Author: Kellie Bartoli

As Americans, we enjoy our freedom to do anything we may choose. Anything, that is except travel to Cuba.

Since 1963, the United States has followed a strict travel ban with Cuba – the only country that Americans are forbidden from visiting. Earlier this month, however, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and eight co-sponsors introduced to Congress H.R.874, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

By lifting the 46-year sanction, the bill aims to restore the travel rights of Cuban refugees living in the U.S. and enable unrestricted American travel to Cuba, except during times of war and “imminent danger to the public health or physical safety.”

Despite growing popularity, the bill faces a tough crowd. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami), a longtime advocate of the Cuban sanctions, says similar acts are often proposed, and “every year embargo supporters kill [them] before they get any traction. …While we recognize that these are fights take place, we have great confidence that we’ll defeat them.”

The strongest argument against the measure is the belief that American tourism will breathe money into the Castro regime.

According to Humberto Fontova, a Cuban exile who has since penned two books about the island, at least 2 million tourists have visited Cuba each year since 1994, creating a $2 billion cash flow, which “is only going to increase now with Americans going to Cuba.”  

If the measure passes the House, President Obama will almost certainly sign it into law; throughout his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the travel ban. At a Cuban Independence Day event in Miami, he said, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad.’ …We’ve been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years. And we need to change it.” Obama later went on to vow unrestricted travel and financial rights for Cuban-Americans.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act will be a good test of Obama’s pledge. In addition to lifting travel sanctions, the new bill loosens the tight strings pulled by President George W. Bush, who placed even more stringent restrictions on American-Cuban relations.

Under the Clinton administration, for example, Cuban-Americans were allowed to visit the island once a year and send quarterly payments of up to $3,000 to their families. In 2004, Bush enacted stronger limitations: Cuban-Americans could only visit family once every three weeks for 14-day intervals, “family” was defined as parents, spouses, children and siblings – not friends or other family members, travel spending was capped at $50 per day, and cash remittances were maximized at $300 every three months and could only be sent to immediate family.

The new bill, however, calls for a $170-per day travel allowance, the ability for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and stay as long as they want, and eliminates a cap on remittance.

While the travel ban has been enforced for nearly 50 years, the proposal is moving much more rapidly. It was initially introduced to Congress on Feb. 4, and the House plans to vote as early as Wednesday. It is to be reviewed by the Senate at the beginning of next week. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Reading through President Obama’s economic stimulus bill is no small task.  At 778 pages, it’s bigger than the final Harry Potter book and let’s face it, it’s far less interesting. That’s why others read it, and provide the world with summaries of the document.  So here it is ladies and gentlemen, a one sentence summary of President Obama’s bill: Where’s the change?

That was the only thought that came to mind while sifting through page after page after page of money being thrown at just about everything.  Where’s the change?

It’s true that under the Bush administration there was a lot of spending.  Even die hard Republicans were unhappy with President Bush and all the money being given out.  Republicans who criticized Bush were stating that he was spending like…well…a Democrat. 

So with massive national debt, a struggling economy, and China working as the U.S.’s giant bank, President Obama comes along and promises a change; new policies, new leaders, a better economy, and a change in the amount of spending in Washington.

Yet, after all of those promises were made, President Obama gets into office, and within a month, proposes a piece of legislation that will cost the U.S. an amount that has now reached over 830 billion dollars.  His claim and the claim of Democratic Senators and Congressmen and women everywhere, is that this bill is different because it’s an economic stimulus package.  But is it?

That’s the biggest problem with S.1.  It gives money to every organization that’s near and dear to Democrats, whether or not it will help create jobs and stimulate the economy.  For example, on page nine of the bill there is a section that designates 100 million dollars to go toward school lunch programs.

It’s not that providing school kids with lunch isn’t a worthwhile cause, but as part of an economic stimulus package, it seems out of place. Unfortunately, that theme holds true throughout the bill.  It really does seem more like a budget bill than a stimulus bill.

In the end, the bill that’s supposed to create jobs, really just seems to be a massive list of financial gifts to any organization that Democratic politicians have supported throughout the years. The organizations that receive money range from ACORN to WIC.  Neither of which seem to be particularly crucial in job development. 

It’s not that everything in the bill is terrible, it’s simply that a lot to most of the bill has nothing to do with creating jobs and stimulating the economy. It’s just another bill that will spend billions and billions of dollars and do absolutely nothing to help the current economic struggles we’re facing.  In the end, it’s no different than any spending bill proposed under the Bush administration. Bottom line, the only change that occurred was the name of the party holding office. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich makes a rarely noticed cameo in what is becoming the most anticipated bill in the nation. With the House officially passing H.R.1, news about the bill is of prime national interest.  Despite the public criticism of the original bank and auto bailouts, Congress is at it again making a massive bailout for anything and everything that Democrats deem important. 

Rumors are circulating about what H.R.1 is actually supporting, and the talk is that the bailout is for everything from birth control to ACORN.  One thing that is actually without a doubt in the text of the 647 paged bill is a shout out to Governor Blagojevich of Illinois himself.

The shout out however, is nothing for Blagojevich to write home about.  In fact, it’s pretty much down right embarrassing and on some levels virtually unconstitutional. 

To clarify, I am no fan, nor have I ever been a fan of Blagojevich.  As a resident of the beautiful city of Chicago, the rumors of corruption at the highest level of both city and state government is the stuff of legends.  Just pick up a copy of the Chicago Sun-Times, the Chicago Tribune or the Daily Herald on any given day, and you’ll find the lead story is one about Blagojevich and Mayor Daley and their many and various political antics. But alas, Chicago functions and remains a beautiful and efficiently run city.  Consequently, we continue to elect officials that we “suspect” are corrupt.

Now that the clarification segment of this piece is out of the way, let’s get to the insanity of the “Blago” shout out in H.R.1. The best way to describe what the bill says is to quote the bill itself.  It reads as follows: 

“None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State, unless (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any funds provided directly to a unit of local government (1) by a Federal department or agency, or (2) by an established formula from the State.” 

As I write this, my impeached Governor is less than 24 hours away from most likely being removed from office. Regardless, what is stated in H.R. 1 still goes against American principles. What the sponsors and cosponsors of H.R. 1 failed to review before creating the bill was a document of apparent little importance known as the United States Constitution.  Amendment 14 clearly states that a bill or law cannot target a specific individual. This Amendment is also known as the “Equal Protection Clause.” This act was designed to prevent exactly what is happening in H.R.1.  Blagojevich, as of tonight, is still governor of Illinois.  He has not been removed nor has he been convicted of any high crime or misdemeanor.  He is one of 50 U.S. governors and is being unequally targeted.  Where is the equal protection in that?  Blagojevich, guilty or not, is being unfairly targeted as a specific individual. 

Personal feelings about the governor aside, this clause in H.R.1 is simply unconstitutional. The clause in H.R. 1 is patently unfair and I find it disturbing that our legislators are blatantly or ignorantly ignoring our Constitution and so should you. 

Author: Jared Fallon

The 111th session of Congress has started kicked off 2009 with hot and heavy activity. With President Obama in office barely 1 week and over 337,000 American jobs lost since the financial crisis began, lawmakers are desperately scrambling to help prevent America’s recession from becoming a depression.

The main bill on the table that’s turning heads around the nation is H.R.1 – the American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009. The bill, sponsored by David Obey (D-WI), was passed by the House as expected on Tuesday January 27. H.R.1 is the economic stimulus bill as promised by President Obama and touted by House Democratic Leadership, leading the way for the “Change we Need”. The Senate’s version of the bill, S.1, is anticipated to be proposed as soon as possible, aimed to receive President Obama’s signature by the end of February. The official text for H.R.1 can be viewed here.

H.R.1 seeks to make “supplemental appropriations for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and State and local fiscal stabilization…”.
The 647 page bill is so formidable at first glance that entire websites have been created simply to better understand the legislation. One such website is ReadTheStimulus.org, a seemingly hastily developed cite that is sponsored by Republican and Libertarian oriented organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

This major economic stimulus bill is the bread and butter of President Obama’s promise for change – and to Democratic Leadership’s delight has moved with incredible speed, riding upon the momentum to give the economy the boost it needs in order to keep Americans afloat. Momentum for this change can be seen by testimonies such as Congresswoman Lee (D-CA) in the video at the bottom of this posting.

Opponents of the bill, such as Dick Armey’s Freedomworks, believe that such a plan is destined to set a permanent precedence, following the same pattern of some of the socialist-oriented programs from the New Deal. Furthermore, the current $850 billion being requested for the stimulus package will cause the Federal Government to borrow one-third of its current budget, to the tune of almost 10 percent of GDP. Such concerns are deepened by somewhat vague allocation terms as outlined in H.R.1, such as “infrastructure spending”, worrying fiscal conservatives for an expected surge in pork projects.

In order to keep track of developments, updates, and analysis, make sure to check back with State Surge frequently – How Do You Keep Up?

Congresswoman Lee’s Support of H.R.1

Author: Crystal Fontaine

“We need your service, right now, in this moment-our moment-in history”. President-elect Obama quoted these very words during a speech made in Colorado last year, claiming since he began running for the presidency that the central cause of his presidency would be molded around service. It is not the service through military arms that Obama speaks of, but the service provided by the “average Joe” – the service that incorporates volunteering and giving back to our communities. The President-elect and the former Delaware Senator plan to set an example the day before the Presidential inauguration by completing community service in order to commemorate Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday.

In a recent public service ad featured in the New York Times, President-elect Obama is shown encouraging the readers to “Be the Change: Mentor a Child”. The advertisement, from Service Nation and other groups, summons a course of action to correspond with January 2009 National Mentoring Month. National Mentoring Month is to help recognize the contributions of adults and students who are already volunteering and to encourage for more people to volunteer within mentoring programs. There is currently a serious mentoring gap in America, with nearly 15,000,000 youth in need of mentors. The month is designated to create awareness to the critical role of mentors participate in assisting youth recognize their full potential.

