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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Scott McClellan is the latest in the line of ex-Bush aides to publish a book in the last few years. Although the nature of his book has come as a bit of a shock to many in the Grand Ol' Party, as the once extremely loyal McClellan essentially airs this Presidencies dirty laundry for the world to read in his book, due to shelves Monday, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington". (click here to purchase.) In response current White House Press Secretary Dana Perino has said,
"For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad. This is not the Scott we knew."
Yes this is not the Scott that Dana knew.... Not the Scott that would blindly follow orders, even lying to reporters based on false information, or in his own words...
"I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood," he wrote. "It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively."
And that is all according to this article by CNN. Karl Rove has compared McClellan's book to that of a "left wing blogger". (I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or not). And in this Washington Post article, Perino speaks on behalf of the President saying that Bush
"is puzzled, and he doesn't recognize this as the Scott McClellan that he hired and confided in and worked with for so many years," Perino said, adding that Bush was "disappointed that if he had these concerns and these thoughts, he never came to him or anyone else on the staff."
McClelland began working for Bush in 1999 when he was governor of Texas, was his traveling campaign spokesman for the 2000 election, later served as Deputy Press Secretary, and then White House Press Secretary starting in 2003.
Let's give the man a break already! He has had to defend one of the worst Administrations in history, including such catastrophes (both in nature and in the White House) as Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq War.
As per the actual CONTENT of the book the Washington Post reports this...
McClellan says he retains great admiration for Bush but portrays the president as stubborn and isolated. Calling the Iraq war "unnecessary" and a "strategic blunder," McClellan alleges that senior administration officials began a campaign in 2002 to "aggressively sell the war," even as he and other officials insisted that all options were on the table.
He also accuses Rove of misleading him about the leak of a CIA officer's name, and he suggests that Rove and former vice presidential adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby may have improperly met to discuss the case. Perino and other officials sharply criticized that assertion yesterday.
This book can be added to the shelf with other similar publications by ex-White House staff such as "Against All Enemies" and "Your Government Failed You" by former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, as well as former U.S. administrator in Iraq L. Paul Bremer's "My Year in Iraq". We also can't forget former economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey's "What a President Should Know" and former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd's "It's My Party, Too". So while his old pro-Bush friends may be ostracizing him and not RSVPing to his annual 4th of July BBQ, he can at least find some company amongst these other former White House followers turned authors/whistleblowers extroadinaire.
Sometimes I read things in the news and they are so absolutely unbelievable that I myself do not actually believe it, although I am reading it with my own eyes.
These days not much surprises me, but it does still happen from time to time. And it happened tonight.
That's right, Dunkin' Donuts has pulled the ad they created that featured a terrorist happily drinking their coffee. Oh wait, what was that? It wasn't a terrorist it was... RACHAEL RAY?!?!? And oh... you say she doesn't look like a terrorist at all as she sips her coffee with her trademark smile and overall perkiness? Then what is the problem here??? Well see for yourself... There you see it? No? It's right there... in the middle of the photo. Yes, that is it folks, that black and white fashion scarves that people of all ethnicities and religious backgrounds are wearing, is the big problem with Rachael Ray's Dunkin Donuts ads.
Well they must have a good reason... right? According to an ABC News article,
Dunkin' Donuts, worried that its customers might think [Ray was a terrorist sympathizer], abruptly yanked an ad in which Ray wears a scarf that resembles a keffiyeh -- a traditional headdress worn by Arab men -- after conservative commentators became enraged by the ad and even threatened to boycott the company.
Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin also felt the need to "educate" the public on the true horror and ramifications of Ray's fashion choice, posting on her website last week,
The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad. Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant (and not so ignorant) fashion designers, celebrities and left-wing icons.
Are you kidding me??? I think this is a prime example of how ignorant many Americans are about Middle Eastern culture and history, and how many people make sweeping generalizations about people who are different than themselves or what they are familiar with.
ABC had this poll on their website: What scares me about this is the 18% that agree with the ad being pulled. The future of America is not looking so bright if we continue to be ignorant about the rest of the world, and shutting it out instead of educating ourselves and opening channels of communication. Last time I checked actual discussions and diplomacy are generally more effective than the age old "plug your ears and stamp your feet while yelling 'la-la-la-la-la-i can't hear you!'"
Here's an update on the recent overturn of the past ban on same-sex marriage in California.
In a recent article, CNN is reporting that, according to state officials, same-sex couples may be able to obtain marriage licenses as early as June 17th. And according to The New York Times,
Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
According to the article this would make New York the first state to not personally allow same-sex marriage, but still fully recognize same-sex unions performed elsewhere. Opponents of the decision have iterated their dislike for the decision,
“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”
This idea of leaving decisions such as this up to the voters is something we keep hearing in the California debate, as the California Supreme Court essentially went against what the citizens voted for.
"Fifty-four percent of registered voters would back the measure, according to the survey by The Los Angeles Times and KTLA-TV. Thirty-five percent oppose the proposed measure, which is expected to be on the November ballot."
