The Power of the Citizen Producer

            The new ability to harness the power of popular communications mediums is an essential part of the campaign for presidency made more complicated in the 2008 election by the emergence of new communications technologies, such as youtube, that are controlled not by a corporations, but by who ever choose to utilize them and. One of the first videos of note that supported the Obama campaign was the video “I’ve Got a Crush On Obama” By Obama Girl. This massively popular video established an emotional base for the Obama campaign and established the ability to gain social capital by favoring Obama.  Chronologically one of the next key videos was Sarah Pailin’s interview with Katie Couric.  Because of Pailin’s poor performance, the video established a perception of the lack of ability of McCain’s running mate, and the display of the video on you tube demonstrated that it was a popular perception of the candidate.  Taking this perception further the video The McCain-Pailin Mob showed the ignorance of voters who favor the Republican ticket. The Obama campaign has benefitted massively from several youtube videos that have established an appearance not of the candidate, but of the type of person who favors each of the candidates, and because youtube can be viewed as a microcosm of the greater culture it also show that these are not just how the supports are trying to be displayed but also how they are perceived.  The perception of a voter has become drastically more important in this election as citizens become the produces of political information. 

           

The video I’ve Got a Crush On Obama” By Obama Girl received 10,552,813 views as of 10:48 on November 4^th 2008 created a framework for a strong emotional connection with the Democratic Candidate. The popularity of the video establishes its value within the youtube community, and there for to favor the video’s message, to have a “crush” on Obama, is a way of obtaining social capital.  The majority of the lyrics denote the emotional favorability of Senator Obama, but the line of the song “You tell me the truth unlike the right” also established the Republican Party and those people to the right who favor the Republican Party as deceptive, ignorant, or uninformed.  The video’s total value to the Obama campaign is that it creates a reason to, and the reasonability of, having an emotional connection with Barack Obama and implies that the republicans are not worthy of trust.

            When the Sarah Pailin was intervened by Katie Couric the calamitous performance of the vice presidential candidate furthered the display of the ignorance of the Republican Party.  While Pailin’s interview was first filmed and displayed on national television, its’ appearance on youtube and its popularity, in excess of five million views between the several versions of the video that appear on you tube posted both the CBS and several other subscribers, demonstrates that this how many people perceive Governor Pailin, and make it a commodity produced by citizens rather than information produced by the mainstream media.   In this case it is both the replication of the video on youtube by people other than CBS and the favorability of the video created by people viewing it that allows citizens to become the produces of popular media.

            The portrayal and perception of Governor Pailin as ignorant and uninformed created the opportunity for portrayal of citizens who favor John McCain and Sarah Pailin as ignorant.e McCain Pailin Mob, number seven on the Politico list of the “10 most viral videos of the campaign”(Ressner, viral videos), shows the ignorance of some of the citizens who Support McCain and Pailin, and ostensibly all McCain supporters.  The fact that the video focuses not on the ignorance of the campaign but of its supporters demonstrates the focus on the citizens as producers rather than campaigns as producers.

            The world of youtube is not an exact reflection of the views of society, but it is popular enough to be an accurate microcosm of the trends in American society.  The popular videos of youtube such as The video I’ve Got a Crush On Obama” By Obama Girl, Pailin On Foreign Policy, and The McCain-Pailin Mob both reflect a major societal perception of candidates and their supporters, and the consumers of media who choose to produce videos for youtube also help to establish those perception. The citizens, not he campaigns, have constructed a single framework for the categories of people who favor a each of the candidates and not the policy of the candidates these three youtube videos display an affective connection with Senator Obama as favorable and reasonable, while displayed a connection with senator McCain as ignorant.   With the emergence of technology that allows citizens to produce media that can have a massive effect on the campaign, has rearranged the way in which a political campaign is run making it more important for the candidates to control not how may people favor them, but what media these people are producing and how those people, or the culture of the campaign, is displayed.

 

Works Cited

Barelypolitical. ""I Got a Crush...On Obama" By Obama Girl." Youtube - "I Got a Crush...On Obama" By Obama Girl. 13 June 2007. Youtube. 4 Nov. 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wksoxhyicqu.

Bloggerinterrupted. "The McCain-Pailin Mob." Youtube - The McCain-Pailin Mob. 8 Oct. 2008. Youtube. 4 Nov. 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxzmaxag9e.

CBS. "Pailin on Foreign Policy." Youtube - Pailin on Foreign Policy. 25 Sept. 2007. Youtube. 4 Nov. 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noktjedaugg.

Ressner, Jeffrey. "10 most viral videos of the Campaign." 10 most viral videos of the Campaign - Jeffrey Ressner -Politico.com. 2 Nov. 2008. Politico. 4 Nov. 2008 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15182.html.

My Personal Take on the Elections

What have I done to contribute to the elections? First of all, I changed my Facebook profile picture to a picture of Barack Obama to show people that they have to remember to vote and that I am supporting Barack Obama. I am also encouraging my friends to vote by telling them that they are the ones who are going to shape the future. I also sent out the video of the Barack Obama “Yes We Can” speech to my entire contact list. What can you do to help? Well first of all, encourage your friends to vote. Secondly, donate money if you can to the candidate you think appeals more to your opinions and ideas. Spread Awareness, you can blog about what you did or send pictures and videos. You can also show your support by wearing a t-shirt or a button showing your support.

Harry Hewitt of Suburban Cleveland is a 57-year-old man. He is a roman catholic who is a democrat and believes this year is the most important year in election history.  "We have two very good candidates," Hewitt says. He supports the war in Iraq and values John McCain's years in the Senate and the military, but there's something about the new guy that intrigues him. "Obama doesn't have as much experience," he says, "but what makes me lean toward him is that I think he would project a different image to the world. It's time for us to move in a different direction." Harry encourages everyone to go out and speak up about the elections.

Just by reading the story about Harry Hewitt who has a stable and convincing position on the elections, I was convinced to spread the word about how important it is to vote for this life changing election. If you would like to know more about this election according to some “VIP” members and Harry Hewit’s position on what is going on. Please visit  http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/2008-swing-voters-at-the-ballots--election-/article98943.html. 