According to Mentoring.org, mentoring is to offer a structured and trusting relationship that brings youth together with compassionate individuals who provide guidance and encouragement, developing the aptitude and character of the mentee. Mentors help in so many ways by encouraging students to stay motivated and focused and presenting a constructive way for young people to spend their time among various other things. There are many programs across the nation that focus on mentoring. Across Ages, located in Philadelphia, focuses on 6^th graders in distressed areas, emphasizing in reducing substance abuse.  Another program that is widely known throughout the nation is the Big Brothers and Big Sisters program, which promotes positive youth development through one on one mentoring of adolescence who come mainly from single-parent homes.

In a 2002 research report by Child Trends, the report shows that mentoring presents a great approach for youth development. Within the statement, Child Trends found that children who go through the mentoring experience have positive academic returns under overall academic achievement. In a provided example, children within Big Brothers and Big Sisters showed significantly better attendance, skipping half as many days as the control group in the study. There was also a correlation of students having better attitudes in general towards school. According to the study, a longer mentoring relationship equals a better outcome.

In a time of economic distress, the New Year has once again come upon us. This New Year is bringing about monumental changes: a new president, a new vision, and a new start. With this new perspective, perhaps we should focus more on providing our children with better futures and better outlooks toward the future instead of focusing on short- term negative economic trends. Mentoring is just one of the many positive ways that we can help the children of this country succeed and become our future. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Feminism has always been belief in women’s rights; actively standing up for the rights of all women to have political, social, and economic equality with men. Over the last few years, the perception has moved from the very limited, very negative viewpoint that included women’s rights to abortion rights only.

This year New Hampshire has become the first state Senate to have a female majority, with 13 female members out of 24. Other lead positions held by women in the state: Sylvia Larson, Senate president; Maggie Hassan, president pro-tem; and Martha Fuller Clark, majority leader.  New Hampshire holds to be the only state to have two female officers. Extraordinary. The state’s legislature totals 424 members, which makes it the largest legislature in the United States and forth-largest (English-speaking) governing body in the world. More importantly, these senators receive no compensation. These are innovative leaders breaking the boundaries and becoming examples to follow.

Both women in this past presidential election have worked to push the cultural limitation and have fought for feminism. Yes, that means I am including a Senator from New York and the Governor from Alaska in the same sentence. Though the definition of feminism remains the same, it is greater depth and dimension created by each of these women that constructs a strong view of the female. Hilary Clinton has pushed the norms to the extreme (finally giving our male-dominated presidency a challenge). Sarah Palin has received harsh criticism for being “under qualified” from both GOP women and along with her Democratic counterparts. Cleta Mitchell, conservative activist and lawyer, gave the best commentary in this matter. “Even if Sarah Palin is as ‘unqualified’ as the left would have us believe, …then former Congresswoman Bella Abzug’s lifelong goal has been achieved. She used to say that she was ‘working for the day when a mediocre woman could get as far as a mediocre man.’”

It is refreshing to see a break in culturally constructed barriers that provide strength and opportunity for women everywhere. These replace the objectivity of empty shadows that have been previous positions for women to fill. The time is almost over where gender will not matter at all when people vote for their leaders. 

Author: Sarah Riordan

“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s the first thing that I’d do.“  – Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007. 

Despite what the Obama campaign would have had the American people believe prior to Nov. 4, the president-elect is not out to help the pro-life community. Though he claimed in his third debate with Senator John McCain that he would like to limit the number of abortions by supporting organizations that help women through crisis pregnancies, his voting record, and his willingness to support tax-payer funded abortions, tells a much different story.  Obama’s pro-choice stance is so extreme, that he voted against a bill that required doctors to provide life-saving treatment to infants who are born alive after a failed abortion.  At the federal level, when, H.R. 4292, Born-Alive Infant Protection Act  came before Congress in 2000, it was passed unanimously by Democrats and Republicans alike.

With an unabashedly pro-choice president coming into office and a liberal pro-choice Congress, bills like Congressman Jeff Fortenberry’s, H.R.7091, are all the more important for pro-lifers. Fortenberry leads the fight to protect the unborn by asking Congress to give more financial support to organizations that help women who are going through a crisis pregnancy. In the bill, Fortenberry suggests that grant money be given to pregnancy help centers. These grants would become available once an organization provides proof that their services are indeed helping those in the midst of a crisis pregnancy.

What criteria does Fortenberry suggest to gauge the effectiveness of these crisis pregnancy centers?  To receive a grant, a center would need to provide services including health care, clothing, food, a place to stay, and emotional support.

Fortenberry bolsters his position by citing an array of staggering statistics. According to research mentioned in the bill, 48 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. since 1973. The bill also says that in 1992 nearly 98 thousand domestic adoptions occurred in the United States.  This number is in stark contrast to 2001 when only approximately 59 thousand babies were adopted. 

Though not directly stated in the bill, the reader can easily infer the correlation between the decrease in domestic adoptions to the increase in abortions. Other numbers given imply that most of the women who choose abortion, choose it because they aren’t financially capable of supporting a child. Rather than providing taxpayer funded abortions, Fortenberry’s solution to the economic issue is to provide financial assistance to those who can either help a woman get on her feet, or help her find an adoptive home for her baby.

Unfortunately, under a Barack Obama presidency, in all likelihood, a bill like this will never see the light of day. The sad truth is, President-elect Obama is one of the most pro-choice presidents our nation has ever seen.  Despite what he and his spokespeople say, his voting record speaks for itself.   

Fortenberry’s attempt to aid pregnancy help centers that do not promote abortion will most likely fall on deaf ears. Though Fortenberry’s goal is to provide women with a real choice and should be supported by both Democrats and Republicans, for some reason, the majority of Congress members along with our incoming president, feel (or so their voting records indicate) that limiting abortions would somehow be detrimental to our society. Perhaps Obama will live up to what he said in the third debate and sign this bill; but don’t hold your breath.   

Author: Jared Fallon

How absurd confused can a nation be? To allow a person who, when reflecting upon their very first major foreign policy experience, lied through their teeth in an attempt to have a worthwhile story to tell voters, become the Secretary of State.The very essence of the decision should be enough to make one nauseous, and yet whenever one brings up the occasional “misunderstandings” on the part of Hilary Clinton listeners tend to shrug their shoulders and cavalierly say, “It’s just politics” or, “she is a bright lady and did what needed to be done.” If Obama really wants the change he touted for 21 months – if the American public truly wants reform, why in the world would we put up with such a foolish decision?

In a biographical sense, there is no doubt that Hilary is known for having her chief energies focused on domestic issues. The amount of candidates with far less political strings attached that would have been much more qualified for the position are off the charts – and yet Obama (?) decides to put his former opponent in charge of international affairs at one of the most pivotal times in US history. We are at a time that demands widespread, foundational change. We haven’t even begun to see the ramifications from a heavily criticized war for which the current US president says he was “unprepared” for entering. We are about to deal with a new wave of financial problems with a breadth and depth never experienced before – as some of our largest trading partners are beginning to turn their policies towards a more regional, free trade agreement focus. More Americans should be asking, “Why Hilary?” Why someone who is the exact opposite of the “change” that was promised to so many Americans…and the world.

If you are disagreeing with this “rant”, with this commentary – I apologize. I am simply taking a stand that too few Americans do for fear of sounding too strong, or due to being concerned about politically correct speech. But what is obvious (and not to strong to state) is if the former First Lady’s most significant foreign policy experience was surrounded and infused by lies, and then after serving in the New York Senate has been put in charge of the nation’s international affairs, there are serious questions that are begging to be asked.

Where is accountability in our system? On a lesser note, how could someone with such a great capability to lie with no apparent remorse be continually allowed to represent our people? To represent our nation on the world stage?

Yes, Hilary is an amazingly bright lady. She was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the US and earned more money than her husband ever did until his presidency – before she even stepped into the political spotlight. Yet, since when has intelligence and cunningness ever excused one from even the most primitive form of accountability? What happened to the days when Americans cared about the honesty and integrity of those that are chosen to represent us?

If you do not recall, Hilary initially stated she had no intentions of running for president. After her opponent won the position she had “surprisingly” so desperately desired, she said her talents were needed in the Senate to help back the democrats in Washington and that’s were intentions laid. The next thing you know she is offered one of the most intrinsic positions in one of the most significant areas of policy at one of the most direly important time periods in US history. Am I not the only one to point to these oddities?

America, it is time to start demanding honest leaders. It is time to stop rewarding those that use words and influence for no greater benefit other than themselves. The ideals of servitude seem to no longer create any echo of integrity down Congress’ hall. Apparently, the candidate most of the world has supported does not have strong reservations about the bullet-dodging, Bosnia-saving, and fearless Hilary Clinton – is this the change we voted for?

To the stark contrary, substantial evidence may exist proving that Hilary may have actually been under sniper fire during her 1996 trip:

Author: Jared Fallon

Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich and chief of staff John Harris are now under investigation for allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, the 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for a cushy job (tips glady accepted) within the new administration. According to the Associated Press, Blagojevich’s game plan can clearly be seen when viewing some of the reported comments taken from various wiretaps.

When viewing the sheer amount of pending proposals in the Illinois legislature, the disappointing slap in the face for those who backed Blagojevich and worked on various bills with the Governor will create waves of change that will be felt throughout the Land of Lincoln, if not the entire country.

According to the AP, Blagojevich’s game plan was:

A HARD BARGAIN. On Nov. 3, Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.”

LANDING WELL. On Nov. 5, while discussing his authority to name Obama’s replacement, Blagojevich said Obama could use his influence to name the governor to a lucrative spot with a private foundation. Blagojevich told Advisor A: “I’ve got this thing and it’s — golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for — nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.”

A RESISTANT OBAMA. On Nov. 11, during a conversation with Harris, Blagojevich said he knew Obama wanted Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. — them.”