Click here to see the full results of the poll, as released by the LA Times. There is also a New York Times article that has a lot of interesting statistics, but they all come to the same conclusion, that the ballot initiative to override the California Supreme Courts decision would pass. Essentially that same-sex marriage would once again be banned. A dark day in California history if you ask me, let's hope their statistics are wrong.
this is of course a parody of the recent NBA commercials, like this one, for example...
But back to the SNL video, to provide a bit of commentary. I think the video truly captures how a lot of people feel about the candidates' campaigns, with Obama emphasizing the youth vote, and Clinton being heavily supported by working class whites. It also accurately captures how I almost subconsciously feel about both candidates, with Obama fighting for Democracy and Hillary fighting because she "deserves this".
Here's the transcript: Jim Lehrer: And finally, for the record, you have not lost your desire to be President of the United States have you? McCain: Well, uh, certainly it's been put in deep cold storage Lehrer: But you haven't lost it? McCain: Well, in 2004 I expect to be campaigning for the reelection of President George W. Bush, and by 2008 I think i might be ready to go down to the Old Soldiers Home and await the cavalry charge there.
And there you have it, straight from the horse's mouth, John McCain himself, at least in 2000 thought that he would be too old to run in the 2008 election. Kudos have to go to Crooks & Liars for digging up that gem.
According to a report by PollingReport.com, 24% of those polled were "somewhat uncomfortable" with having "Someone entering office as president of the United States at age 72". This number dwarfs the 2 others, with only 9% "somewhat uncomfortable" with having "a woman president of the United States" and only 6% "somewhat uncomfortable" with "an African-American president of the United States".
This is all coming out in the wake of McCain releasing his medical records... sorta. McCain has delayed releasing his medical records for over a year now, consistently blaming his doctors. And now they are set to release today, the Friday of Memorial Day Weekend, which he and his aides hope will allow for the least amount of press coverage, a trick he probably picked up from the Bush Administration. The LA Times reported, "By addressing the health issue on the eve of a long holiday weekend, McCain's campaign staff said privately, they hoped to get past it and to turn public attention elsewhere as the campaign progresses." Even this so called "release" of information is barely that, here are the restrictions for it: * only a small, select group of reporters will have access to the records in a secure room in Phoenix, AZ * access is limited to only three hours, between 7 and 10 AM on Friday * no copying of the records is permitted
John McCain is in good health despite a 15-year history of skin cancers, including a minor case as recently as February, and bouts with precancerous polyps in his colon, cysts in his kidney and stones in his bladder, his doctors said Friday. McCain, 71, takes medications for elevated cholesterol and prevention of kidney stones, as well as an occasional pill to help him sleep, a panel of doctors said during a 45-minute news conference. The presumed Republican presidential nominee also suffers minor bouts of vertigo when he abruptly rises from a chair, though the condition is not an indication of any heart condition or precursor to a stroke, the doctors said.
It is admirable that McCain has gone to such lengths to prove his "healthiness" (or lack thereof I would argue...), Bill did no such thing when he was running for reelection, although Dole did.
Maybe this won't play into the election as much as everyone thinks it will, but for the sake of the nation lets hope that IF (God, forbid) McCain does end up becoming President, he won't have any serious health issues or other such complications.
If anyone was hoping the primary results of Kentucky and Oregon would help clear things up, they were deeply mistaken. We've come to another political stalemate, with Clinton sweeping Kentucky and Obama winning Oregon (although not by as much as Clinton won Kentucky).
CNN is reporting that Clinton received 65% of the votes, while Obama came in with 30%. This means that Clinton will receive 37 delegates, and Obama will get 14. Obama won only 2 counties, Fayette and Jefferson (which is where Louisville is). For more information or if you would like to delve, here is the link to the CNN breakdown, which has some interesting stats on sex and age of the voters.
As for Oregon, NY Times is reporting that Obama won 58%, and Hillary won 41%. The diversity of which candidate won which county is amazing, especially compared to Kentucky with Obama only pulling two counties. Here is the breakup by counties, as reported by NY Times: I'm sure all the television networks have a bunch of horrible racial charts and graphs that show how Oregon voted for Obama because they're more upper class, or there are more blacks, or something and Kentucky went for Hillary because they're blue-collar white workers, and are really feeling the economic crunch. Or something along those lines at least.
Honestly I'm so sick of the way the newsmedia just lumps up the voters into their demographics and then generalizes by saying "This is how white, blue-collar, men between the ages of 18-24/25-55/56+ vote". I wish they would just stick to reporting the statistics as they are actually seen, instead of trying to do all this guess work ahead of time. Although that would put statisticians out of their jobs and the economy doesn't need more unemployed people... so I guess we're stuck with them.
The Results of Poll #3 are in! The question posed was "Do you think President George W. Bush should be impeached?" This may not seem like a very pertinent issue to some people, but while I was working in Congress we received at least 3 letters a day calling for impeachment, and I don't even know how many more emails on the same issue! So obviously... to some people this is huge. The choices for answers were as follows: A. Yes, let's start now. B. Yes, hypothetically. But he's almost out of office so let's not bother. C. No, everything he has done has been justified. D. I really don't know/am unsure
As you can see from the results 33.3% of readers are still unsure on their sentiments on the issue, while 66.66% of readers are theoretically for impeachment but believe that it's so late at this point it's really not worth the effort.