Sorry, Texas

According to this article in the New York Times (“Networks May Call Race Before Voting Is Complete” by Jacques Steinberg) CBS News is confident that it will be able to announce the next President before the polls actually close. According to Paul Friedman, a senior vice president of CBS News, the results of the election “could be clear as soon as 8 p.m. – before polls in New York and Rhode Island close, let alone those in Texas and California” (these “results” will be created by looking at polling data and early voting counts):

We could know Virginia at 7. We could know Indiana before 8. We could know Florida at 8. We could know Pennsylvania at 8. We could know the whole story of the election with those results. We can’t be in this position of hiding our heads in the sand when the story is obvious.

David Plotz, editor of the website Slate, shares a similar sentiment, but is blunter in his word choice:

Our readers are not stupid, and we shouldn’t engage in a weird … drama that pretends McCain could win California and thus the presidency. We will call it when a sensible person — not a TV news anchor who has to engage in a silly pretense about West Coast voters — would call it.

These claims are incredibly pretentious and dangerous. These claims put a lot of trust in exit polls, which are notoriously unreliable (remember how exit polls showed that Kerry was going to win in 2004?). Announcing the “winner” of the election before the results from the West Coast are in effectively disenfranchises West Coast voters. Prematurely announcing a "winner" effectively says, “Don’t even bother voting, your vote doesn’t matter to us” to everyone on the West Coast (great way to attract a West Coast audience, CBS!). Indeed, the article then goes on to describe how, in 1980, a similar claim resulted in an estimated 2% decrease in voter turnout in California and lead to Jimmy Carter conceding to Ronald Reagan before the west coast results were in! By announcing a perceived “winner” before all the results are in, the media is, essentially, selecting the next President for us. Is that what we really want?

Voting problems again? Really?

You would think that the US Presidential election is something that Americans would want to do thoroughly and accurately. Yet after decades of technological advancement, debugging, and controversy there are still problems with the ballot casting today.

Even after the Florida issue all those years ago, faulty machines are being used to cast ballots. These machines were intended to speed up the voting process, make shorter lines, and in the end promote a greater voter turnout. But then they break, and people are forced to stand in line for, in some cases, up to 5 hours. iReport contributor Jessie Sargent was 8th in line to vote, and she still had to wait three hours because of registration confusion.

In Shaker Heights, Ohio, people were given the wrong ballots-instead of the two page version. These people were given only the second page of the ballot, which contained only information for state elections, not national.

In some counties, rain soaked ballots that needed to be read with optical scanners. When these ballots were put in the scanners, they tore apart, leaving bits stuck inside and making the scanners useless.

Memory cards for some voting machines were faulty, and needed to be replaced.

All of these problems on the eve of possibly the most important election in generations: the country is on the brink of a depression, if it isn't in one already. And there are still thousands of problems, even though we have had more than enough time to realize that the system we have for voting needs a lot of improvement. At CNN alone there were over 11,000 reports of voting problems. Coincidentally enough, the greatest number of those problems, over 1,500 reported issues, were from Florida. It doesn't really seem like we're learning anything here.

Hopeful End to Rigged Elections

In Iran, a country that shows one of the greatest amounts of student political protests in the world, rigged elections is a big concern, and has been for a very long time.  Current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is widely thought to have been put in power as a result of bribes and an overall completely rigged election as he beat out favorites Mehdi Karroubi and Ali Akbar Rafsanjani.  The Revolutionary Guard and intelligence in Iran was said to have a large part in the upset that was heavily unpopular amongst all citizens (Gebauer, Spiegel Online International).

However, very recently Interior Minister Ali Kordan was impeached on the grounds that his Oxford diploma was counterfeit.  It got serious when Mohammad Abassi, an official in the parliament offered a bribe to legislators in exchange for them not voting to impeach Minister Kordan.  Abassi was then slapped by the legislator and dismissed by Ahmadinejad, although it is most likely that Abassi was given orders by someone much higher up than him in Iran's government.  This recent news is said to have a large impact on the upcoming election in Iran, a hard hit for the already unpopular Ahmadinejad to bounce back from (AP).

This incident could be connected to American controversy including the 2000 and 2004 elections along the lines of presidents being elected against large popular votes.  It is relieving to see that Iran's parliament was able to impeach one of Ahmadinejad's close and incompetent cabinet members and perhaps this will put an end to Ahmadinejad's reign of terror.  However I find it relevant to discuss how much more difficult it is for a country like Iran to be able to achieve political fairness than America.  There is possibility that Bush was not supposed to win in the 2000 or 2004 election, but I don't think it's right for Americans to discredit their own system every time the candidate they weren't supporting wins.  Popular votes have meaning for sure, but they aren't accurate predictions of who will be elected.  And if half the country is Democratic and half Republicans, then we are allowed to be surprised if the less popular candidate wins but not in total shock.  In Iran, Ahmadinejad was not even close to winning in the last election before he pulled the upset, and almost the entire country hates him. And I'm sorry to say that he may very well win in the next election thanks to rigging.  I'll also say that in Iran as well as dozens of other countries where rigged elections take place, if you protest against the government they will take action against you, jail you, and beat you.  Obama and McCain praise American values because America is still the greatest country with the most freedom out there.  So whoever wins the election McCain or Obama, people that disagree should not look to blame the government and remember that in other countries peoples votes really do not count for anything.

Gebauer, Matthias.  "Reformers Allege Vote Fraud in Tehran".  20 June 2005.  Speigel Online International. 4 November 2008. 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,361253,00.html

Dareini, Ali Akbar. "Iran's parliament ousts Ahmadinejad ally". 4 November 2008. Assosciated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_fake_degree_6

A few thoughts...

To say that there's a lot at stake today would be an understatement. Today, we will choose leaders and lawmakers. We will decide who runs our country and has control over our lives.

I do not feel that choices can come down to any one issue. After all, we are all multi-faceted people. I am a woman. I am a student. I am an activist and an artist. I am a sister, daughter and cousin. I am a friend. I am a disabled American. I am a taxpayer. I am an idealist and a dreamer. I am a member of a community. I am a citizen.

When it comes down to it, neither presidential candidate is the perfect choice. And I don’t think that anyone ever could be. The same goes for members of Congress. There is no way to satisfy everyone completely.

