Maldives New President Sure Can Cut Back!

So the new President of the Maldives seems like a cool guy to me. Maybe a little bit TOO much "for the people/anti-establishment" then I'm used to seeing in heads of state, but you have to hand it to the man, he really knows how to keep a budget! The BBC has the full article here, but here's the bare facts for those of you on the go:
* The new President Mohamed Nasheed used to be a political activist, and was actually sentenced to prison 20 years ago by the very man he beat out in the election. (Yes, his predecessor was in power for 30 years.)
* The private yacht of the president is going to be auctioned off, possibly on Ebay.
* As for the President's private island: But the new administration wants to open everything up. There's already talk of turning Arah into a marine research facility or even a writer's retreat.
* He isn't staying in the Presidential palace as he finds it "too big", so there are suggestions of turning it into a museum or the country's first university!
* And best of all: "When we started this administration, the presidency was costing more than $150m (£105m) a year," he said. "This is something we simply can't afford. We've brought it down to $4m." "

Now there's some inspiration for Obama on running to help out the US economy!
Yeah I know, it's wishful thinking, but a girl can dream right? Oh yeah, did I mention that they're thinking of turning the president's private island into a writer's retreat? Sweet...

So much for "transparency"

This just in from Politico:
Obama's promise of openness and transpency from the White House is already being called into question as Obama did all this:
*shut down his predecessor’s system for reviewing regulations
*realigned and expanded two key White House policymaking bodies
*extended economic sanctions against parties to the conflict in the African nation of Cote D’Ivoire.
without the White House Press Corps ever mentioning it. Politico explains that this was because

...they were never announced by the White House Press Office and were never placed on the White House web site.

When Politico inquired about some documents that were missing from the White House website, spokesman Ben LaBolt apparently said that “It was a simple oversight,”.

I'm not saying that the things Obama did that were never released to the Press were bad, or shady, I just feel that a man who ran his campaign on a promise of openness needs to be extremely careful about keeping that promise. I don't think people would really make a big deal out of this if he hadn't made so many promises. He set himself up for this criticism, though I'm glad there is this criticism, as it should keep the administration in check and constantly on their toes.

President Obama's Actions in Office (so far)

Obama has officially been inaugurated!

At what is being reported as the most attended Presidential Inauguration ever, (he beat out LBJ who previously held the title, and beat out Clinton by 1 million), D.C. Mayor is saying that 1.8 million people were on the Mall attending the event, "The National Parks Service estimates Tuesday’s crowd to be the largest ever at the Mall", according to Politico.

There was of course the now famous slip up by Roberts about the placement of the word "faithfully" within the oath. In case you somehow missed it, here's a video:

Later that night Politico is reporting that President Obama retook the oath in the Map Room of the White House. This has spurned what I believe is a spurious debate over the authenticity of the orders Obama signed before retaking the oath. If you want to to read the article go here, but I think they're just looking for hairs to split and SOMETHING to talk about.
One of his first executive orders as President was to put a pay freeze on all White House staff who make more than $100,000/yr, which is roughly 100 people. He is quoted by MSNBC as saying "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington...". And in an effort to create transparency within the government,

Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public — not to look for reasons to legally withhold it — an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation. - once again according to MSNBC

Newsweek is also reporting what I find to be fantastic news:

In the first sign of friction within his new administration, President Obama overruled the pleas of senior U.S. intelligence officials and signed a new executive order that bars the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods beyond those permitted by the U.S. military.

Yay!! The US will no longer be breaking international law, at least on the torture front. This same directive also includes an order to close Guantanamo, something many people have been looking forward to. Though it's a bit up in the air over where all these detainees will go until their cases can be sorted out, it has even been suggested Camp Pendleton here in our own Southern California. In other news the Guardian is reporting that a town in Vermont has indicted Bush and Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution", though it is unlikely this will get much done.
Another exciting turn of events that has international lawyers pleased, though lawyers in general confused about the future of the detainess, Obama has also ordered the closing of Gitmo. You can read the full article here at Al Jazeera.

I know that there have been many more things in the news as of late, but this is just a quick update of things that I think are very important to not just the US, but the world.

And in a last bit of humor, Fox news has a report of an Indonesian man is becoming quite famous because he looks a lot like President Obama. See for yourself:


That's all for now!

Nana korobi ya oki

Hillary Clinton must be getting her daily dose of Japanese proverbs because she's taken the sage advice of "Fall Down Seven Times, Stand up Eight" to a whole new degree. Clinton won big in Puerto Rico, with CNN Election Center 2008 giving the stats that Clinton won 68% of the votes, and Obama walked away with only 32%. Clinton has made a great win, and it would be wrong to not recognize this, but I still feel like her continuing in this race is beginning to step on toes, and may cause divisions in the future.

In a New York Times article on the Puerto Rico win,

Art Torres, the California Democratic chairman who has not endorsed a candidate in the race, said it was urgent for the party to avoid divisive battles. “Everyone is paying respects to her — as we would for Obama if he were in a similar situation,” Mr. Torres said. “But it now becomes a matter of commitment to the nation and the party. We cannot allow this election to slip through our fingers.”

This is exactly how I feel. That it is all well and good for Clinton to continue campaigning, as it is obvious that she still has people who REALLY want to vote for her. But if she continues after Obama has won both the popular vote and gotten enough delegates, then she is just being petty.

Obama only needs 42 more delegates, compared to Hillary, who still needs 201. South Dakota and Montana vote tomorrow, so if Obama can win those states with a large margin, he may have this in the bag. (As much as Hillary will continue to deny it.)

This primary is certainly giving everyone something to talk about, but I think we're all getting a bit sick of it really.