I would just like to state that if I were to vote in my own poll I too would vote for B, "Yes, Hypothetically."
Results aside I would like to tackle the issue head on. I feel I have a bit of an insiders view on this issue, having discussed the idea of impeachment with many other Congressional staffers who all came to the same conclusion: Impeachment would be nice, but it is just not going to happen. The Democrats in Congress are counting the days until Bush & Cheney leave office and the world is finally rid of pure evil. Dem's don't need to make things worse by trying to hold impeachment hearings, while our government also runs an expensive (and pointless!) war abroad that many Americans do not support. This is why i would say "Yes, Hypothetically". In a perfect world Cheney should be impeached for his crimes, and Bush should just be told to "Scurry on home". Then maybe we can get a real Presidency. I look forward to that day.
Look out Massachusetts, California is joining the party too! The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage in the state. This struck down two state laws, and the 4-3 decision was drawn from the ruling in Perez v. Sharp that struck down California's ban on interracial marriage in 1967.
According to a New York Times article today, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority,
“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” he wrote, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. ...The right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual." Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.”
There has already been a proposed initiative by Conservatives for the November ballot to ban same-sex marriage and overturn the courts decision. In my personal and humble opinion I hope that this doesn't get overturned, and I will personally vote against it in November. I firmly believe in the rationale that a separate type of marriage is inherently unequal, and I don't see why gay couples should not be allowed to marry if they want to.
So what does this mean for the Presidential race? Well all three candidates have said that they believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, although in my opinion I can't see any democrat doing anything against this decision, as I think it would alienate a large group of voters. I do believe that this may give McCain a slightly larger vote than he might otherwise have received from the Sunshine State, no republican will ever win CA, so that's not really a worry.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, as different legal issues arise, as well as to see how this might (if at all) play into the Presidential race.
Our fearless commander-in-chief has recently let Americans know just how dedicated he is to the war is Iraq, he's given up golf. W said in an interview with Politico and Yahoo! News,
"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal... I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them."
According to CBS News, the Presidents last golf game was on October 13, 2003. Wow, 4 1/2 years of no golf... what a sacrifice. I'm sure our soldiers in Iraq are pleased to hear that. While they lose friends, limbs, and even their own lives, I'm sure it helps them sleep at night knowing the man who sent them there is not out enjoying a golf game. You can watch the interview here, from today's Daily Show. (Start it at about 1.40) Jon Stewart's commentary is priceless, as usual.
As irreverent as it probably is Jon Stewart's description of the democratic primary for this 2008 election is extremely accurate, as he called it "The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to The White House". The end is definitely not in sight, with both candidates saying they're in for the long haul. But the results from the West Virginia Primary are in, and it seems that Hillary Clinton has risen victorious! The stats according to usaelectionpolls.com are as follows:
Keep in mind that there were 39 delegates at stake here, but they are awarded proportionally (as opposed to the winner take all system). It did not come as any surprise really that Clinton won. According to a May 10th article by CNN, Clinton was expected to beat Obama
"66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday."
As much as I would like to believe that America has actually progressed in the last 54 years since landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board, and a states relation to the Mason-Dixon line should no longer be so transparent, it seems that race may have played into this decision for many West Virginians. In an extremely depressing Daily Show tonight, the show interviewed many West Virginians, who all seemed to share the same, albeit racist, sentiments. See for yourself... (ps, don't stick around for the very end of the clip, it's stupid.)
This deeply saddens me, and it's something that I don't see a lot of in California. I hope that these sort of racial biases will diminish overtime, and especially not get ingrained in the next generation.
In a great twist of events for the Obama camp, John Edwards has decided to back Barack. He gave a speech alongside Obama, and according to this MSNBC article on the topic,
"he said Obama "stands with me" in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years."
He was also highly complementary of Hillary, saying she is a
"woman who is made of steel. She is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done."
Here is his speech so you can judge for yourself:
Here's the bulk of his speech that I have transcribed for your reading pleasure... "There is one man, one man who knows and understands this is a time for bold leadership. There is one man that knows how to create the change, the lasting change, that you have to build from the group up. There is one man that knows in his heart that it is time to create one America, not two. And that man is Barack Obama."
ps: in case you don't know what the title of this blog is in reference to, CLICK HERE to watch a bit of necessary pop culture from about 2 years ago. (And they're right, Magnolia Bakery's cupcakes do have bomb frosting.)
The nice thing about the internet is that is allows peoples voices to be heard. Creative, intelligent people who might not otherwise have a large audience or a podium to speak from can log on to the internet and find a whole audience of people with whom to share their ideas. This is a very good thing, and has broken down the barriers between the regular mainstream media and bloggers/online journalists/those-people-who-make-youtube-videos. So while I fully support the internet and everything that it allows, every once in awhile you run across someone who is taking advantage of the internet. From those people on the internet who use the anonymity of the internet to write hate speech on messageboards, to the ones who try to pass lies off as truths in blogs, some people abuse the power the internet has given us.