Today, we have to ask ourselves which sacrifices we are willing to make. Can we afford to let the war go on? Can we risk putting inexperience at the helm of the nation? At what cost do we want equality for all? How can we provide for ourselves while protecting our dying planet? We all have reservations as we step into the voting booth. We all get angry at the president at times. There will always be protests and debates and arguments. These things are inevitable. I suppose that my message to those people is this:

“Do something about it.” If the new president has policies you don’t believe in, work to change them. Get involved. I was always told, “If you don’t vote, don’t whine.” I think it goes further than that. It’s about more than voting. It’s about finding the issues you’re passionate about and working to fix them. Why sit idly by when you can work to make a difference? If your chosen candidate loses the election, hope is not lost. Find a way make the changes you believe in. Your vote counts for nothing if you do not follow through with it.

Election Night

Election Night (Popcorn Included) is just like a guide to tell you what to watch tonight. It starts off with Indiana at 7p.m. 

History Will Be Made

No matter what the results are, History will be made whether it has to do with the senators or if it involves the different states. If Obama wins, he will be the first African-American President. If McCain wins, he will be the oldest president running with the first woman vice president. For the first time in forty years, New Hampshire voted Democratic. According to CNN, "The 2008 election has also proved to be the most expensive in history." This campaign has also lasted about 21 months, which is the longest time for a presidential campaign. This information was taken from "A historic election no matter the outcome."

Obama in the lead

This morning polls show the first 21 votes went 15 Obama and 6 McCain. Who ever wins this election will immediately confront some of the most difficult economic challenges since the Great Depression. Media says the odds of Republicans winning has changed by a long shot. The Democrats on the other hand, are looking very good, if Obama wins he'll be the nation's first black president. Obama being a relative newcomer to the national stage, a 47-year-old first-term senator from Chicago, who strengthened Democratic majorities in Congress, he'd have to deal with the party's left flank while governing a country that's more conservative than liberal. Is it a win for Democrats? Loss for Republicans? or the other way around? Either way it will be a historically event with having our first African American President and having a women has Vice President.

Obama's Gains and Losses

Since yesterday’s polls, Obama has gained ground in some battleground states while losing ground in others. According to today’s polls, Obama has lost his lead in Missouri, where Obama and McCain are now tied with each receiving roughly 49% of the vote. Obama has also lost a great deal of his lead in Florida and Ohio, dropping from a 2-point and 6-point lead to a 1-point and 2-point lead, respectively. Obama has also slipped slightly in Pennsylvania. However, Obama’s national lead has risen from a 7-point lead to an 11-point lead. Obama has also increased his lead in Nevada (from 8 to 11 points) and Virginia (from 6 to 9 points). Additionally, Obama has increased his lead among Independent voters from a 15 point lead to 24 point lead, and among women has increased from a 13 point lead to a 19 point lead. Obama also “leads among every age group and among every income level,” an improvement from yesterday (McCain held a 1-point lead among voters ages 55 to 69). More good news for Obama: McCain’s lead among whites dropped from a 13-point lead to a 7-point lead. McCain is also attracting only 29% of Hispanic voters; while this is an increase from yesterday’s results (25%) it is a huge loss compared to Bush, who managed to earn 40% of the Hispanic vote in the 2004 election.

As we head into the final hours of the election, predictions are rapidly changing as new data are made public. These gains and losses for both candidates reveal just how unpredictable elections can be and how quickly polls and predictions can change. These (incredibly) slim leads in certain states also show just how important it is that everyone votes, even in “safe” states. Don’t let the polls lure you into a false sense of security!

First Result: Obama

So the small New Hampshire town of Dixville Notch was the first town to have its presidential votes finally tallied. The result favored Obama, 15 votes for him and 6 for McCain. Amazingly, 100% of this tiny amount of voters came to the polls. While this city doesn't symbolize any trends for the nation or state, it still puts Obama out in front. It also is telling that the city is craving change considering the past two election have been landslides for Bush. Since New Hampshire is a swing state, the results could potentially lead to a cascade in Obama's favor. We will have to wait and see...

Autonomous Organization of the Economy

            In order to insure that the United States electricity market will decrease its emissions of polutants, Senator Obama has proposed to introduce a more strict tax on carbon emissions and the emission of green house gasses.   This economic prerogative is sure to increase the efficiency of power plants in the United States.  However, senator Obama also once stated that with the new emissions taxes in place, “if some one wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. Its’ just that its going to bankrupt them because their going to be charged a huge sum for all that green house gas that’s being emitted.”  In this way Senator Obama will, if elected, begin to tighten his iron fist of economic prerogative. 

            The plan for the energy policy of America that Barack Obama has laid out includes the production of new coal-powered plants.  The exact specifications from the Barack Obama campaign web site state, “Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.” (Obama For America) This project allows for the Obama administration to choose which Power plants will be created, and with the tax on emissions any other power plant that is opened independently will in the words of senator Obama “bankrupt” who ever builds it. 

            The combination of these two policies allows the government to choose, with in the power industry, which companies will fail and which ones will be successful.  To call this system of governance capitalism is a fallacy because of the governments all powerful control of the market, but it not correct to call it socialism either because the means of production are privately owned and government subsidized. However, this system does allow the government to amass government control over the energy market from the federal level. 

            Ostensibly the reason for the format of the Obama campaign’s energy policy is his interest in reducing America’s impact on global warming, and it is likely that it is his main goal with this policy. None the less, Obama’s plan also will allow him to stage a permanent revolution of his own, and to cull the economic prerogative of the free market and place it in government control. 

Works Cited

Obama for America. "New Energy for America." Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need New Energy for America. Obama for America. 4 Nov. 2008 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#jobs

"Obama Told SF Chronicle He Would 'Bankrupt' the Coal Industry." Little Green Foot balls - Obama Told SF Chronicle He Would 'Bankrupt' the Coal Industry. 2 Nov. 2008. Little green footballs. 4 Nov. 2008 http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31780_obama_told_sf_chronicle_he_would_bankrupt_the_coal_industry.

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. 

Palin as President

If this election cycle has proven one thing, it's that Sarah Palin has proven to be the easiest candidate to satirize. This has been most evident on the internet. One website particularly has summed up every attack made on Palin during the election. The website is www.palinaspresident.com. It's a game like website that satirizes Sarah Palin as president. The user clicks on objects in the oval office and then a fake sound bite from Sarah Palin will play. It's this type of satire that perpetuates the attacks made on Palin throughout this election.

Pooped Out Obama Still Goes Strong

In this campaign, Barack Obama has slogged through the most competitive election days than any nominee, only one more day is left to endure. Within the past 22 months, Obama has a face with more creases and lines, hair with more grey, a look of exhaustion, and yet an everlasting smile.

