almost no youth involvement regarding the War in Iraq.

Let me begin by raising the question of whether the reason for this war is legitimate. Popular opinion states 9-11 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives under orders by Osama Bin Laden, stationed in Afghanistan. It wasn't later in 2003 that US intelligence became concerned over the possibility of WMDs in Iraq, and the "mastermind" of that accused operation, Saddam Hussein. I am not arguing the fact the Hussein was a ruthless leader, but rather questioning the reasons why America is there. If our only mission was to take Hussein out of pawer, we wouldn't still be there. As for "helping to establish peace in the Middle East", I don't buy it. The supposed role of a "global super power" is to ensure the principles of peace, not facilitate killing, provided the acting power actually understands the term peace. War is designed to eventually help some kind of humanitarian concern, fix a problem or stop an immense threat of extreme proportion; war should be the last resort. 

It is not the role of America to impose our beliefs on another country. Despite my personal opposition to Hussein, what right do we have to remove him from power and put him on trial, resulting in his death? If he didn't pose a serious threat to our national security (which he didn't because no WMDs were found), why the hell are we adding conflict to an area of amalgamated opposition? Though the intention of establishing Democracy and bringing "peace" to the Middle East sounds noble and righteous, what solid diplomacy are we adding? We are adding hatred towards American soldiers and the country they stand behind. The declared mission of this war is to establish a stable democracy and bring peace to the region. What significant gains have we made? How have we helped the chaotic tendencies in the Middle East? John McCain says he is prepared to stay in Iraq for 100 years if we have to. Thats not a war, thats called colonization. 

In addition, the passing of the PATRIOT Act essentially gives the Executive Branch free reign to implement any action declared terrorism, offensively hiding behind the curtain of 9-11. Private companies like Blackwater, essentially killing groups, have been hired by US Government for security reasons. Why would the military need to hire additional security? Dirty operations? Empower American military presence? These types of companies are bullying parties, sending a political message to Sunni power groups like Al-Qaeda. Either way, the government isn't explicit on the role of such companies.  

To my another point of interest - youth involvement. America has once again invaded a country in retaliation and few of my peers care about it, let alone know enough to establish a legitimate opinion. For those of you who are well informed, good job. Unlike the counterculture of the '60s and early '70s, the War in Iraq hasn't facilitated much social change among youth. It hasn't changed the way we think of ourselves, nor has it interested a large population of America's children. I believe this is in large part to the growing materialistic trends of my generation. We have become so desensitized by constant information and personal ideals to realize that there is bloodshed by American hands overseas, dramatically different from romanticized American ambitions. We don't want to read about the troop surge, it doesn't affect us. We want Sports Illustrated and Cosmo, not the NYT or Washington Post. Perhaps because we have spent so many years fighting for our "freedoms", in Korea, Europe, etc., that as a nation we're too dumb to realize that freedom and responsibility are politically synonymous.