Generally I don't like to give a microphone to these sorts of people, there is no reason why their lies and falsities should be repeated. Nevertheless, I ran across this video and was still angered. Someone took the time to piece together this video, which tries to put words in the mouths of politicians. Now this is not the first time it has been done, but it is nevertheless still annoying.
You can judge for yourself from the video. I like the idea, they really could have done something good with it. It reminds me of something actually...
There are quite a few "Big Issues" in this Presidential race, but I would like to focus, for now on the issue of Immigration.
According to this CNN article, it seems that immigration is something both the Republicans and Democrats agree on. Both Hillary and Barack purportedly
Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation, which would have increased funding and improved border security technology, improved enforcement of existing laws, and provided a legal path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants. Voted to authorize construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.
And McCain went further than just supporting Bush-backed immigration reform, he CO-SPONSORED IT!!!
CNN also had this poll:
As you can see from the poll, which asks (in case the resolution isn't good) "Regardless of who you may support, who do you trust more to handle immigration issues: Obama or McCain?" The results, as you can see show that 42% trust Obama, 37% trust McCain, and 20% are unsure. I know people are saying her campaign is dying but was it really fair to not include Hillary on this poll? I feel it sort of skews the results, I don't know whether that 20% are actually unsure, or if they saw the "Other" category as the only means by which to show their support for Hillary.
These immigration policies disgust me. The fence disgusts me. America is a nation of immigrants. Unless you are Native American, you are an immigrant. I don't care how long you've lived in the United States. Some of my family came to the U.S. on the Mayflower, you know what that's called? IMMIGRATING. Why can't we just accept that we will have immigrants, that for the most part we ARE immigrants, and try to make some legislation that actually helps the system and helps those who need help, instead of trying to put up a fence and block out the inevitable.
I'm sure everyone in the world knows about Cyclone Nargis that has hit Myanmar/Burma and killed up to 70,000 according to recent numbers. Could the military rulers of Myanmar/Burma be any more ridiculous?
After days of refusing U.S. aid, Myanmar's military leaders have agreed to allow one U.S. military airplane to deliver relief supplies to help more than 1 million residents left homeless by Cyclone Nargis, a defense official tells ABC News. ...The The United Nations said it would resume aid flights to cyclone-struck Myanmar despite the military government's seizure of food supplies on Friday.
- ABC News So not only are they only letting the US send in one shipment, but they've also seized some of the supplies the United Nations has sent. Military regime's are great aren't they? I's sure we'll hear more about this story in the coming days, but I certainly hope for the sake of the citizens that their government begin allowing the aid to reach the people. More pictures from the devastation. (If the link doesn't work, allow for pop-ups on your browser.)
Diplomats and aid groups warned that the number of dead could eventually exceed 100,000 because of illness and said thousands of children may have been orphaned.
Survivors in one of the worst-affected areas, near the town of Bogalay about 20 miles inland, were among those fighting hunger, illness and wrenching loneliness.
"All my 28 family members have died," said Thein Myint, a 68-year-old fisherman who was overcome by tears and trauma as he tried to explain how the May 3 cyclone swept away the rest of his family. "I am the only survivor."
Officials have said only one out of 10 people who are homeless, injured or threatened by disease and hunger have received some kind of aid in the week since the cyclone hit.
Survivors were sleeping amid the debris of their splintered homes in Bogalay, where more than 95 percent of the houses were destroyed.
This is a horrible tragedy and I hope that these unfortunate people can get the help and supplies that other countries are sending them.
So this cartoon doesn't exactly apply to the sort of polls I run, but I found it ironic because that is the sort of information blogs and other websites use to profile their readers and better target advertisements. That whole business is actually a bit Big Brother like. Just based on spending habits companies can decided if the user of the website is Democrat or Republican, and from there only use advertisements that would correspond with those beliefs. But I digress...
The 2nd Poll is officially closed! Here are the results: You can make your own assessment of that, but it is safe to say that 87% of the readers think that Obama will be the Democratic parties candidate. And if you read my previous post, from yesterday, it's beginning to look like that 87% is correct in their estimate. Although it is important to note that the question I posed was not so much an opinion poll, such as "Who would you like to be the candidate for the Democratic Party", but more of a fortune telling poll. (Apologies if there is a more technical way of describing them... although that term seems accurate enough to get my point across.) But there you have it, the results from Poll #2. And Poll #3 will be up shortly. Enjoy, and happy voting!
It seems that the Clinton campaign has finally set an expiration date. Or maybe they're looking at it as a goal line... anything to improve morale in what appears to be a failing campaign. (Not failing by much mind you, but failing nonetheless-let's not forget that Obama has 68% of the states as well as well as 158 more superdelegates than Clinton.)