But how can he stay so composed when knowing that in hours his whole life could potentially change? According to the New York Times, whatever anxieties or uncertainties he may feel, he shows little of it. He stays close with his advisors, expresses his confidence, and holds a calm and collected temper. He may be called arrogant by critics for his relaxed attitude, but he just avoids the criticism and continues to move forward.

He is constantly focused, instead of taking the few free minutes he has to nap, he continues to keep himself busy by ready reading newspapers and political science books, and vigorously checking the poll status and voting tallies on his blackberry. Or he may pace around the small amount of floor space of his private plane to think, carefully tiptoeing around his advisor, who sleeps on the floor.

"In a marathon, when you are on mile 20 and you start getting tired, but when you are on mile 25 and you don't," Mr. Lippert said, who is familiar with Obama when traveling. "That's where he's at."

Friends are now explaining that Obama has been pushed through the toughest test during the past 22 campaign months, and he is now more than ready to take on the job as president. Yet imagine what he is feeling now? He has gone through so much fight and effort within the past year, even the closest of friends cannot fathom how he is feeling. He is full of conflicting emotions, as he realizes that he could potentially be the next president of the United States to build a better future.

He is constantly on a plane flying through different time zones, working long nights, going to meetings and attending many public appearances. He even takes extra time making sure he shakes the hands of his supporters, taking pictures, and even getting their book signed. He spends minimal time with his family, as he even missed out on trick-or-treating with his daughters-something he loves to do. And even when he arrives back at his hotel at 1:35 am, he still needs to make his round of calls and emails before he gets some shut eye.

But what keeps him going? He simply doesn't want to disappoint people, and the thought of ever disappointing someone keeps him trucking.

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.

Obama's gradmother dies of Cancer

Barack Obama's grandmother Madelyn Payne Dunham dies 2 days before election, losing her battle with cancer at the age of 86 on Sunday morning in honolulu. Obama referred to his grandmother alot in the beginning of his campaign, sharing how her strength, and her hard work taught him about hard work, and made him the man he is today. "She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me."After losing his mother to Ovarian cancer in 1995 at the age of 53. Obama decision to go to Hawaii was easy to make saying he "got there too late" when his mother died and wanted to make sure that he "didn't make the same mistake twice". Losing his grandmother is difficult for him right now but Obama knows what he has to do, he knows it's what his grandmother would want says his half sister. Still, much of who Obama is comes from his grandmother, says his half sister "From our grandmother, he gets his pragmatism, his levelheadedness, his ability to stay centered in the eye of the story," she told The Associated Press. "His sensible, no-nonsense side is inherited from her." Tomorrow is election will this sway peoples votes because of the death of his grandmother? Will Obama try to use the sympathetic move? People are wondering, we'll see tomorrow at elections.

Celebrities Attract the Youth with Getting Involved in Politics

  

This video is a perfect attraction to the youth (or Millennials), it's a quasi-MTV clip with trendy celebrities and their sharp, trendsetting style. It's another popular music video-it's all the rage, but this time it involves Politics. This video gives out the message to use young kids "Hey look, it's cool to care about our future." So what else would it do but to get us tech-savvy, media loving hipsters out there to care about what is going on with our society. It's a great method actually, because kids now-a-days will do just about anything celebrities do. These celebrities are our generation's influences, and role models. 

There's another important aspect of this video: Barack Obama. Obama mainly attracts young people? Why? Because the youth brings change to society, and of course, Obama's all about change. He, in some way, represents the change that our millennial generation is bringing to our society. He is also a man of color, which is also a different to see in presidential campaigns. McCain represents traditional America, but today change is happening. 

In other words, celebrities are promoting our youth to vote, and to vote for our generation, which is change. They tell you to vote for Obama, which most of the youth will and are doing.   

Who's Gonna Vote?

We’ve all seen the polls and the maps and the predictions (my compliments to Zach’s prediction) but we seem to be forgetting that it all comes down to who actually shows up to vote on election day. Obama’s supporters may see so many polls predicting an Obama victory that many of them don’t vote, while McCain’s supporters may assume that Obama’s young voters won’t actually go out and vote and, therefore, won’t feel the need to vote themselves. An article by John Whitesides entitled “The Last Unknown in White House Race -- Who Votes?” discusses how important it is to each candidate that all of their supporters vote. This holds especially true for Obama, who has a large base of “new and sporadic voters;” these voters Obama are relying on may not show up to vote. Obama officials, however, remain confident, citing the results of early voting: “43 percent of Democrats who voted early [in Nevada] are new or sporadic voters, and 19 percent of the Democrats who voted early in North Carolina have never voted in a presidential election before” according to Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. McCain officials, however, are not concerned, citing that Republican candidates often do poorly among early voters but receive a large number of absentee votes. Both campaigns are implementing massive get-out-the-vote drives: Obama’s campaign is relying upon “’several million’ volunteers” to talk to every last possible Obama supporter while McCain has utilized a “72-hour voter turnout plan [similar to one] that paid huge dividends for Bush in 2004.” It’s cliché and has been said countless times before, but in this election, every vote really does count.

For an election that is supposedly “winding down” though, there certainly seems to be a lot of last-minute activity!

"Fifteen Races to Watch on Election Day"

Here is a link to an article that shows the fifteen states which people should watch out for on Election Day. Click here to view the article. 

Karl Rove Predicts Obama Win

Rove, the man whose name has become synonymous with dirty political tactics, has posted a final electoral college prediction on his website giving Obama a 338-200 win.

Rove was allegedly the mastermind of the effort to smear McCain in the '00 South Carolina primary, when voters were asked the question "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" McCain's "illegitimate black child" is, of course, his adopted daughter from Bangladesh-- which makes the question about as reasonable as "Would you be more or less likely to vote for Al Sharpton...if you knew that he had sold weapons to top Al-Qaeda leaders and has been videotaped freebasing with Fidel Castro?"

Thanks a bunch, Karl. Where would we be without you?

Obama's grandmother dies

On Sunday night, Madelyn Dunham died of cancer. She was 86 and was an important part in Barack Obama's life. After reading "Dreams from My Father," I know that Dunham worked exceptionally hard just so that Obama had a easy and happy childhood. It is vey sad to see a loved one die and leave this planet, especially when they die a day before Election Day. 