Yellin Speaks Out

Jessica Yellin, CNN's Congressional Correspondent, appeared on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, and discussed an issue that has been raised by Scott McClellan's new book "What Happened", which alleges (according to the Huffington Post) that

"the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings."

In an excerpt provided on the Anderson Cooper 360 Blog,

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: [Responding to Anderson's allegation that the 'liberal' media dropped the ball on asking tough questions of the White House and on the war]
I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.

I think, over time…

COOPER: You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?

YELLIN: Not in that exact — they wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience.

Here is a link to the full transcript if anyone is interested.
Some of the interview, for your viewing pleasure:

Yellin later wrote on the AC360 Blog a further clarification of the statements she had made earlier on the show, she writes,

Also, let me say: No, senior corporate leadership never asked me to take out a line in a script or re-write an anchor intro. I did not mean to leave the impression that corporate executives were interfering in my daily work; my interaction was with senior producers. What was clear to me is that many people running the broadcasts wanted coverage that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the country at the time. It was clear to me they wanted their coverage to reflect the mood of the country.

While this is not revolutionary, it is still very interesting. One would assume that the liberal media would have been much more skeptical of the Iraq War, and this slant would have shown through in their reports. Instead the mainstream media went along with the Bush Administration, blindly following and hypnotizing easily-swayed Americans along the way.
Right now all I am thinking is "thank goodness for blogs!" An outlet where writers and journalists and ordinary people can share their thoughts and concerns on the newest piece of legislation or decision to go to war.

Should Hillary Clinton Stay in The Race?

This was the question I posed in the last poll, and the results are in!

As you can see... I face the same problem that America faces with every election, low voter turnout. That aside, the results show that 50% think Hillary should definitely NOT be in the race, while the other 50% reflects the sentiment that she should stay, but if conditions don't improve she should bow out.

Roland Martin, a contributer to CNN writes in a recent article

Her comments to The Associated Press that she may take this to the convention in August shouldn't be dismissed. I don't think Clinton cares about the party. Last week, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux said a Clinton source told her that their focus is Clinton first and the party second.

The idea of Hillary staying in the race until convention is terrifying, and this lack of regard for what is best for the party is horrible. As much faith as I have in the Democratic party I think that this constant division between the two camps will negatively effect Democratic votes in the final election. And as much as I hope that Democrats would vote for the Democrat who isn't their first choice, part of me still thinks that McCain could win if the Dem's don't start rallying behind one candidate. And that candidate should be the one who has won more popular votes, and more delegates. In summation, although the poll I ran on this blog has a very small sample size, it still manages to accurately reflect the general sentiments of the U.S. in relation to the Clinton campaign.

FL & MI Delegate Debacle

Thank Heavens! We can all sleep well tonight, as the news media and the DNC have made it extremely well known that a decision will soon be reached on what to do about those poor Michigonians and Floridians who have been deprived of a vote in the primary elections. We may finally see this catastrophe come to a close this weekend, although it is all speculation at this point.

For those of you who are just joining us now, here is a quick overview on what happened with the Florida and Michigan Democratic primaries, we will Tarantino it, and come back to the present day in a just few moments.

The DNC (Democratic National Committee) decides who has their primaries and when. MANY (not all, but many) states have their primaries on Super Tuesday, which was February 5. To have your states primary BEFORE Super Tuesday is like winning lottery for a state. Tons of media coverage, the candidates come to your state and hold rallies. It's basically a ticket to sit at the "cool kids" table at lunch. Historically these early primary states have been Iowa and New Hampshire (yeah... they needed all the help they could get to sit at with the popular kids...), although this year the DNC also added Nevada and South Carolina. Thereby covering all the regions of the US, pretty much.

So what did Florida and Michigan do when they weren't given their ticket to sit with the cool kids? They went ahead and did it anyway, in true rebel fashion. (Note: They voted on whether or not to hold an early primary, knowing FULL WELL what the ramifications were, as outlined by the DNC, and they still did it.) Well the DNC would have none of this and decided to punish the states by stripping them of their delegates and asking the candidates to not campaign in the states. As we all know, being stripped of delegates is pretty much akin to not actually voting as we Americans do not elect our President, our delegates do. Yay democracy.

Barack Obama's name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot, and "uncommitted" got 40% of the votes, not really the signs of a successful election.

According to a CNN article,

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said the states can either come up with a new plan to choose a slate of delegates or appeal to the party's credentials committee when the convention opens in August.

"The rules were set a year and a half ago. Florida and Michigan voted for them and then decided that they didn't need to abide by the rules. When you're in a contest you do need to abide by the rules," he said Thursday on CNN's "American Morning."

So that is pretty much the back story. Now we're going to go back to today, and analyze the newest information. To sum up what the media is saying,

An analysis by lawyers for the Democratic Party says party rules call for Florida and Michigan to lose at least half their delegate strength at the party’s convention in August, an outcome that could close off Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s last opportunity to cut significantly into Senator Barack Obama’s lead in delegates.

And that is according to this New York Times article, from today.

It is just stunning to me that these states would knowingly jeopardize the voice of their voters. If I were from Michigan or Florida, I would be livid. And not at the DNC, but at the officials in my state that decided moving up the date of the primary was a good idea.

But in terms of what this means for the election... Clinton will likely receive the majority of those delegate votes, although with Obama only 51 delegates shy of the necessary 2,026, Hillary has a lot of catch up to do. I honestly don't know how this can even count as a fair election though, especially for Obama. His name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, which I maintain definitely gave Hillary the advantage.

This delegate debacle is finally coming to a close, and I hope all the other states have learned from Florida and Michigan's mistakes, and won't disobey the DNC in the future.