"A senior campaign official and Clinton confidante has told me that there will be a Democratic nominee by June 15. He could not bring himself to say the words "Hillary will drop out by June 15," but that is clearly what he meant. ...He said the Clinton campaign plan is to collect as many votes and delegates as they can right through June 3, then take no more than a week or so to make their case to the superdelegates."
Now I would not be against a Clinton in the White House again. Honestly I'm for anyone who isn't McCain at this point. But I would like the Democratic candidate to be able to have enough time to unite the party before voting in November, so I'm happy to see that this circus of a primary will finally be coming to a close.
Yesterday there were two primaries, one in Indiana, the other in North Carolina, and these were for both Republicans and Democrats. The Results are as follows:
There is really no question that McCain will be the Republican candidate for President, but it seems that Obama and Clinton are stuck in a constant stalemate, but with Obama consistently winning with slightly larger margins. It will be interesting to see if these trends continue to play out in the next few primaries. Let the games begin!
Thank you Helen Thomas for asking the questions no one else seems to be asking. Sure she can be a bit overwhelming at some of the White House Press Conferences (always interrupting the W.H. Press Secretaries), but I'm sure you have to be pushy, edging into saucy, to get any sort of questions answered in her job. (As per the photo, thats Helen and Gerald Ford. Also in the left-hand side is Dick Cheney, lurking.)
For a bit of history on the woman her wikipedia page is pretty impressive. She's been a White House Correspondent since JFK, if that gives you any idea. And there is an entire section dedicated to what the current White House probably considers her "Rap Sheet". Here is the clip that first brought her to my attention, as she confront Perino on torture.
THOMAS: The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?
MS. PERINO: Helen, you’re taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is — I’ll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said.
THOMAS: That’s not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture —
MS. PERINO: Because we do not.
THOMAS: — when he really did know that we do?
MS. PERINO: No, that’s what I mean, Helen. We’ve talked about the legal authorities —
THOMAS: Are you saying that we did not?
MS. PERINO: I am saying we did not, yes.
THOMAS: How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?
MS. PERINO: Helen, I think that you’re — again, I think you’re conflating some issues and you’re misconstruing what the President said.
THOMAS: I’m asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.
MS. PERINO: And what I’m telling you is we have — torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure — I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said.
THOMAS: You’re denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured?
MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that.
Elaine, did you have one?
Q I have one on Zimbabwe, actually.
THOMAS: Where is everybody?
Unfortunately the youtube clip I've provided cuts off before she says "Where is everybody?" most likely referring to her fellow journalists slacking off on asking the White House tough questions that should be answered.
This question was asked only a week after Bush said that he "approved" the use of torture and defended water-boarding as not being torture. Here's the blog I posted just a few days ago on the issue, and here's an article to back up my statement.
And in other Helen Thomas news, and mostly just because I find it hilarious, a website has been set up, entitled "Helen Thomas Deserves Some Flowers." to show Ms. Thomas how much everyone appreciates her journalism.
Those Harvard kids are at it again... while not studying to get their Ivy League diplomas the (what I can only assume are the drama majors) students have whipped up a surprisingly delightful and professional musical entitled "Barackula: The Musical".
Here is the synopsis provided on the website, Barackula.com
Barackula is a short political horror rock musical about young Barack Obama having to stave off a secret society of vampires at Harvard when he was inducted into presidency at the Harvard Law Review in 1990. Obama (Justin Sherman) finds that he must convince the vampire society that opposing political philosophies can coexist or else the society may transform Obama to the dark side. Reminiscent to Michael Jackson's Thriller and a slight infusion of Jesus Christ Superstar, the film solely depicts Obama’s strengths, merits and genuineness while being quietly respectful towards the other presidential candidates.
If you would like to view this new gem of a candidate-centered video, you can view a high-resolution one on the Barackula.com site, although being so high-resolution it did not work on my mere mortal of a laptop. Instead this lovely youtube clip did the job.
And now... for your viewing pleasure, our Feature Presentation. Please turn off all cellphones, pagers, and other electronic devices, and enjoy the show.
I was under the impression that the United States was still a first world country, indeed a supposed leader to the rest of the world. How can our government still believe that waterboarding is not torture? According to Allen S. Keller, M.D., director of the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture, water-boarding
"…induc[es] a terrifying fear of drowning, [it] clearly can result in immediate and long-term health consequences. As the prisoner gags and chokes, the terror of imminent death is pervasive, with all of the physiologic and psychological responses expected, including an intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath. There is a real risk of death from actually drowning or suffering a heart attack or damage to the lungs from inhalation of water. Long term effects include panic attacks, depression and PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder],"
In recent events on waterboarding, on February 22, 2008 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said that "the Justice Department has announced it has launched an investigation of the role of top DOJ officials and staff attorneys in authorizing and/or overseeing the use of waterboarding by U.S. intelligence agencies."
According to Reuters both the House and the Senate approved a bill by February 2008 that would ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, but President Bush vetoed the bill on March 8, 2008. It seems unlikely that the bills supporters will be able to gather enough votes to overturn the veto.
This is deeply saddening. Has our President and his "War on Terror" become so out of control that our representatives cannot even stop him from allowing further torture to contine?