Price Signals

            What exactly is a price signal? When asked how he would, “convince people to change their life style” during an interview on Iowa public television in 2007 Barack Obama voiced the opinion that, “it is important for us to send some price signals to change behavior.” Senator Obama further explained, “the power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power they will pass on those costs to the consumers.”  This causes the term price signals to mean an economic prerogative that convinces consumers to spend their money as the government sees fit.

             On the issue of these price signals making energy, particularly electricity, too expensive for lower class working people to afford senator Obama made it clear that  “we will have to guard against the low income and fixed income individuals having to pay more for electricity. ”  The upper class would, as senator Obama noted in his inter view also be able to afford the high price of energy, so with high energy costs easily in reach of the rich and made affordable to the lower class the weight of the new “price signals” falls directly on the lower class. 

            In a normal capitalistic economic environment the increased cost of energy, created in this case by government regulation, would lead to a decreased demand as may people would be unable to afford energy at its new inflated price.  The decrease demand would then force energy prices to fall in order to make the product available to more consumers increasing overall revenue.  However, with the government backing the price of energy for some number of citizens there would be fewer people who were unable to afford the new cost of energy the price of energy would be less likely to fall to a price that was more affordable to the middle class.  Because of the government subsidy of electricity for the lower class that Barrack Obama proposes and the higher prices crated by government regulation of power plants, the government would effectively be able to set the price of electricity in the United States economy.

            This cap on the price of energy would effectively destroy the capitalistic market for electric energy in the United States.   The Foundation of a capitalist market is innovation and ability to provide goods that the consumer wants at the lowest possible price.  Senator Obama’s intention of reducing the carbon footprint of the United States by imposing regulations on the production of electricity is well founded, but the way in which his policies manipulate the market are sure to have economic repercussions that will impede the growth and development of the United Sates energy market.

Works Cited

"Obama Wants 'Price Signals' to 'Change Behavior'" 2 Nov. 2008. Little Green Footballs. 3 Nov. 2008 http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31781_obama_wants_price_signals_to_change_behavior

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. 

Political DNA

As Election Day approaches, some of us may begin to question who they are going to vote for and why. After all, there are so many factors that can influence which candidate will make the better President… Or are there? An article in the Boston Globe by Eve LaPlante, “Born to Party,” suggests otherwise. Emerging research suggests that our political ideologies are actually shaped by our genetics, and scientists have discovered that “the brains of liberals and conservatives are physically and functionally distinctive, suggesting that people on either side of the ideological divide are actually wired differently.” Additionally, our views on everything from gun control to immigration are shaped by an “unconscious reaction to threat” rather than well-crafted, intelligent opinions. In the words of political scientist Kevin Smith, who co-authored the study, “[our p]olitical reactions are gut responses rather than a rational weighing of pros and cons” after which we make a logical decision. Instead, our political beliefs are dependant on biological instinct rather than reason. The study also found that conservatives are quicker to react to threats but more resistant to change, while liberals were generally slower to react to threats but more quickly accepted change. Additionally, the study claims that people have a 40% to 50% chance of inheriting their political ideologies.

So, what does this mean? Some speculate that this finding demonstrates a genetic basis for our two-party system of Democrats and Republicans (and explains why third parties often do so poorly). Others believe it implies that both parties need each other to survive, as demonstrated by our system of checks and balances. I suggest reading this interesting article, as it goes into far more detail than I do and does a better job elaborating on many of these concepts.

Prediction for Tomorrow

We are now within 24 hours of hearing the very first results of this truly extraordinary election cycle between Democratic candidate, Barack Obama; and Republican candidate John McCain. I've spent the last 72 hours vigorously reading over every single possible polling website including: 270towin.com, pollster.com, realclearpolitics.com and many others and all of them show Barack Obama as our next President. Now it's still anyone's game but I thought I would add my final prediction for tomorrow's election.

As of now, Obama has a solid lock on all the Kerry States (those won in 2004) including: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, California, Oregon, Washington State, Maryland and Pennsylvania. With all these states, Obama is very close to obtaining the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the Presidency but he has a significantly higher chance of getting to the magic number than McCain does.

Looking at the swing states over the last week, McCain has no chance of winning Nevada, Colorado or New Mexico; and certainly not Iowa (remember, he didn't even bother with their caucuses back in January). With that in mind, he has a very narrow path to victory -- namely -- every single Republican state and every single swing state. Per my observations, Obama has advantages in each of these swing states like Florida and Ohio where people are unhappy with the economical situtation of the country not even Virginia looks good for McCain; especially Fairfax County which is closest to Washington D.C.; As I see it: everything rests on Virginia with its 13 electoral votes.

As many political anaylists have stated, if Obama wins Virginia, there is no way McCain can win. McCain might be able to win the popular vote (which I don't expect him to but anything can happen). Other states to watch out for: North Carolina (currently declared a tie by RCP) which was considered a leaning Republican state is now a hard battleground; and then there is the battleground in Montana. While the state has few electoral votes (3), its Republican Party has been very unorganized and might concede to a Democratic win, after all, they have a popular Democrat as Governor.

Perhaps two other swing states to look out for are Missouri and Nebraska. While it has been showing Republican tendencies, Obama has a fighting chance. And what about Nebraska? It is one of two states that split their electoral votes: Obama will be able to obtain the Democratic 2nd District where Omaha is; thus reducing McCain's overall win. This is a big deal, also remember Maine: they do the same thing but I don't see any spliting of the vote there.

Below is an image of my final prediction for the night (this is only a prediction and not the final outcome):

If the Other Party Wins

Collegehumor.com put out a video satirizing party differences today. (I see that the video doesn't fit onto the page so click on it to view it larger)

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

I think this video summarizes some fears that parties have of each other this election cycle. Though extreme, do you think these examples have any base or are they all just caricatures?