SIGNS OF STRUGGLE. On Nov. 12, during a two-hour telephone conversation with various people, Blagojevich talked about securing high-paying jobs for him and his wife in exchange for the Senate seat. He said he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be governor for the next two years.” Blagojevich said advisers are telling him he has to “suck it up” for two years and give this ” — Obama his senator. — him. For nothing? — him.”

THREE CRITERIA. On Nov. 12, Blagojevich told Harris his decision about the open Senate seat would be based on three criteria in the following order of importance: “Our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon that. Legal. Personal. Political.”

TALKING OF MONEY. On Thursday, Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that if Senate Candidate 5 wanted to be appointed to Obama’s seat, the candidate should follow through on promises to raise money for Blagojevich. “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now . . . right now . . . and we gotta see it. You understand?” But Blagojevich told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?” 

Author: Jared Fallon

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is man with many worldly words and experiences…but yet his personal world is one with a very different view than most (especially the Chicago Tribune). According to Blagojevich whatever he says is lawful and the things he’s interested in doing is always lawful….always. This godsend for the Land of Lincoln feels that only sunshine hangs over his governorly body, to help him conduct his rightful duties.

Blagojevich Quotes to Remember:

“I don’t believe there is any cloud that hangs over me. I think there’s nothing but sunshine hanging over me.” - When a Chicago Tribune reporter questioned “Do you think the cloud that hangs over you is going to taint your pick?”

It sounds like if Blagojevich does end up doing time at least he can write the latest top-40’s hits. I think his first piece should be a cross between John Denver’s “Sunshine on my shoulder’s makes me happy” and Johnny Cash’s rendition of “You Are My Sunshine”.

“…and by the way I should say if anybody wants to tape my conversations go right ahead –feel free to do it. I appreciate anybody who wants to tape me openly and notoriously and those who feel like they want to sneakily and wear taping devices I would remind them that it kinda smells like Nixon and Watergate. But I don’t care whether you tape me privately or publicly.”

For a person with such a broad vocabulary, (“Fire those fuckers… If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em”) Blagojevich sure is of the willing sort, expressing complex ideas with simplistic words.

“I can tell you that whatever I say is always lawful and the things I’m interested in doing are always lawful and if there any things like that out there what you’ll hear is a governor who tirelessly and endlessly figures out ways to help average ordinary working people.”

After such a moving statement I wonder why Blagojevich didn’t run for president. He’d have my vote. Even if convicted, given that he gets out in time, he’d still be a better pick than Palin for 2012.

Author: Jared Fallon

The Land of Lincoln not only is having a hard time replacing president-elect Obama’s heavily sought after district, but may very well need a new governor as well. Recently, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, along with chief of staff John Harris, has been allegedly trying to sell Obama’s vacant seat. In return, 52 year old Blagojevich was reportedly looking for either money or a cushy job within the new administration. US Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald stated on December 10, 2008 “The Senate seat, as recently as days ago, seemed to be on the verge of being auctioned off”. Keeping in tune with the state’s motto, Fitzgerald said “The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave.” The situation does not look good for the governor.

Blagojevich has already been under investigation for at least three years for alleged hiring fraud – again using his supposed auctioning skills for more supposed bribes.  Perhaps he should switch careers to auctioning; for most people the idea of being under investigation should have already have one concerned about the remote possibility of having wiretaps in place. If Blagojevich were to be convicted and imprisoned for the charge of “Conspiracy to commit fraud”,  carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years time, he would become the 4th Illinois Governor within the past four decades to go to prison.

As the Illinois government and prosecutors work through the entangled political web Blagojevich has woven, no matter what the results are political uproar has occurred within Obama’s state. Clearly, the mess is a sticky one – even to the point of Obama working is hardest to distance himself from Blagojevich amidst cabinet selections and the financial crisis. Legislators involved in the supposed scandal will also be facing serious measures of investigation, as various candidates were reportedly sighted by Blagojevich as needing to follow through on promises to raise money for him, as recorded by some of Blagojevich’s statements to advisers such as, “Some of this stuff’s gotta start happening now…right now…and we gotta see it. You understand?”

Effective legislators will have a hard time getting the incredibly wide amount of proposals currently pending in the state’s legislature. Such proposals include major ethics reforms – ironically the main platform Blagojevich ran on during his campaign for governorship – targeting campaign finance restrictions and deceptive business practices and consumer fraud proposals. Whether or not Blagojevich will resign or the Illinois Senate Leaders and House decide to strip him of his title only time will tell. But no matter what happens to Rod’s future career, his timeless quote, as reported from The Economist will remain with me:

“Fire those fuckers”, Blagojevich in reference to his critics at the Chicago Tribune. “If they don’t perform, fuck ‘em”

Barack Obama’s Senate seat…“is a fucking valuable thing, you don’t just give it away for nothing.”

Author: Sarah Riordan

While in the midst of the US recession paired with a historic global financial crisis, Senator Diane Feinstein’s legislative agenda is apparently not so full that she can’t be concerned with ticket scalping. Apparently Feinstein, noting the record clamor for Barack Obama inauguration tickets, sees the potential for some abuse – even to the point of the possible development of an inaugural ticket black market.

Without a doubt, the results of the 2008 Presidential Election were historic.  As the first African American president, Barack Obama broke through a racial barrier which many felt they would never see broken in their lifetime. Consequently, tickets to the inauguration are in huge demand as the crowd is expected to break records. According to aol.com, a projected 4 million people could attend the inauguration. Historically, the largest crowd ever witnessing a president sworn into office was 1.2 million for the inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, according to an article by the Associated Press. In addition, CNN has reported that tickets are already being sold for five figures.

The problem is that tickets for a presidential inauguration are not meant to be sold by anyone. As a perk to being a member of Congress, you are given tickets to distribute to whomever you deem important enough to attend. Typically this means awarding tickets to the party elite, significant political financial donors or the “rich and famous.”  In other words, your every day run of the mill citizen doesn’t stand much of a chance in getting a ticket.               

The part of the bill that deals with counterfeit tickets has some validity.  In particular, fraudulent tickets present a security concern for the incoming President. As offensive is the thought, there have already been threats on the President-elects life simply because he is an African American. Controlling who is legitimately admitted to the inauguration should be a priority.  Safeguarding his life needs to be a primary concern. 

While that is true, the other part of the bill dealing with the “selling” of tickets does raise some questions.  Just who exactly is Feinstein foreseeing will scalp legitimate tickets? The party elite? Political donors? The rich and famous?  What is the caliber of the people to whom members of Congress give these tickets? While I am sure that Feinstein is not intending to insult political party supporters, who else would this bill be addressing? The Senators and Congressmen themselves?  At a minimum it calls into question the judgment of the members of Congress.

The political truth of the matter is that there will always be the party faithful who, once rewarded with tickets, will forgo witnessing history to make a fast buck. Feinstein, if she really has some worries, should limit the scope of this bill to security concerns. That is a more legitimate use of her legislative time.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

President-elect Barack Obama announced Monday his selections for top officials that will lead him throughout his presidency, revealing a group of very experienced hands. Rounding out his top officials will be Robert M. Gates, who will remain as Defense Secretary, General James L. Jones as the new National Security Advisor, and after weeks of deliberation and speculation, Senator Hillary Clinton was officially announced as Secretary of State. As pointed out by many critics, Obama’s team characterizes a more veteran circle rather than the change that Obama has pledged throughout his entire campaign trail. Obama’s response is simple. He is trying to unite a more experienced group with fresh thinking, maintaining that change will come from him.

As a New York Senator, Clinton was not an idle woman. Mrs. Clinton served on the several Senate Committees, including the Senate Committee for Environment and Public works, Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee, and Senate Special Committee on Aging. She is a big advocate for socialist-styled children programs and education as well as more affordable, quality health care. As Senator Clinton has focused on domestic issues, she has not ignored the international sphere. She has sponsored such bills as the S.RES. 92, which had called for an immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah and Hamas. She also sponsored legislation to establish a commission on the conflict between Russia and Georgia, addressed the humanitarian crisis and potential security breakdown as a result of Iraqi refugees fleeing to neighboring nations, as well as many others. In addition, Mrs. Clinton has voted in favor of legislation such as H.R. 7081, which supports the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy.

According to Senator John W. Warner, “The triumvirate of Gates, Clinton, and Jones to lead Obama’s national security team instills great confidence at home and abroad and further strengthens the growing respect for the President-elect’s courage and ability to exercise sound judgment in selecting the best and the brightest to implement our nation’s security policies”. However, there are questions of how the Clintons will deal with potential conflicts of interests while Hillary serves her term as Secretary of State.

In the past few weeks, former President Bill Clinton has begun paving the way for smoother sailing for his wife. He has agreed to allow the State Department and White House counsel to vet his speaking schedule and to disclose the names of contributors to the Clinton Foundation. He is to step away from the day to day running of the foundation during his wife’s tenure as well as refuse any donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative. He also has agreed to abstain from holding any meetings abroad.  Although he is paving the way for his wife’s new position, some believe former President Clinton should be given a more formal role in foreign policy, such as special U.S envoy on Kashmir. Perhaps the position would keep him busy and out of trouble?

Needless to say, Obama has chosen an interesting and experienced team, especially his choice of Secretary of State. Are his choices wise? Only time will tell.  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Once again the debate over Stem Cell Research has been resurrected, causing an outcry from opponents. Although President-elect Barack Obama has just two months to go before he takes his inaugural oath and the oval office, there is the expectation that Obama, like many of his predecessors, will issue an abundance of executive orders that will reverse most of the Bush administration policies. One of those policies concerning many is the Bush Administration’s policy that banned Stem Cell Research.