The results from last weeks poll are in! Here they are:
And the winner is... FOX NEWS!
So essentially, 33.33333...% of the readers of this blog use MSNBC as their primary source of television news, whereas 66.66666...% get most of their TV news from FOX. Keep in mind that that was out of only 3 votes. Even without taking statistics I know that that is not a large enough sample group to properly reflect much of society, but it is still good to know!
And in other news... Poll #2 is already live and waiting for votes! Heres a friendly comic showing graphs to get you in the mood for voting... In case you were wondering, yes... I really only do these polls as an excuse to post funny comics. For the record, this gem of a comic is from xkcd.com. Quite possibly the greatest cartoons on the internet. The "Random" button is far too entertaining and has a tendency to distract from studying.
The proposed California High Speed rail would completely revolutionize travel in my lovely Sunshine State. As someone who spends 7 hours and probably almost $200 in gas driving (and thats just one way) from Southern California to Northern California, this issue is close to my heart. Taking a train is much easier than flying, especially for luggage reasons, and is much easier for small children or people who don't like flying. Essentially this train could completely change the way we travel around the state.
The proposed system stretches from San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento in the north -- with service to the Central Valley -- to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. With bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 mph, the express travel time from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles is just under 2 ½ hours. Intercity travelers (trips between metropolitan regions) along with longer-distance commuters would enjoy the benefits of a system designed to connect with existing rail, air and highway systems.
* it could create 450,000 jobs across the state * prevent 10,000 auto accidents every year * reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions equivalent to taking 1.4 million cars off the road * generate enough revenue to pay for its cost in the long run * reduce CO2 emissions by up to 17.6 billion pounds/year * reduce California’s oil consumption by up to 22 million barrels/year * cost half that of expanding freeways and airports to meet future needs
This high-speed rail would be like the TGV, Eurostar, or the SNCF that I've used in Europe. These types of trains are used in many countries in Europe, Japan, as well as Australia. If you want more information on it, check out this website, CA High-Speed Rail Authority. Somehow the US has slipped behind with our transportation.
This video provides a bit more information on the proposal, although it is very commercial-like.
The proposal is still in the forming stages, and there are opportunities to go to meetings and voice your suggestions or comments. There is a meeting in San Jose on August 24, 2007 (4:00 pm – 6:00 pm) — San Jose City Hall, City Council Chambers, 200 East Santa Clara Street. Or for the Orange County crowd, there's a meeting in Anaheim on April 11, 2007, from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM and from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM in Gordon Hoyt Conference Room, City Hall West, 201 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA.
One way to help this project to continue is to Vote YES on the Bond Measure for CAHSR in November 2008. And of course, please Register to Vote if you aren't already!
The first ever Liberal Bluestocking Poll is up and running! Please vote! The polls close in exactly a week, so don't waste time! And if I didn't include your "primary TV news source", leave me a comment telling me what it is.
And in other news, a new blog is soon arriving, it just needs a little bit more tweaking. So keep checking back! And get ready for the results of this weeks poll to be up next week!
Who knew primaries could be this exciting? Honestly in the 2004 election I don't think I fully understood what a primary WAS, or why it was even important. I consciously remember thinking "yeah, but its not THE election." Oh how time and education changes things. But back to the primary...
So the news media was having a frenzy with this primary, saying that Clinton was estimated to win, but in order to really win, she had to win "big". Although there was a bit of a disparity about how "big" is "big". To get a better idea of this "frenzy" watch the Daily Show clip from tonight.
So if we're rounding (and looking at the statistics on CNN.com), Hillary won 55% of the votes, and Obama won 45% of the votes, giving her 85 delegates and him 73. Unfortunately I think this was a bit of a bittersweet victory for the Clinton camp tonight.
I do enjoy that 27% of the PA Republicans support not-McCain (ie Paul/Huckabee), I hope this split within the party continues, taking some votes away from McCain.
Come one, come all, to the Greatest Show on Earth!!! Hear the spectacle for yourself! In the center ring this evening is the one and only, Barack Obama. He will be doing the daring, the unthinkable, and the unhoped for...alienating voters!!!
That's right ladies and gentleman, I promised that you could hear the spectacle for yourself and *drum roll please...* here it IS!!!!
And if you'd rather not listen to the clip yourself, here's what it says!
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, a lot of them — like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they’ve gone through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
(all of that is care of http://www.zombietime.com)
I would like to point out that Obama made similar comments on Charlie Rose 4 years ago, here's a link to the entire 58 minute segment if anyone is interested. Or if you're like me and prefer short, sweet, and to the point, that can be found here.
The Charlie Rose version says kind of the same thing, less harshly, and better explained.