Intolerant Accusations

As we lurch closer to the final 24 hours before the election it seems important to correct a few misunderstandings that have developed. There has been some talk in class regarding the idea that the McCain campaign has, perhaps unwittingly, stirring up racial animosity in an all out effort to win the election. Two specific examples have been pointed to: First, that during a Palin Rally some one shouted out "Kill him" in reference to either Ayers or Obama, most likely Obama; second, that during another Palin Rally someone yelled out a racial epitaph and Palin continued to speak on, unconcerned by this bilious slur. Both of these, particularly the second, seem to have been proven false. On the first count an investigation by the secret service which included interviews with an undisclosed number of undercover law enforcement officials who were stationed among the crowd has found nothing that backs up the story. On the second even a member of the Daily Kos was forced to admit, and provides the relevant tape, that shows clearly that the word shouted was "redistributor". Below I also include a video of McCain supporters, including Muslims, at a rally telling off a kook who was trying to hand out stickers that implied that Obama was a secret Muslim and consequently that being a Muslim was a something shameful.

This contrasts with the recent news that a 53 year old Obama supporter hospitalized a 75 year old McCain fan. The older gentleman was displaying a Pro McCain sign and was shoved into a fire hydrant for his efforts. The photograph at the beginning of this post is one found in a Halloween display in California, showing a Palin like mannequin in a noose.

This is not to say that their are not extremists on both sides of the election, only to point out that we shouldn't be so quick to take the first reports of Republican intolerance as fact or believe that the unhinged exist only on one side of the aisle. Elections, as Tocqueville noted, are apt to stir Americans into a feverish state,  which, luckily, soon afterwords disipates.

"'Long before the appointed moment arrives, the election becomes the greatest and so to speak sole business preoccupying minds. The factions at that time redouble their ardor; in that moment all the factitious passion that the imagination can create in a happy and tranquil country become agitated in broad daylight. . . . The entire nation falls into a feverish state; the election is then the daily text of the public papers, the subject of particular conversations, the goal of all reasoning, the object of all thoughts, the sole interest of the present.'

"And then? 'As soon as fortune has pronounced . . . this ardor is dissipated, everything becomes calm, and the river, one moment overflowed, returns peacefully to its bed.'"

Death Taken Lightly

Obama announced the death of his grandmother today, a day before the election.  She died of cancer at 86 years old.  Obama has already lost his mother at the grip of cancer in 1995 and has gone through much pain losing the ones who so raised him so successfully.  Obama's announcement of his loss will certainly resonate within the American people, and hopefully they will share his grief.  It certainly gives the otherwise exciting election a somewhat melancholy feeling, and perhaps that is most likely what Obama wanted.

I personally find it somewhat of a move strictly in motivation to propel himself even further out of McCain's reach as each passing day shows Obama gaining ground and leaving McCain behind.  This announcement may very well have put out any last hopes McCain had to stealing away the election from underneath Obama's popularity.  In that respect, this very strategic.  Strategic, but heartless.  

At what cost did Obama publicize his grandmother's death?  There will be no reprecussions from the public, except feelings of regret and sympathy for Obama, because no one can criticize a man when he has lost someone so near to him.  But this resonates with McCain's rhetoric that Obama has his interests in front of the people's interest, only this time, he is placing his success at the cost of his family.  In no other circumstance would anyone want to publicize such a saddening event unless they had a good reason to do so.  And if that reason is for personal self-gaining interests, then that is not only selfish, but heartless.  I see no reason for Obama or anybody for that matter to use bereavement as a form of rhetoric.  It would greatly damage your image of sincerity towards the people if that is how you would treat someone who is close to you, let alone a citizen you will never know.  And the fact that Obama had such a solid lead over McCain makes this even more unnecessary and all the more sickening.  He has a strong hold over the election, only to advertise a death in the family to assure even more security. I understand he has to keep an image of rhetoric for himself, that he is a good family man and he doesn't forget where he came from, but I really see this as a degrading moment for Obama to use a dead family member who was so close to him to succeed.

European Union Already Prepared for Election

According to this article ("European Union Draws Up Letter to New U.S. Leader" by Crispian Balmer) at Reuters, the European Union has written a letter to the next president of the United States. The letter will be sent to the winner as soon as possible. In the letter, the EU calls for more cooperation between the US and the EU in addressing world issues. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner commented on the letter, expressing a desire "to open a new chapter in global harmony, global balance, [and] global change" and to put an end to "unilateral decisions that try to resolve the problems of the world." Indeed, the major world powers such as the US and the EU will need to work together to resolve emerging crises as the world enters a new age of globalization. However, perhaps the EU is being a bit premature in composing this letter? After all, whether Obama or McCain wins tomorrow (Tomorrow? Really? Where did the time go?) George W. Bush will still be President until January 2009, and the EU will be dealing with him, not tomorrow’s winner. Likewise, should the winner begin engaging in Presidential duties before he even takes office? While the letter is not necessarily a bad idea (and will hopefully do a lot to improve US foreign relations, which have suffered since the beginning of the Iraq War) perhaps it would be best if it was not sent until the winner of the election actually takes office.

The European Union hopes to work with the United States to alleviate the global financial crisis and help negotiate peace between Russia and Georgia. The EU also plans to work with China, India, and Brazil, along with other world powers.

Though most Europeans would rather see Obama elected president, those who wrote the letter refused to endorse either candidate. Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the EU’s external relations commissioner, said "It is for the American people to elect their president. We will then work with whoever is there." Although the EU may be a bit preemptive, their actions are a good step towards increased international cooperation.

Protect the voice of the people!

I found this video very interesting.



It's bad enough that the electoral system can take away the true voice of the people. But when votes are deliberately taken away, it is outright corruption. It makes me sick that anyone could be so UN-AMERICAN as to chip away at our democracy-- the foundation of our country!

And yet it happens every day. Let's try and stop it tomorrow.

Palin Attracts Voters with Special Needs and their Families

Sarah Palin is a mother of child with down syndrome. Since Palin has been announced as the VP nominee, Palin's son, Trig, and many others like him have become the emotional center for the campaign.

She has had a ton of supporters because of this, as they are found on the streets carrying signs, wearing t-shirts, or hoping to snatch a hug or photo with Palin when they at her public appearances. And Palin, is always enthusiastic to them in return, as she is deeply touched by her supporters who share the same beliefs.

According to the New York Times, Palin was briefly stopped in Pennsylvania to find Amber Brown, holding a sign that read: "I have Down syndrome and I'm voting for you. I'm a fighter too!" Palin had open arms, hugging her repeatedly before she got back onto her campaign bus.

"I love that poster," Palin said. "You're a fighter and you're beautiful."

Sarah Palin "gets it", as she might say. She understands the issues and even pain disabled people go through, and she connect to those who struggle from such reasons. To advance the rights of such people with special needs, especially children, is a mission that comes from her heart.