Obama is an advocate for funding for stem cell research. He believes in the importance of stem cell research and how it might benefit thousands of patients with incurable or untreatable diseases. As a Senator for Illinois Senate, Obama supported legislation that allowed embryonic stem cell research in the state of Illinois. Obama, as a Senator in Congress, continued to support such legislation. He co-sponsored the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which amends the Public Health Service Act, expanding the number of human embryonic stem cells eligible for federally funding research. The bill did pass through Congress; however, the Bush Administration turned around and vetoed it. In addition, President-elect Obama supported other legislation such as the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act as well as the Fetal Farming Bill of 2006.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has raised a huge voice, warning that there are dangers of alienating millions if Obama lifts the ban on funding for stem cell research. According to the conference’s associate director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the real question to the debate is should the “…Bush policy get replaced with the law of the jungle”. Should we open that door where scientists are given free rein to experiment by creating and cloning human embryos just in the name of scientific research and then discarding them after they have served their purpose?  For many, this is an emotional issue, leading all of us to dig deep down within. The moral implications hold strong.

Meanwhile, medical researchers are elated; holding their breath in suspense at the very probability of freedom from the governmental funding ban. According to scientists, the ban has obstructed hard work to develop life-saving treatments. For example, scientists declare that the cells taken from human embryos present the most potential in developing therapies or possibly even cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, and other diseases. The possible benefits to stem cell research are seemingly endless as so much could be learned. The existing policy has disheartened the field of stem cell research, causing many scientists from the United States to migrate to other nations where the research is flourishing to do their exploration.

There are strong arguments on both sides to the issue. Nevertheless, should we put a hold on possible treatments and cures in the name of morality? Is it right to do things that many view as playing God?  As indicated by an article in the Washington Post by Ronald Green, “There is no question that we must move ahead, but caution is the key”.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Last week, the Huffington Post’s David Reynolds rejoiced in the progress that America has come a very long way from its racist past. Barack Obama, the first African American, now holds the highest political position in the United States. As we celebrate this groundbreaking achievement, we must keep in mind just how far we still need to go.

As revealed on Election Day, 52% of America’s most trend-setting voters supported the most monumental ballot measure in history, proposition 8. Now, the state of California has eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry (after awarding over 16,000 same-sex couples the right to wed).This article, unmistakably tagged with a photo showing a heterosexual couple, proves a bigger point.  It is no mistake; a marriage of a mixed race couple was once illegal. This same state once held an irrational view with anti-miscegenation law, stating, “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes are illegal.” Once our law denied legal recognition to mixed race couples simply because it made others feel uncomfortable. Since these times, we corrected our unfair behavior towards this issue. However, our mindset still remains the same. The implications of the success of proposition 8 rings loud and clear: justice is second to our own comfort levels.

Legalization of same sex marriages, as many claim, destroys traditional family values and emotionally cripples children. That sounds more like the dreadful effects of divorce, not an effect from same-sex marriages. Current statistics show that 50% of first marriages, 67% of all second marriages, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. This shows we are not teaching our children to respect any type of commitment, nor traditional family values. What we are showing them is that the real way to deal with relational dilemma is serial divorce. Leaving marriage to one man and one woman is not an argument, but an excuse for a prejudice.

California, a modern place of innovation and forward thinking, has been defeated. The scare tactics that the conservative organizations used entangled themselves into the California constitution. Over the years, the fight for equality has been so successfully strong. However, this recent set back, draws a line that that separates us from them. This generation is supposed to be more open and hopeful to the solution to end discrimination. Many have internalized these conservative messages that play on irrational fears.  Instead of noble and just laws throughout our country, we have a social disease. Homophobia, it is a cancer eating away at every chance of freedom and equal rights. Get back up, California, and dust yourself off. It is time to get organized and pass laws that no longer desire to exclude any longer. 

Author: Jared Fallon

“We’re entering a brave new world of presidential fundraising.”– Michael Toner, chairman of the Federal Election Commission 

The 2008 Presidential Race proved to not only be demographically historical, but the most expensive in US history as well, blowing past all previous records. Since January 2007 the 2008 presidential candidates combined have spent roughly $1 billion dollars ($2.4billion if you count candidates other than McCain and Obama) – an increase of over $300 million from the previous record-breaking 04 presidential election. This increase truly is colossal when considering back in the Bush vs. Gore election $250 million sounded like a large sum. Due to the airwave-saturating spending habits of Senator Obama there is a now a precedence to spend up near $33,000 per second just to air a commercial on only one of the big networks (estmiates taken from NBC, CBS, and FOX) during primetime spots. When are the rising costs of US elections ever going to be enough? All-time-high records can be found in virtually all other areas of US political campaigns as well.

It is anticipated the new cost to elect a US president and members of Congress will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The most expensive congressional race of 08 hails from Illinois’ 14 district, where candidates vying for Dennis Hastert’s previous seat have spent a combined $7.5 million as of October 11 – more recent filings will certainly prove to be higher. As spending goals continue to be significantly greater than the ones before, the psychological effects of such increases may prove to me more devastating than the financial costs. To a large extent the American public already feels that far too many politicians get to their point of servitude by far too many political favors and connections to begin with. Despite the fact that the 08 election year is proving to have very high turnout, I predict that eventually as spending reaches a peak voter turnout will begin to drop significantly. Regardless, it appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending and will most likely see fresh, new waves of proposed legislation in an attempt to impose political spending limits of the sort that can be found in Canada.

To date there are not many proposals on the table. Several of them merely reduce portions of campaign financing (such as individual campaign contributions) while increasing other categories, such as the presidential primary qualifying threshold – even to the tune of 5 times that of current standards. (Ironically) Among its supporters you will find Senator Obama’s vote. The only proposal that aims for an overall guaranteed reduction is Michael E. Capuano’s (D-MA) H.R.2269, which aims to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Capuano hopes to reduce the $2,000 maximum amount of individual contribution that any person can make with respect to federal offices down to $1,000, and adjusted for inflation after 2010. Thus far he is his only sponsor.

For the sake of debate, although Senator Obama has spent more raw dollars than ever before, a short delve into political campaigns from America past does help put these numbers into perspective, if only in a shallow sense. In terms of real dollars the most expensive campaign dates back to 1896 when $3.5 million was spent to ensure Williams Bryan did not get elected. Adjusted for inflation, that sum was equal to over $3 billion in today’s dollars.  However, this is the most extreme example that one can draw a comparison to. Back then Chinese goods were considered a valuable rarity and John McCain was only 2 years old…my how the times have changed. Most Americans would agree that the amount of spending on elections is getting astronomical, and overall does lend itself towards increased government transparency. Similar concerns have caused other Democratic nations, such as Canada, to place strict limitations on a variety of different campaigns. For presidential campaigns both the time limit and the overall expenditures are capped. Whether or not Canada’s specific approach would work as a model for the US, it’s nice to see that there are other realistic case studies for when the time for reform is demanded (or needed, whichever comes first).

It appears as if we truly have entered into a new era of political campaign spending, but sooner or later public support for political race spending limits (and perhaps campaign length restrictions) will tip the scale for proposed reforms. 

Author: Jared Fallon

The United States has officially moved into a new era of policy. Some of the most obvious developments will be made in the area of foreign affairs – a situation formerly known across the board for strong hegemonic undertones highlighted with post-WW2 attitudes. The United States simply cannot afford to sustain the political precedents formed by the Bush administration, and Barack Obama knows it. We are launching into a new period – a new beginning that will start by distancing US foreign policy from its previous reputation as being ruled by cowboy politics to a new chapter that will fulfill the title “suburban diplomacy”.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama is a great communicator. His charisma and ability to connect with the general public has not been seen since the days of Reagan. Obama’s charisma and charming smile is so convincing that he was able to rise from a first term US senator to the President of the United States – the chief commander and the leader of the supposed free world. The amazing part of Obama’s rise to fame being carried by his “rising star” status is just how quickly his smiles worked. Obama took his position in 2004 and less than three years later began campaigning for what would become the most expensive presidential race in US history. For all of the dialogue on the historical implications the 08 race has on social/ethnic issues, this may prove to be the most historical point of all.

The term suburban diplomacy as it is being introduced in this op-ed refers to a movement towards more plane-Jane political ideas, focusing largely on re-channeling time and money from abroad back to the US. This approach clearly has worked so far in terms of increased citizen involvement (as partially shown by this year’s record voter turnout) and the large number of young voters.  The plain-Jane platform that Obama won on strikes a chord of simplicity within the American voter, instilling more trust than the current President’s administration (and Congress for that matter) was ever used to over the past 8 years. Government transparency is truly what voters see in Barack – a return (a notion I have a hard time agreeing with personally) to less corporation-influenced policies paired with less strings attached.

For introductory proof, recall the one-word campaign of “change” that Obama ran on for the past 22 months – any advanced level of political theory complexity simply do not exist. The simplicity of his historical victory reflect the lack of depth that American’s want to vote for in terms of political connections and favors (and perhaps links to companies such as Halliburton). What Obama posses is a real gift to connect with the everyday voter – a skill that will find Obama with strong citizen approval as a more socialistic approach to domestic policies will be introduced. But for the short term, amidst all of Obama’s criticism of the War in Iraq, the area of foreign affairs is where most the most drastic changes will be seen, and these changes will be easily drafted, voter approved. But no matter the specific reforms, Barack will return the US to the hug-friendly approach that Bill Clinton was internationally known for, and will provide a test for whether or not “change” can truly happen in a post-Bush dynasty period of time. Sa la vie Texan tactics…Obama: show us the change – the world is waiting in high anticipation. 

President Bush (pictured left) at his 1,583 acre Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. 

Author: Jared Fallon

We all know that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most profoundest presidential “quoters” in US history. His long list of power-packed comments will be missed by all as the smooth-talking Illinois Senator rises to be the next leader of the “free world.” As Bush passes the torch to Obama there will undoubtedly be a long, long trail of people waiting for the “change” that Obama promised for so long. And yet, ironically, the 6^th longest-running Democratic Senator in US history is never very far behind…

Regardless, President Bush’s wise words to Obama were consistent with many of his world- famous speeches. According to Bush spokesperson Dana Perino, Bush advised “You are about to go on one of the great journeys of life. Congratulations and go enjoy yourself.” Time can only tell whether or not Obama can provide the change he promised, but one thing is certain: the American public is tired of leaders considering the US presidency as nothing more than “one of the great journeys”. If Obama does enjoy himself, let’s just hope that he doesn’t choose to do it Texas-cowboy style…

Author: Sara Hilbert

The time is now. Early voting is steadily streaming in and by mid-week America will know the end of this long presidential race. Until then we wait in high anticipation for this highly historical election. According to Real Clear Politics, the average polling data shows Obama leading by 6.3 points, while others show Obama leading by even more.  Despite the fact that the general public thinks Obama will win, Senator McCain predicts a late-night win on Election Day, believing that the American public will choose him in the wee hours of the day.