Did Obama make that now famous "bitter" comment because he was speaking to the millionaires/billionaires of the Bay Area and thought that no press were in attendance? Most likely... Does he alienate a large portion of middle America with comments like these? Most likely... Is any of it true? Most definitely. I think that is my biggest problem with this whole "scandal", I absolutely agree with him. When times get hard for people, whether they live in Ohio or California, people stick to what they know.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like the huge immigration issue only came up because Americans feel like their jobs are threatened by immigrants. I don't remember anyone touting "Build the Fence" when we needed low-wage workers to work minimum-wage jobs, at best. And certainly no one was calling out for more stringent visa and green card regulations when our families immigrated to the United States. Who are we fooling? Unless you're 100% Native American, someone in your family HAD to immigrate to the United States. Some people argue that the fence will also help keep out terrorists, help "Keep America Safe!", but if that was really the big issue here we'd be building a fence on the Canadian border, not the Mexican border.
But I digress...
Did Obama slip up by saying that comment? Yes. Does it really show that he is elitist and has been pretending and lying throughout his campaign, as many people have said? No. I think it shows that he's a realist. He has accepted the cold hard facts, sees them for what they truly are, and can hopefully ameliorate the issue.
First, a look at how American's feel about the environment, according to a Gallup Poll: Here is a look at the 3 candidates' views on the environment:
Clinton: Would develop a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012. Would focus on international attention to solve the problem of global deforestation. Would focus the mission of the Department of Energy on moving toward energy independence with a new approach to solar, wind, biofuels, hydropower, geothermal and other sources of renewable energy. Would place a market-based cap and trade system to reduce carbon pollution. …In combination with efficiency, fuel economy standards and other proposals, she states the system will ensure the goal of reducing U.S. contribution to global warming below 1990 levels by 80 percent. Would oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildfire Refuge. - CNN Here is Hillary herself speaking about her plans for the environment. I do like the phrase "green-collared jobs", kudos to whoever came up with that.
Obama: Would implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the level recommended by top scientists. Would make the United States a leader in the global effort to combat climate change by leading anew international global warming partnership. Would establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. Would create a Technology Transfer program within the Department of Energy dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies to developing countries. Would offer incentives to maintain forests globally and manage them sustainably. Would develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. - CNN Here is also a link to a great video of Obama himself talking about his environment plan. Essentially he says he wants a cap, which will create a market that allows people to make money by saving the environment, and losing money by harming it. Also he wants to increase fuel efficiency standards on cars, which would help the environment and also make the US less reliable on some Middle Eastern countries for oil. (Does Obama realize that the US gets a majority of its oil from Canada and Mexico? Thank you NAFTA...)
McCain: Introduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT). The legislation is designed to significantly reduce the nation's greenhouse gases, accomplished through a combination of trading markets and the deployment of advanced technologies. Would propose use of alternative energy sources, including nuclear. - CNN Also for McCain watch this youtube clip from the Republican debates at Northeastern University back in October of 2007. (McCain is the second speaker, although watch the whole clip if you want a reminder of all the buffoons that were running for President a few months ago.)
McCains big point: to reduce greenhouse gases, use NUCLEAR POWER.
I am excited that the environment is an issue, that hopefully in 2008 we get a President who realizes that global warming is real, and finding real solutions to our real problems.
I saw this article and thought it was pretty interesting.
The premise is essentially that this art student at the University of Maine placed hundreds of American Flags in an almost maze-like pattern on the ground of the schools Student Center and videotaped to see if her classmates would step on the flags. She reports that about 95% of the people did not step on the flags.
The article discusses the girls art project, but also discusses the uprising that it caused, with Vietnam veterans protesting the project.
Here is a video, I understand that it is a home movie and not from any reputable news sources, but he shares a lot of facts that are interesting and generally presents the side of the case that would be against this art project. He argues that this girl, Susan Crane, desecrated the American flag, which is strictly against the Constitution.
Now I support Susan Cranes First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the rights of the protesters, but I think that a much bigger deal has been made out of this, than should really have occurred. The point of this art piece was to see the reaction of her fellow students, to see if they would desecrate the flag by walking on it.
Although this reminds me of another "Art" Project that has received a lot of media backlash, I apologize for this aside from politics for just one moment. Please bear with me.
This article goes into much better detail, and I believe at this point just about everyone in the wired world has received some sort of email or notification about this. Here is a link by the artist to pictures of the show, his blog is titled "The Little Dog Lives". Cute. [DISCLAIMER: Contains images of Animal Cruelty. That means mom, don't click. It won't make you happy.]
The gist of the issue is that this man, Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, got a stray dog, chained it up in a gallery in Costa Rica, where it supposedly starved to death. On a wall, written in dog food was the phrase "eres lo que lees", which translates to "you are what you read".
The artist has said:
"The name of the dog was Natividad (which means Birth), and I let him die of hunger in the sight of everyone, as if the death of a poor dog was a shameless media show in which nobody does anything but to applaud or to watch disturbed. In the place that the dog was exposed remain a metal cable and a cord. The dog was extremely ill and did not want to eat, so in natural surroundings it would have died anyway; thus they are all poor stray dogs: sooner or later they die or are killed."
I guess he's taken the big elephant in the room and turned it into a starving, chained-up, street dog. I should also point out that the artist has also claimed that the dog escaped and did not actually die in the museum. So the ultimate fate of the dog is a bit disputed, but either way, this was a clear animal rights violation, no?