In her first policy speech as VP nominee, she addressed educational financing for special-needs children. Under a McCain-Palin administration disabled students would have the opportunity of going to private school at a public expense. She also signed a bill that increased financing special-needs students.

She no longer wants special needs children to feel that they "have been excluded and been made to feel that there is no place for then in the life of our country. And this attitude is a grave disservice to these beautiful children and to their families and to America. And I'm going to work to change that."

These people who have been affected by certain disabilities (and their families) have found a friend in Sarah Palin for her support, understanding, and acknowledgment in their feelings and disadvantages. Palin herself has experienced such struggle they've experienced, and they are all enthused to have her represent them.

Information from this article.

"White Slaves" and "That Pretty Girl"

Over the weekend, I overheard some old men talking about the election. One of the men said that he had already voted for “the only choice” he could make, McCain and “that pretty girl, Sarah.” Another commented that he was going to vote for McCain because he was absolutely convinced that Obama would “reverse civil rights” and “make us all white slaves.”

You’re joking, right? How could any rational person believe that slavery could ever be revived in this country? The Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution specifically states that “[n]either slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States,” and the president has neither the power to propose nor to ratify an amendment (in this case, ratify an amendment overturning a previous amendment). Besides, the American people would never allow a reinstitution of slavery. Imagine the reaction! People would riot! So where does this “white slaves” thing come from? The disturbing, yet obvious, truth is racism. That anyone could be so influenced by racism to believe that Obama would enslave white people (or anyone, for that matter!) reveals a troubling reality about American society. It makes regular white people look bad.

As if racism influencing the election wasn’t bad enough, several of the men were voting for McCain because they liked “pretty” Sarah Palin. What should the physical appearance of a candidate, man or woman, have to do with voting for him or her? Are Americans really that incapable of looking past age, skin color, and gender? If this group of old men is a reflection on the entire country, it would seem that “politics” has come to mean beauty and popularity. But are those really the best criteria for choosing the next President of the United States of America?

America will lead the world, no matter what happens tomorrow

          In a recent article called "America's Burden" published by the New York Post, Carter discusses how the next president will shape the world and is in fact the only person who can increase the safety of this country. "The greatest danger to the United States and the world is not from a president who does too much, but from one who does too little." Carter is afraid that Obama, if he wins the election, “is going to try to find which group of supporters he'll disappoint first."         

         According to the article, when America tries to defend other countries it is called a bully and when it does not act or interfere it is called weak. Because Bush did not control the government the way he should have, America’s status and position in this world has gone down but it still is and will always be the “indispensable power” of this world. The article then talks about different problems, wars and struggles in which the world had to face when Bush was in control. A few examples are the rape and slaughter that happened in Congo, the opium trade in Zimbabwe, and Russia invades its own neighbor, Georgia.

  "An American President too anxious to please the world is bound to do it great harm." The author explains that he is afraid of Barack Obama’s take on this election. It is better to look ready and vigilant, then to look unaffected and careless.  He seems to be extremely excited and motivated enough to lead. I believe this is a good trait we all look for in a president, it shows how willing and able he is to restore America’s power and position in this troubled world. The article hints that America has been fixing the world for a really long time now, and that is how it gained its incredible status. 

Trick or Vote anyone?

Now that the polls are about to open, the shit really comes out. States across the board are relying on dirty tricks or intimidation to convince people not to vote. As predicted also, some of these nasty little ploys are decidedly racist. 

In Philly for example, there have been complaints from mostly black neighborhoods about circulating fliers, claiming that citizens could be arrested at the polls for minor offenses such as unpaid parking tickets or  if they were criminally convicted. 

In Virginia also, fliers are popping up all over the place saying they are holding two election days. Tuesday for republicans, and Wednesday for Democrats. This suggests the Republicans are getting desperate in their last days before defeat. Most of these tactics coming to light are detrimental to the Democrats, leading people to think that radical right wing groups are behind it. 

In New Mexico, two hispanic women filed a lawsuit after claiming to have been threatened by a private investigator working for a Republican Lawyer. 

"He was questioning her status, saying that he needed to see her papers and documents to show that she was a U.S. citizen and was a legitimate voter," said Guadalupe Bojorquez, speaking on behalf of her mother, Dora Escobedo, a 67-year-old Albuquerque resident who speaks only Spanish. "He totally, totally scared the heck out of her."

With the Obama campaign singing up millions of new voters, its only logical that the suppression tactics have become more common and radical. To help out though, Obama has recruited thousands of civil rights lawyers to help with voter intimidation. 

This election could still get worse, much worse. It will be interesting to see how successful these tactics will be on election day. 

Super-Majority

It seems all polls at this point are signaling the entrance of Obama into the presidential suite. But America needs to consider one of the biggest implications of electing a Democrat. Republicans are taking notice of this, and in the past few weeks they have been running ads not against Obama, but against the idea of a super-majority should Obama win the election. These ads represent the concession of the election to Obama, and symbolize a last minute plea to the public to give some seats in the Senate and House to the Republicans. 

Democrats are predicted to gain a large percentage of new seats, even in traditionally red districts. According to a New York Times article Democrats have spent extraordinary amounts on advertising and campaigning for congressional seats, sensing their opportunity to vastly expand. "Democrats bought advertising in 63 districts, twice the number of districts where Republicans bought advertising and helped candidates." Democrats are reaching beyond their success in the midterm election, and are now in the position to gain vast amounts of suburban (typically Republican) votes. Their success has stemmed mostly from the ever troublesome economy. 

Democrats are already in control of the House and Senate, and post-election, will inevitably still have this power. With the election of Obama, this creates a Democratic super-majority in which Democrats essentially hold all the political cards. While I tend to lean left on most issues, there are some issues where I side with conservatives; this is why so much Democratic control scares me. Gridlock is an inherent key component within our democratic system, and legal progress is should be kept to a minimum. The system is designed with so many bill passage complications so that only the most popular, refined, and beneficial bills get passed with a sweeping majority. If Democrats have executive power combined with a congressional majority, it bypasses this check within the system. Any Republican filibuster would be killed by a vote, and any popular Democratic policy will be passed, especially if it's supported by a new president with coat-tails. 

However, I also think while in the president's first 100 days, a lot of bills will get passed, House and Senate members will reach across the aisle, and make many compromises to conservatives in order to pander to moderate or fiscally conservative constituents. 