Dr. Frank Newport editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll explains in the video below that 1980 proved to be the biggest example of the polling change, where Jimmy Carter was ahead with registered voter by eight points before Ronald Reagan won the popular vote by 10 points. With the lead that Obama has on McCain, it can narrow, but it would be highly unusual occurrence. 

There are so many behind Senator McCain who feel that these numbers unjustly show the reality and strength the candidate has for victory on Tuesday. Jeffrey Lord is one of them, a former Reagan White House political director and author, who claims the answer was clear back in August: McCain. Billy Kristol also gave his predictions of the election in favor of McCain this past Friday on The Daily Show. Lastly, Andy Martin, legendary author and Internet columnist, spoke against Obama’s intense advertising to then praise McCain for taking command saying, “John McCain is going to win the presidency, (but only) by a whisker.”

Republicans need not to cross their fingers, The Mack is back!

Author: Sara Hilbert

Election Day is here California, and you have been hit with the second most expensive campaign. Next to the presidential race, the combined efforts of committed individuals in favor and against Proposition 8, have raised over $65 million. This has resulted in the most expensive social issue campaign in the history of the nation. Californians are not the only ones concerned. Millions of campaign funding has come from groups and individuals out of state. Those donors know the reality; California is the front lines of the war for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some quick facts before you head to the polls:
The official title description of Proposition 8 is “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” This constitutional amendment changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Prop 8 defines marriage to be recognized in the state of California between one man and one woman. In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state. If proposition 8 is enacted, it would revoke the 16,000 same sex couples their marriage agreement that have already taken place since June.

If you check this box that would mean it would over ride the California Supreme Court decision for legalizing same sex marriages. This bill is strongly supported by many groups including: Focus on the Family, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the Knights of Columbus. These groups feel family and marriage values are threaten by a few opinionated judges. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family wrote, “Quite literally, the institution of the family is hanging in the balance. If homosexuals are permitted to marry, then the entire legal basis for the family will be undermined.”

John McCain has spoken for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Throughout his campaign, McCain has stated that if something were to change, public opinion would have to dramatically change equal civil rights within state and local governments first. Only then should allow congress be allowed to legally consider amending the constitution. He feels like everyone should be included, but it is unclear about his plans to directly reserve rights for same-sex couples.

By reinforcing the rights of these 16,000 couples this monumental moment would set the stage for many other states to follow, which some hope would then pave the roads to be recognized under federal law. Many famous celebrities actively speak against this proposal such as Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres and Steven Spielberg.The newlywed, Ellen DeGeneres and her same sex partner, Portia De Rossi, begs people stop the discrimination. On her show, she compares this unfair treatment to withholding voting rights from blacks and women. She says, “There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same…. My hope is someday it won’t be called contract it will be called marriage.”

Barack Obama, personally, feels stronger for traditional marriages but fully supports the same sex lifestyle and their civil rights; from emergency visitation rights, health coverage, employee benefits, property and adoption rights. He also wants to expand federal hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discriminatory Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With the prices of gasoline at the pumps, one would almost assume that many people would be excited. One would think that the way people drive would revert back to the familiar ways of yesteryear. Finally, I can afford to fill up my tank again! Well, we are all probably relieved by the prices at the pump; however, people are still playing cautious. Many of us have changed the way we drive and the way we live our lives in order to save a few bucks here and there. I know I have and I probably won’t be changing my cautious ways anytime soon. With the very close upcoming presidential election, the weight of the current financial crisis is currently on every voters mind.

Throughout the campaigning, especially within the recent months, it has become a major concern and focal point. Both John McCain and Barack Obama backed President Bush’s $700 billion rescue package for the financial industry. Both believe in more tax relief for the middle and working classes; however, McCain and Obama differ in the taxation of high income earners. Obama would like to revoke the tax cuts that Bush made for those higher incomes, while McCain believes that is not necessary. Either way, the financial problems are definitely not going away any time soon.

America is not alone. The financial crisis has clearly become a global concern, with its impacts leaving no corner of the world untouched. Over the previous weekend of October 25, there was the annual Asia-Europe meeting, or ASEM. The ASEM is an informal process of dialogue and cooperation that brings together the member nations of the European Union and the EU Commission as well as sixteen Asian nations and the ASEAN Secretariat. The ASEM allows for these nations to debate informally over a variety of issues. At the ASEM, Premier Wen Jiabo of China called for new rules to guide the international financial system, following a call by Asian and European leaders for the International Monetary Fund to intervene and deal with the ongoing global financial situation.

According to Premier Wen Jiabo, “[w]e need to draw lessons from the crisis…We need financial innovation to serve the economy better. However, we need even more financial regulation to ensure financial safety”. No one denies that something should be done to help fix the world’s struggling economy. Current French President Sarkozy said that the ASEM summit was “helpful” for the promotion of efforts to tackle the problem. China appears ready on all counts to step up to the plate and take a lead role in fixing the credit crisis. If China does indeed decide to intervene it will be interesting to see if they honor their word or not, granted if other nations allow the proposal at hand. China has been a huge exporter of cheap consumer goods to the United States and other nations, beating nearly all other manufacturers around the world. With the economies of these nations on the fritz, China needs to begin turning its spending ambitions internally. An editorial in the New York Times claims that, “ To get China’s consumers to spend, the government will need to spend more at home, investing in public work projects and providing more social benefits—including health insurance and pensions…This is clearly Beijing’s interest, though China’s leaders are still clinging to the old export strategy”.

Author: Jared Fallon

With less than a week until the election we thought it would be apropos to delve into the one hobby both presidential candidates will have in common no matter who ends up taking the title: drinking. Most people think that without alcohol politics simply would not be the same, and after review of some of the most powerful political leaders of our time I would have a hard time agreeing. Below you can some of the best videos of intoxicated presidents doing what they do best, making decisions for the rest of us that impact the world. Take a few minutes out of your day and revisit some of the possible causes for some of the world’s greatest problems, and make sure to stay up-to-date on the upcoming election.

President George W. Bush

Back in 1992 when President Bush didn’t need to worry about the future of the United States he  seemed like he was used to having a little bit too much fun, “Only in America, only in America.”

Select quotes:

“Only in America, only in America would a couple like that be allowed to unite, beautiful people yes…”

“Very boring person. Hates to drink, doesn’t like to smoke.”

“Only in America can a guy like him even find work”

“Only in America would anybody call her mom.”

Despite the fact that President Bush is often blamed for being drunk in the White House during most of his two-term administration, apparently there are times where even the best cowboys need to relax a little bit. Perhaps this shouldn’t have happened before a press conference on war in Iraq.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy

It appears that lunch with Mr. Putin might include one of Russia’s historically favored pastimes – vodka. This clip is from the latest G8 summit, showcasing French President Sarkozy’s press conference introduction.

Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin

Boris Yeltsin has got to go down in history as one of the most memorable politicians the world has ever seen. As the Cold War came to an end and the former Soviet Union found itself in need of serious recovery Mr. Yeltsin found himself in charge, with an excess of vodka cases for his enjoyment. The reality is a little scary, however, when one realizes old Boris was in charge of a stockpile of nuclear weapons – and Russia was still a major global player none-the-less. 

Apparently he also had a special talent for press conferences (starting to see a pattern here?)…

The videos honoring Mr. Yeltsin never end; here is a 2 minute recap of his legendary presidency. Perhaps we will never see another Boris Yeltsin again, but one thing is certain: no president will ever be able to cut a rug as well as him.

State Surge: How do you keep up?

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With about one week to go in the Presidential Races, Barack Obama is still the preferred candidate. According to the Gallup Polls on October 21, 2008, Senator Obama was in a seven to ten point lead against Senator McCain.  The poll is based on likely voters, voters voting intentions, and past voting behavior. Although international opinions from countries around the world seem to play a significant role in this presidential race, there is little evidence as to how much impact their opinions truly make. However, the Gallup Poll reveals that in about seventy different nations, there is a near four to one preference for Senator Obama over McCain.

One has to remember that statistics are just statistics. Until the fateful day of the election, no one really knows who will be elected to office and no one really knows how well that particular candidate will do in office until he gets there. This past Sunday, Colin Powell interviewed on Meet the Press, announcing his endorsement towards Barack Obama. He admits to being close friends with John McCain and that both candidates are qualified; however, McCain would be just more of the same ole’ same ole. He described Obama as more of a “transformational figure”. Powell stated that “[b]ecause of Obama’s ability to inspire…the inclusive nature of this campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities…he has both style and substance—he has meet the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president”.

Powell even referred to his own party as being discriminatory. Apparently, some Americans still believe that Obama is Muslim, and has possible affiliations with terrorists. According to Powell, Obama is Christian. I don’t know if Powell’s endorsement really means much, especially so close to the election. However, Powell does raise a good point. Even if Obama was a Muslim, what is wrong with that? What is so wrong with being different? If we were all the same, the world would be a dreary place to live (and politics would be a lot more boring). I wonder how many voters will go and vote just because Obama is black or because McCain is white. I wonder how many of those voters will deny the reason for their vote is based on color. We have come a long way in America, but the taint of discriminatory thoughts and actions still linger. Perhaps its human nature this judgment of character before we even get to know a person.