Artists are always trying to be daring and different, but when the artist begins to break laws, those that are codified, and those that are just deemed "natural rights", that is when the public takes issue. Both of these projects beg the question, How far is too far, for the sake of art?
Senator Hiram Warren Johnson supposedly said in 1918, "The first casualty when war comes is truth." I disagree, truth may be the second casualty, but truly the first casualty is loved ones. Friends, family, brothers, sisters, uncles, wives, husbands, children, parents, and so on. With each statistic I read about about the death of a soldier I think about all the people who must have known and truly loved that person, and what a horrible thing it is to lose someone.
This is a look at the real cost of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL), er, I mean "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (OIF). It is a constantly updating chart showing the deaths by each military branch, and a look at each individual fallen soldier. You can even search by last name, state, or hometown of a United States service member who has died in Iraq.
Update: Professor showed today in class that the LA Times has made a very similar thing, but only with the deceased from California, and they have written obituaries. It is called California's War Dead and it includes everyone who has died in the Iraq and Afghanistan War since 2001.
I don't mean to sound like a hippie but I would think that this sort of thing would show people that war is not the answer, that diplomacy and discussion does not include as many deaths.
Seriously? Seriously??? Let's hope America opts for a President who can read AND write. Although that may be asking too much. With the current president, oops I mean precedent, so low, a Democratic president may be TOO intelligent, the nation wouldn't be able to handle it.
On their "The Caucus" Blog the New York Times recently ran an article about a 22-year-old ex-Hillary staffer who is going to start his own campaign for a joint ballot. (As a Hillary supporter he's obviously advocating for Clinton/Obama '08, not Obama/Clinton '08.) Here's the link to the original article.
This could have been a good plan... possibly... maybe 9 months ago at least. But who is he kidding? This would be impossible now! How could they possibly come back from all the mudslinging that's been going on? Hillary would have to come out and say, "Ok, I said Obama doesn't have enough experience to lead this country, but what i MEANT to say is that he DOES have enough experience to lead this country, as long as I'M leading it with him." Right, that'll go over well.
It's a long video but it definitely shows one of the many times where the debate just dissolved into back and forth arguing. And poor Edwards is left out on the side (most of the time not even on camera) like the kid picked last for dodge ball.
Don't get me wrong, 9 months ago this was my dream ticket, Obama/Clinton that is. In my mind at least, they seemed to complete each others shortcomings. But instead of focusing on their REAL opponents, the not-so-Grand-Old-Party, they've been bringing each other down, creating a division within the party. It looks like this sibling rivalry for who will become mom's favorite will play out until the Indiana Primary, May 6th.
Let's hope that once all those votes are counted the Democratic Party can unite behind one candidate and put all their past differences behind them, or we face another 4 years like the 7 1/2 we've already endured.
I first learned about the Cape Wind project on the Daily Show August of last year.
It seems ludicrous that Sen. Kennedy, a Democrat, who for the most part has supported alternative energy and further drilling in Alaska, would be so against this. It appears that he's only pro-environment as long as it does not directly effect him, or his view of the Cape.
According to Greenpeace, "The wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound will provide 75 percent of the Cape and Island’s energy without emitting asthma-causing pollution, spilling oil in the water, or producing any of the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming. In addition to protecting the environment, the wind farm will benefit the Cape’s economy by creating jobs and attracting tourists."
** According to WBZ TV 4, "News Anchor Lisa Hughes announced the results of their new Fast Track statewide poll that found 86% support Cape Wind, 8% oppose it and 6% are not sure." Go Here to see the entire clip. ** With support like that this project should be flying through the stages of lawmaking, instead of plodding along at a tortoises pace.
The segment from WBZ, which covers the public hearings held in Massachusetts on the issue, make it seem as if this project is very close to getting approved, which is good to hear. Let's just hope that Kennedy and other opponents don't try some more crafty lawmaking like they did in 2006, to foil it.
Disclaimer: I'm currently re-adjusting from the heavily politically oriented life of a DC resident and Hill intern to the life I left behind last December, that of a UCI student striving for good grades and a little free time. We'll see how that goes.
With that aside, here's what's new on my political radar:
McCain's Foreign Policy Gaffe(youtube)
McCain refers to Iranian extremists as Al Qaeda. He recants after being corrected by Sen. Lieberman. You know you've messed up when Lieberman is calling you out on it. What's even worse, is that he continued to make the same mistake. According to the Washington Post, "The Arizona senator made this claim at least twice, first in an interview with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt and then at a press briefing the following the day." Although we really should be more forgiving of these slips, it could be early stage dementia.
What I take issue with here is the fact that when Obama or Hillary "messes up", so to speak, (such as Obama's pastor fiasco, and Hillary claiming she avoided sniper fire in Bosnia) they both get tons of media attention. Yet when McCain shows that he is at best confused, at worst completely uninformed on issues of the Middle East and foreign relations, it never gets brought up in the press.
Although maybe I'm just making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. Afterall, McCain isn't really getting ANY press as of late. He's doing anything to get attention these days...