My point is not to say passing Democratic policies are bad, and by no means would I vote McCain because of the super-majority threat. I just don't think this implication has gotten much attention, and I wanted to put it out there; because it is kind of a scary impact of the election. 

Radical Republicans

Everyone is saying Obama's going to win.  It also seems that the Democrats are going to win a majority in the Senate and the House.  That's all great news (and I hope and pray and cross my fingers that it comes off), but what's going to happen to the Republicans?

Some might think that they will look at their policies and ideologies, and realize, this might not be working so well - time to revamp and get back in line with the mainstream U.S.A.  However, Paul Krugman wrote an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times that predicts the opposite: the Republican Party is going to become even more radical, even more right-wing.

It will be the party of Sarah Palins - naked emotion and religious beliefs, implied racism and hatred.  The party that relies on "the real America" and "pro-America" to get votes.  The party that accuses its opponent of being secretly Muslim (like that's a bad thing), and declares the opposition's policies amount to a switch to Communism.  The Party of Intolerance.

But how? and why?  Here's a few reasons:

1) This election will replace many of the remaining moderate Republicans in Congress with Democrats.  However, the radical right-wing Republicans will stay.

2) The base seems to believe that if the election is lost, it is because of "an evil conspiracy", in which the mainstream media is biased in favor of Obama - and not because we are sick and tired of failed Dubya policies that McCain would continue.  The base is also set to claim that "the election was stolen", because the group ACORN had some false registrations.  McCain even declared that ACORN "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."  These claims just alienate the Republicans and their base even further from the democratic electoral process.

What this demonstrates is that the Republicans are moving farther and farther right, into the extremes, where they only listen to their base, those evangelical and radical conservatives.  In doing so, they lose the more moderate mainstream voters, whose support is crucial.  If this does play out, I expect the Republicans to sort of fade off into a radical group.  I know it's a big claim, but it seems to me that this election can kill off the Republicans as a major party - especially if the Democrats win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  

After all, this is America, the land of opportunity and freedom, and equality.  So let's show the Republicans tomorrow that we will stand up for the America created in the Constitution, and not the America that the Republicans represent: intolerance, dirty tricks, and hatred.

Mornings, and the Smell of Naplam

As the election approaches, it seems clear that the Bush doctrine, whatever that is, is dead. The thought that either of the next two candidates could consider military preemption or unilateral action on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan and hope to have any support in Congress seems very unlikely. With that in mind, it got me thinking about what sort of regimes America and the west should tolerate in the world,and which, if any, we should actively seek to change, and what force, if any, we could, or should, employ to achieve those ends. this reminded me of an essay which got the attention of President Reagan and ultimately got the writer, Melanie Kirkpatrick, appointed ambassador to the UN. In it she argues that it is preferable to support conservative autocrats rather than revolutionary ones, because the revolutionary ones are generally more damaging then the regimes they replace. Of course some would argue with that thesis, and with good reason. The point is that while we would prefer every country to have a stable democracy, such forms of government are notoriously difficult to impose, create or sustain. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "the price of democracy is eternal vigilance". If we agree then that we must tolerate some countries whose democratic standards, and whose records, are less rigid then our own, as is the de facto case at present, then when does a country reach a level of malfeasance that it becomes either duty or good sense to intervene? Strategically many find the idea of a nuclear armed Iran unacceptable. America will not get UN approval to destroy Iran's nuclear program, in light of President Ahmadinejad comments about wiping Israel off the map do we have a duty to ourselves and the world to prevent that country from gaining access to nuclear weapons or at least look the other way if Israel makes an attempt? On the humanitarian side, all things being equal the Chinese will continue to block any meaningful action in Darfur. When does the situation become so dire there, if it hasn't already, that the United States or other countries are justified in taking unilateral action? Or, if the great powers lack the will, as it seems is the case , to do anything about Darfur, an idea has been bandied about over the years, a targeted mercenary force could be sent to the country and either train the African Union forces or act as the pointy tip of the spear in moving against the militias. Recently Mr. Prince of Blackwater has offered his services at cost to deal with the problem.

Aid workers and villagers would be equipped with satellite telephones that include Global Positioning Systems. When they call in, the troops would respond.

"I'm so sick of hearing that nothing can be done," he says. "The Janjaweed is a truly unfettered bully. No one has stood up to them. If they were met by a mobile quick reaction force of African Union soldiers, the Janjaweed would quickly learn their habits were not sustainable." And to ensure accountability, he says, the U.S. could send 25 military officers to observe how Blackwater is doing and serve as liaisons.

Of course Darfur isnt the place where chaos or oppression has caused the most deaths. For that we would have to go to the literal "Heart of Darkness", the Congo where, "3.9 million people had died since 1998, arguably making DR Congo the world’s deadliest crisis since World War II". The country is held in an increasingly fragile quasi ceasefire by a few thousand UN troops.

There is just one reason this war keeps going: Congo is one of the best-endowed countries in the world, with rich reserves of gold, cobalt, zinc, uranium, copper, and yes, oil. The former Belgian colonizers, the current Congolese government, the Rwandan government, the Ugandan government, and all the rebel groups that each party supports are funded and motivated by that wealth.

It seems that absent some stabilizing force in the Congo that these atrocities will continue as long as there is natural wealth to draw those whose interest in plunder far outweighs any thoughts of humanity. Unfortunately there are no shortage of such people in Africa or abroad. The question then for both candidates and citizens is when should the United States intervene in other countries and does it need the justification of the United Nations to do so? And if one's country can not or will not come to the aid of a tortured people does a citizen's obligation consist of simply attempting to convince its government to do otherwise or is there something more that is needed?

This also returns us to essay noted in the beginning of my post. When is it better to support an undemocratic government if it prevents the country from reverting to chaos? When, if ever, is it preferable to encourage an enlightened strongman (or woman) to take control of a failed state rather then let slaughter and malnutrition continue? Of course those who might consider another White Raj for the Congo would do well to remember that it was another mad European, King Leopold of Belgium, whose personal administration of the country at the turn of the century formed a basis for Conrad's novel and set a standard for amorality that even the current warlords might struggle to match. Have the West's previous interventions in this and other parts of the world simply created more reasons for us to return? If that is the case then what is our obligation, should we simply abandon these countries to their fate?