The idea in electing a President should be based on what each candidate stands for, their past records, etc. For instance, Obama co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1492, which sets out to develop the quality of federal and state data on ease of use and eminence of broadband services while giving the Nation more affordable services at the same time. McCain co-sponsored the Senate Bill 1810, amending the Public Health Services Act. This allows for better information and services to patients who are diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Obama wants to raise taxes. McCain believes in expanding alternative energy technology. These are just some of the issues we should be taking into account. The amount of challenges facing the presidential candidates this election truly are daunting, and will prove to become even more so as the current financial crisis is experienced more and more in all other parts of the economy, and in our personal lives. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite your personal opinions about the Clinton administration and the Clintons in general, based on statements from times past I for one have a hard time believing what comes out of the New York Senator’s mouth. After the last presidential debate on October 15 at Hofstra University Hilary was interviewed by CNN and announced that she would not accept a cabinet position invitation from Obama if offered. She feels that Democrats still will need sway in the Senate and it is her prerogative to ensure the backup troops will still be available when needed. When was the last time that you can recall Hilary accepting a backseat position under any circumstance?

Hilary’s influential background in brief

Hilary Clinton graduated from Wellesley College with honors in political science, originally being highly active in college Republican initiatives. During her college experience she quickly decided that she could not fulfill her lifelong dream of becoming an athlete and decided to turn towards the ever-honest path of US Litigation. Hilary found herself attending Yale Law School in 1969 while maintaining her active track record of high-level involvement. Two years later she met Bill and after four years of his developing and relentless hug-infused diplomacy she was finally won over. In 1975 the Clintons wed in Fayetteville, Arkansas, near the headquarters of the retail monolith she would later find herself representing and serving on the board of directors for.

Hilary’s long list of accomplishments range from being named the first female partner of Rose Law Firm to being ranked 1 of the most 100 most influential lawyers in the US by the National Law Journal in 1988. Hilary surprisingly made more taxable income than Mr. Clinton until he became Mr. President. Her long list of focuses most notably include working for children’s advocacy (namely through the Children’s Defense Fund), literacy and education efforts in Arkansas, and largely socialist-based healthcare proposals.* Hilary certainly is not a dumb person by any stretch of the imagination and she knows it, clearly not taking Socrates’ line of thought into account, “I know that I am intelligent, because I know nothing.”

*“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”

Hilary’s track record: Foreign policy spotlight

While Hilary’s skills are highly attractive in the courtroom, she is not necessarily the freedom-fighting, life-risking US citizen she likes to make herself out to be. After CBS discovered that she and Chelsea were greeted by indigenous flower girls and not sniper fire upon their 1996 arrival in Bosnia, she had nowhere to turn but to begin focusing on more domestic issues that rings true to her Rambo-tainted patriotic passion for the truth and nothing but the truth. Aside from the evidence captured by the CBS camera crew, fellow American comedian Sinbad added to the exciting experience by stating “the most dangerous part of the trip was remembering where we were going to eat next”. Hilary’s convincing response? “Sinbad is a comedian…” I personally am comforted that the former First Lady can recognize when people tell jokes for a living instead of pretending to be the next Mother Teresa that makes jokes to our delight pro bono. The more you revisit this series of occurrences the more generous you realize Hilary truly is.

Clinton adviser Lissa Muscatine attempted to clear up all of the questions we were all asking but somehow just wasn’t convincing enough: “She met that there was fire in the hillside around the area when we landed which was the case.”Clearly CBS should increase the quality of their audio equipment. Even the pilot of the trip pointed to the absurdity of Clinton’s claims making it very clear that they never would have attempted to land if they were indeed under attack and that under his watch no passengers would be told to sit on their bullet-proof jackets; a strategy that US Army tests have found unsuccessful in trying to prevent injury when under fire or in the battlefield (this claim not yet confirmed).

The true implications of what Hilary’s track record shows us are best seen through her own words: “There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport but instead we just ran with our heads down (her laughing and smiles multiply at this point) to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” In an entirely different speech Hilary stated “The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” I agree with you Hilary, perhaps you should think about what you claim more carefully from here on out (especially if you have a CBS media team documenting your entire trip).

Hilary’s exciting life: Back in the US

Despite the disappointing announcement that Hilary was not named after Mt. Everest climber Sir Edmund Hilary (she was born in 1947; Edmund’s successful hike was five years later), we do know that she tends to have psychic abilities when it comes to the press. Despite the fact that the Wall Street Journal’s financial section did not cover the futures market when she claimed to make her fortune she had an uncanny sense for the paranormal. But more realistically, perhaps what we’re observing within Hilary’s patterns is a disconnect somewhere in her memory in terms of timelines. Orders of occurrences do not seem to be her strong suit, a skill that most public officials would value above erroneous claims of just how much danger her daughter Chelsea has been through (controversy abound as to whether or not Chelsea had to duck into a café as the Two Towers were hit or if it was all just another misunderstanding).

Even today there is a long list of claims that Hilary still needs to “clarify” for us. Does Hilary like NAFTA or not? Does she understand the difference between clerical errors and White House gifts? Did she ever oppose the pre-emptive war with Iraq? More importantly, was she always a Yankees fan? The more one reads about Hilary Clinton the more one recognizes just how ambitious she claims (and takes back, and rewords, then restructures) she is. But one thing is clear among this growing list comprised with a tone of severe lack of accountability, Hilary is not done yet. She had her sights set on getting back to the White House since the day she and Bill moved out.

Why Hilary will not stay out of the White House

“In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know that I’m keeping a chart.”

For a politician with such an extensive background with such intense experiences* it should be clear that Hilary is not going to slow down. For those who spend any amount of time learning about her background it is hard to believe that Hilary could stay in the Senate offering back-up support for a historical “rising star” candidate that defeated her so boldly. Based on Hilary’s track record of sticking so closely to her claims I for one do not find myself in a position to be able to trust her seemingly humble intentions of supporting the Democrats from behind the scenes… and so far away from the Oval Office. Hilary’s story is not done yet, and she will not allow the defeat of the 2008 Presidential Election quiet her intentions down.

Author: Jared Fallon

The new and (improved?) proposed bailout package aiming to help prevent the US from a complete financial crisis is not only shallow in its creation but contains no mystery as to why it received little criticism from either presidential candidates. The bill, H.R.1424, has been wildly criticized for allowing companies to have a soft landing on the backs of US taxpayers. Many people waited in anticipation for both McCain and Obama’s reaction of the proposal but most should have been left disappointed. The central reason for the lack of debate? Both candidates received major financial contributions from the ever-generous Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

There are many different figures available to find the exact amount each candidate has received, but it appears that the most accurate data shows that for the current election John McCain received $169,000 between both companies and their affiliates. Obama received $122,850 directly from various PACs and Mac/Mae employees. Both senators voted for the bill, while pointing towards the future for true accountability for the companies’ actions. Obama stated “There will be time to punish those that set this fire, but now is not the time to argue about how it got set…Let’s do what’s right for the country at this time, because the time to act is now.” This statement was a part of Obama’s speech to beg colleagues to help pass the reform. With Election Day coming and closer and closer it is unlikely that either senator will increase any measure of criticism for the two monoliths. Fortunately, two legislatures are stepping up to bat as we speak.

Both Peter Welch (D-VT) and Benjamin Nelson (D-NE) have proposed 2 plans for accountability – one to prevent golden parachute payments for Mac and Mae execs (H.R.6907) and one resolution to express to the Senate “that the former chief executive officers of Fannie Mae should not receive lavish severance packages at taxpayers’ expense.” (S.RES.658)  Will either of the proposals pass? It is highly unlikely, but the Chief Sponsors’ efforts shouldn’t go unnoticed – trying to a push accountability and criticism in a system that has too much money to receive it from the next President of the United States. 

Author: Jared Fallon

For a presidential candidate running on the one-word campaign of “change”, Senator Obama has made some very disappointing choices, among which was choosing the 6^th longest running Senator in US history as his running mate. His disappointments most certainly extend to his clearly inexperienced and depth-lacking approach to foreign policy, as if the Democratic Party is immune to international conflict due to the past Republican President’s publicly unpopular war efforts. The serious of flip-flopping stances on Iran that Obama has taken certainly warrant a closer look into his stance on Iran and the questions that are raised in comparing his shifting opinions.

Seeing how Barack has only served in the Senate since 2004 the 5^th black US Senator has not had to truly take interest in US-Iran affairs until recently. His first stance paints a very different picture contrary to the “all diplomacy and no fight” approach he pairs with his charismatic smiles with on a daily basis. In an interview on October 1, 2004, as the highly anticipated 13^th District Illinois Senatorial race was coming to a close, the Chicago Tribune came across startling findings. The soon to be Senator was quoted declaring he would support the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it didn’t follow Washington’s demands for the abandonment of its nuclear program. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

The interview’s overall discoveries point to a less aggressive tone that Obama sticks so closely today, beginning with his personal investment pressure bill he introduced in May 17, 2007. S.1430, the bill he references in most interviews and debates covering Iran, aims to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a roster of people that have made an investment totaling over $20 million in the energy sector within the country. The bill is 1of 71 that Obama has sponsored throughout the duration of his Senatorial career. The second most popular stance for Obama to take on Iran is that of economic sanctions – an option that hoards of UN failures and soured Cuban/Russian/US relations can be traced back to. But the real flip-flop that Senator Obama made was over a series of comments at a speech in Pendleton, Oregon on March 19, 2008.

“They (Iran) don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. (Naive are those people who believed that nuclear weapons have the potential to level the playing field in conflicts) If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” After comparing this to Obama’s previous support of missile use towards Iran, one should question whether or not the missile tactic approach was just for fun or if for some reason Iran poses a far less serious threat than it did four years later, despite the President’s determination to have Israel “wiped off the map” and its proud leveraging influence it has used on the international stage with its nuclear capabilities.

Lastly, if one were to follow Obama’s most recent rhetoric on Bush/Cheney’s lack of “principled democracy” and diplomatic negotiations, why would economic sanctions truly help? This sort of hard-line policy does a great job in providing a president’s people with renewed fire against an external force, leaving the population only with more reasons for wanting less talk (that Obama is overwhelmingly in favor of) and more action on the part for change that translates into economic policies that the people decide, not the external force that exerted the rough economic times in the first place. Whether or not one believes Iran’s nuclear program is far less threatening than the former Soviet’s, one cannot support the notion of enraging the people of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, expecting engagement to purely provide a solution. Iran has teeth, and whether or not Obama believes it would be good to fight back with tongue or not, he needs to choose a more definitive policy on Iran, especially considering its increasing nuclear might.

Russia. No other country in recent past has had so many confirmed near-nuclear experiences, discolored alliances, and bitterly cold disputes with the United States. Many signs are clear that Russia wants its reemerging global presence to be known to all – while the United States is increasingly receiving pressure to slow down its rapid military spending habits and hegemonic pursuits. Many critics believe that since 2007 Russia announced its newest military doctrine the page has finally turned for the two rivals. Russia’s stance on NATO’s eastward expansion and the US’ presence in the region has never changed, viewing the moves as “reckless”, “dangerous”, and “not unnoticed.” Russia’s 07 doctrine outlines what its commanders should be preparing for if the nation were to get into war. This of course, coupled with Russia’s recent and worrisome Venezuelan agreements should have Americans questioning McCain’s and Obama’s plans for US-Russian relations.

In a consistent manner with most of the world Obama, in general, is seen with much higher favorability than his Republican opponent. The general perception that we hear is based on McCain’s warnings of “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and a sense of urgency to increase political pressures on the quickly strengthening Moscow. It is clear enough that the Arizona Senator’s plans for Russia will not be viewed favorably by both Putin and Medvedev. In addition, more recent comments from Palin in reference to Russia make it clear that no matter how foreign policy will be decided Russia will not appreciate the Republican Party. But what about Barack Obama? Despite the general American perception that Obama would be much more…tender, on Russia the reality is that no matter who wins November’s election affairs between the US and Russia can, and will become much, much more intense. How much more intense should be at the forefront of the respective countries’ citizens, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Senator Obama so far has played his overall stance on Russia down, allowing criticism to be directed at the Republican Party. But yet the facts point to a much more hard-line policy that leaves Moscow unsettled. Instead of Obama criticizing Bush’s lack of hard-line actions towards Russia Obama stated that the President “…proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power.” As the conflict between Georgia and Russian heightened Obama cited Russia has having no possible justification for the attacks, explaining further that Russia should not move towards a “regression to conflicts of the past”, ignoring the recent developments that NATO has taken closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Each of these developments received sharp criticism by most Russians in political circles. Shortly afterwards, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, compared Putin to Hitler – a risky move against a Prime Minister that continues to hold great sway over the country and its affairs. Furthermore, Stanford University Professor and Obama’s senior advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul, is viewed by Russian political officials as being “consistently harsh on political developments in Russia.”

McFaul is not only considered “Obama’s top Russia strategist” by Russian political officials, but is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin – especially in the area of foreign affairs. McFaul is deeply respected in the US for his council on Russian affairs and democratic policies around the globe but ironically shares many of the same views as McCain. Whether or not you believe Obama would take drastic measures on Russia, his political party affiliation must be taken into account as well. Despite the fact that Republicans are proving themselves to be extremely talented at long, drawn out wars, Democrats are not all as hug-friendly as Clinton was. The three biggest conflicts that shaped the 20^th century as we know it were all initially overseen by democrats. Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry Truman and the Cold War. Another interesting dimension is to remember Obama’s 6^th longest serving Senator in US history, Joe Biden. Biden’s subtle but strong criticism of Russia’s recent conflict with Georgia should not go unnoticed simply because he isn’t as obnoxious about the Alaskan Governor with no US-Russian relations experience.

If Obama does indeed take the presidency escalating urgency for improved affairs with Russia will not be as rosy as most Americans like to believe. Setting aside whether or not Obama follows in the footsteps of Democrats past, as Russia continues to show its reemerging presence time will only tell the degree to which the US will need to respond. The interesting factor is that it Russia will most likely not be able to tell the difference between McCain and Obama, which partially explains Russia’s latest bold military moves so close to Election Day. The lack of US foreign policy flexibility will prove to be a drastic problem for America as Russia gets back on its feet and starts running. Russia is simply becoming too great of a power with too many strings attached around the globe for the US to continue along its same lines of action. Sooner or later, as the US non-so-allies continue to strengthen relations with Russia, there will be a tipping point for change. We simply cannot remain on the same tedious tight rope we are balancing on right now. Either way, when examining Obama and McCain’s stances on Russia it becomes abundantly clear that Americans simply do not have much of a choice for this election unless something changes significantly within the next month. For further examination of these views, look up Obama’s most recent actions towards Russia or Google his support of NATO expansion and development.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican and personally have attempted to avoid all of the hub-bub in regards to the 08 presidential candidates because the press tends to be redundant, occasionally biased (who’s ever seen equal coverage??), and, at times, just plain exasperating. However, the media has continued to taunt me with snippets of Palin’s speech since the day I missed it and has tweaked my interest. Due to intrigue, I have managed to find the official text and see what all the excitement was about. During the Republican Convention, Sarah Palin proved herself to be an eloquent speaker. She stated all the right things we all want to hear. She’s a smooth one alright, spewing words to inspire, uplift, and make your toes tingle.

Palin’s acceptance began with praise of McCain, quickly leading into a humbling portrait of herself and her family. She spoke to our hearts as she told of her three month old son who has Down syndrome -the portrayal of a motherly, down-to-earth kind of woman that many of us can relate to. She goes on to discuss her experience as a small-town mayor, stating that she always sticks to her story, revealing that she never supported the Bridge to Nowhere and against lobbyists. This point raised red flags in my mind. According to various sources, Palin did support the Bridge to Nowhere at one time as well as hired a lobbyist that secured $27 million for Wasilla, Alaska while she was Mayor.

Governor Palin believes it is necessary to break “our dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart” by increasing our domestic oil supply specifically through drilling in Alaska. As much as I am for breaking our addiction to foreign oil, I disagree with drilling in Alaska. I believe that preserving the natural beauty and environment of the state is very important. It is virtually impossible to increase drilling and not harm the environment in some way. I do agree, however, on the importance of moving forward with alternative sources of energy. We are in a time of great energy demand changes and as more people are using more energy the concerns over global warming are skyrocketing.

As with any political campaign, one cannot leave out a little bashing of their opponent. According to Palin,Obama’s plan is to “make government bigger…take more of your money…give you more orders from Washington…and to reduce the strength of America”. “How will we be better off if these types of policies are made?” she asks. This is a valid question. The same could be asked of a McCain-Palin administration. Palin answers this by stating that McCain will use his career to promote change, mentioning his honorable journey from prisoner of war to Oval Office. McCain’s story is powerful and moving – a sound strategy for the Republicans. “For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words. For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds”. Leave it to the ever eloquent Palin to portray McCain as America’s hero.

Despite some twists of truth (what Politician doesn’t?), Palin made a valid argument for a McCain administration. Her words weigh heavy on our hearts, gaining my attention and millions of others. Perhaps I’ll become a Republican?

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-powerful-speech/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/a-web-of-difference http://www.statesurge.com/news/a-web-of-difference#comments Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:51:07 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=103 In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.]]>

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin does not show much of an opinion concerning the issue of technology and the internet. Perhaps it is not exactly high up on her priority list. As Governor, Sarah Palin record comes up short of incorporating any kind of technological policies. Nevertheless, Governor Palin has taken advantage of the internet some by creating an online training program for the workforce. The program, Alaska Career Ready, gives users the capacity to take a set of surveys to discover what abilities they have or may need for an assortment of preferred jobs. In addition, these users may select online courses for developing weak or under-skilled areas. This program allows for a faster and more efficient way for workers to evaluate their own skills and it provides a way to help them improve weaker areas. Despite these details, however, Governor Palin has not really taken any initiative on broadband policy. Unfortunately, Alaskans connect at a slow rate. She has also helped Alaskan residents’ access affordable healthcare through the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act. The act provides tele-medicine and tele-health initiatives that provide care to Alaska’s most remote residents. According to Palin, it is vital to the economy to improve and expand more efficient transportation.

Senator Joe Biden looks to have taken a bit more interest on the subject. Biden is a supporter of clean technology, co-sponsoring the Senate Bill 1177. The legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to establish a nationwide uniform air pollutant rigid program for the electric generating zone. In a 2006 hearing, Biden proved to be a skeptic of net neutrality as he questioned the need for preventative measures when no evidence presented itself. He believes that if everyone who felt those rights were being violated and were given a hearing, it would be impossible to handle every case. Senator Biden is also a strong supporter of copyright. In 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a harsher position on copyright violation. A noteworthy effort on Biden’s part is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which made it a felony to forge keys to use for counterfeit software or to operate unauthorized computer programs. He also co-founded and co-chaired the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus. Other noteworthy legislation on Biden’s repertoire includes S.1738 and S.223. Biden sponsored Senate Bill S.1738 to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, among other things. S. 223, which he co-sponsored, requires senate candidates to file designations, reports, and statements in electronic form. Senator Biden was also a challenger of the FISA reform bill, strongly opposing warentless wiretapping.

On one hand, we have the fresh face of Sarah Palin, who seems more concerned about oil than technological and internet issues. On the other hand, there is the well-known face of Senator Biden, who seems to have realized the importance of these issues. Who will have your vote?

Author: Kristin Cox

Everyone knows about the crazy never-ending controversy between evolutionists and creationists. Obviously, creationists believe in a creator, a being bigger than themselves that they cannot understand who made the world and everything in it. Evolutionists stand on the objective side, claiming science as their defense, arguing that we have evolved from primitive living organisms. Perhaps after enduring the debate you may question, is that absolutely all there is? Is there no middle ground – no alternative thinking? The answer is a resounding “no”. There are many who make their stand upon the base of something else called intelligent design. Intelligent design refers to a different kind of scientific research program consisting of philosophers, researchers, and all kinds various scientists who are out to prove design in nature. It does not emphasize natural selection, rather it puts the spotlight on an intelligent cause. So how does all of this connect with the profound world of politics? Where do our future leaders of the US stand on this pressing issue? Astoundingly when the question arose in the first Republican presidential debate about whether or not anyone present believed in evolution, only three raised their hands against the theory. Perhaps this is not true evidence of the opinions of our politicians, but rather a confirmation that many are playing it safe when asked about something so highly controversial. All three of the ones who raised their hands at the debate dropped out of the election.

When asked by the York Daily Record about evolutionism vs. creationism Barack Obama answered that he is an evolutionist and expressed his opinion that science and faith are two very different things, and should be treated as such. John McCain is also an evolution supporter. When asked about his views, he stated his belief in evolution, but also his respect for those who can say boldly that the earth was created in 7 days. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a creationist. She is also firm in her beliefs.

It is important to know our leaders’ value systems and crucial for them to be leaders who are not afraid to state what they believe in. This topic of evolution is widely discussed in our society, and therefore plays a significant role in who we are as a public. As an active democracy, US politicians obviously concerned with public interest. And one thing the public are wildly interested in as of recent is a new game called “Spore.” This trendy online game has exploded into the hands of the public, allowing the player to control the evolution of species from its unicellular state, allowing the player to serve as an intelligent designer. This game officially came out in the United States on September 7^th and has been extremely popular, occupying the computers of people all over the world. It is exceedingly advertised, strongly recommended, and in high demand. Obviously the debate on evolution is a popular one; it is something that triggers interest in the human mind! For this reason this disputed topic cannot be ignored in politics.

For information about legislative bills concerning scientific and technological education capabilities, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

Does anyone remember when presidential candidate John McCain called for a Gas Tax “Holiday” in April of 08 as Americans were priming themselves for the most expensive fuel prices experienced yet? We can’t help but imagine what our current policies would look like now, how McCain’s campaign would be affected, and whether or not such a shallow, short-term policy would have truly garnered any extra respect for this Arizona Senator. What I am proposing over this Presidential season is an “Election Holiday” – a break from the constant bombardment of details on the 08 Presidential Campaign and its affairs. A break that will allow us to recharge in the same manner that gas tax alleviation would have been appreciated, if only for a short amount of time. The logic between the two is actually quite similar.

McCain was simply looking for a near sighted relief to a growing present problem – one that affects a widespread population and tends to distract from greater economic and political goals. Why wouldn’t a break from the Presidential Election mumbo jumbo not equally be appreciated? This is not to undermine our political system or our adapted form of democracy, but to instead propose a new break along the same line of thought that many politicians seek short-term relief policies for – a time to reset, reflect, and recharge. In the haste and intensity of such a historical election it is important to not get lost in partisan politics nor details that are less consequential (i.e. Palin’s granddaughter scandal or Obama’s contagious smile). At such a crucial crossroads in American politics, we need not stray from our grander goals for reform – ranging from our current burdensome military policies to our aging infrastructure system, to our increasing tensions with our not-so-friends overseas. Let’s work for reform. Let’s work to not lose sight of our more intrinsic need for meaningful policies and get America where she needs to be.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/election-relief-holiday/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-stance http://www.statesurge.com/news/palins-stance#comments Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:59:57 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=91 It seems this Presidential election will bring about some firsts in United States history: a black man as president or a woman as vice president. The announcement of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain's Vice President has definitely evoked a strong reaction throughout the nation. Perhaps that is what the "maverick" was looking for?]]> Author: Crystal Fontaine

It seems this Presidential election will bring about some firsts in United States history: a black man as president or a woman as vice president. The announcement of the Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as McCain’s Vice President has definitely evoked a strong reaction throughout the nation. Perhaps that is what the “maverick” was looking for? It has been highly noted that Palin lacks experience with only two years as Governor and before that a Mayor. Despite her lack of experience in foreign policy and such, Palin does have much experience with the general public, especially those in Alaska. What the real question we should be asking does not involve experience, but where does she stand on the issues.

Senator McCain announced Palin as someone “who can best help me shake up Washington”. Palin took office on December 4, 2006 as the first woman Governor of Alaska. As Governor, her top priorities have been transportation development, public health and safety, education and workforce development and resource development. The Palin Administration invested five billion dollars in state savings, implemented the Senior Benefits Program, and overhauled education funding. Governor Palin is well known for her advocacy in drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska, specifically the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Ironically, McCain and Palin have differing views concerning the topic. McCain opposes drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, while his opponent Obama supports the idea. Governor Palin agrees with Obama about completion of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. Also, Palin fought against legislation, sponsored by Senator Lieberman, which intended to designate the Artic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. She created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office, which provides oversight and maintenance of oil and gas equipment and facilities.

Although a bit of an outsider in the Republican Party, Palin has shown fearlessness throughout her years as Mayor and as Governor. She has gained a reputation of political purity, trying to clean up the mess of corruption. For instance, she resigned as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission due to the deficiency of ethics moral principles in other Republican members. Palin left frustrated after her complaints of conflict of interests and legal violations within the committee. Governor Palin has served as chair of other committees as well. She currently serves as chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, promoting the preservation and effective recovery of domestic oil and natural gas while still protecting the environment, public safety, and health. Recently, she was appointed chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource Committee. The committee pursues legislation to guarantee state needs are considered as federal policy is created in the areas of energy, environmental protection, agriculture, etc. She has passed two major pieces of legislation to overhaul state ethic laws and a completive process to construct a gas pipeline. In addition, Palin submitted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. The legislation is to act as a medium to get natural gas pipelines built and bring state’s extensive gas reserves to the market.

John McCain is known as the “maverick” in this campaign for presidency. Perhaps that is the very reason he chose Governor Palin to be his running mate. Together, they may indeed be the ticket to shake up Capital Hill and even the nation. “Leaders don’t wait. They shape their own frontiers. The bigger the challenge, the greater the opportunity” – Anonymous.

Author: Sara Hilbert

The McCain Campaign not only recently announced their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin this Friday, they shocked us with it. Over these last view days America has searched, googled, and gossiped about the life of this Alaskan Governor.

Sarah Palin was born February 11, 1964 in Idaho and raised in Skagway, Alaska. Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho and married a lifelong commercial fisherman Todd. Nevertheless her most important role is being a mother of 5 children; Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Her involvement in the lives of her kids lead to her first major political move. Beginning at local PTA meetings, then moving on to city council, where she served two terms in 1992 and 1996 in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla for two consecutive terms in 1996 and 1999. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of the state of Alaska, becoming the states youngest and only female governor. But how will Palin handle the change of small town responsibilities to leading a country of 300 million? Once sworn in office, will Sarah Palin be following McCain around wondering what to do? This is not a sexist comment, but rather a question regarding her experience. The stage lights are a lot brighter in Washington than Juneau. Regardless of her good judgment and morale, Sarah Palin will be silently sitting in her inexperience at the defense meetings. Instead of bringing solid expertise and knowledge, she will try to take her backwoods data and weigh it to the country.

An additional point of question is the relationship between John McCain and Sarah Palin. The president and vice president don’t have to be the best pals; however, in order to be the most effective, they must be a comfortable and highly compatible combination. Compared to other choices like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, and Joe Lieberman, it is hard to convince us that this is a running mate that John McCain desired.

This claimed maverick reformer exploded this week at the GOP convention with a strong confidence. Palin made sure we knew she was not here to get a good opinion column from critics, but to stand up for the American people. With little known about her past records and law making, I wonder if she knows that she can’t clean house in Washington when they do not agree with her.

Does the Republican party really believe in her? Do they hope her small business background and same-as-us attitude will bring a more balanced approach to the candidate? Or has this become a poor strategy to win leftover Hilary votes? We have to look further down the road and ask, if in Washington will Governor Sarah Palin be ready?

Author: Jared Fallon

The word “change” has become one of the most paramount and beaten to death aspects of the 2008 Presidential Election. Given the average American’s view of President Bush and the War in Iraq, for most people it is no wonder that such a simple slogan could literally be the one-word brand that reminds everyone of Barack Obama – a man of many firsts. Aside from landmarks such as being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and the first African American nominated for President by the Democratic Party, the dimensions Obama brings to this Presidential race are deep. The intriguing thing about Obama’s strategy for running predominately on the concept of change is that his VP pick is exactly the opposite of the kind of change that many Obama supporters desire.

Joe Biden is a seasoned product of the Hill that began his political career as a Delaware Senator when Obama was only 10 years old. Since then he has made many landmarks – most of which are not “change”, but a reincarnation of what many Obama supporters are avoiding the Republican Party for. Biden was not only awarded the “Face for the Future” by Time Magazine his first senatorial term but now stands as the sixth-longest serving senator in history. To get some insight into the long list of legislation Biden has been involved in, click here. For Obama and Biden dual-sponsored bills, click here. Is this the type of “change” Obama’s supporters are looking for? Obama might have just killed his chances.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

The issue of energy is a popular, but very important, topic in the 2008 presidential race. It is an issue that reaches all of us, especially in our pocketbooks. As the election draws ever closer and recent spikes in gas prices begin to fall, we are faced with the decision that may either lead us towards greater energy independence and efficiency or leave us in the same ole’ rut.

John McCain’s strategy, or the Lexington Project, proposes to expand domestic oil and natural gas production as well as fund for alternatives in energy. He believes in lifting restrictions on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, putting our own reserves to use. According to McCain’s campaign website, the Outer Continental Shelf contains 77 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. McCain would push automakers, issuing a Clean Car Challenge that would create a substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. While McCain supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles, he also supports the market for alternative energy sources, such as Solar Energy and Hydro. He proposes a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for fully electric vehicles and Plug-In Hybrids. In addition, McCain supports Nuclear Energy, which is a proven source of zero emission. The French may actually be on to something here, if we’d only pay attention. Currently, nuclear energy produces only 20% of our power. McCain’s goal is to construct 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, eventually constructing 100 new plants.

Obama provides a different strategy. He would like to crack down on excessive energy speculation by closing market loopholes and increasing transparency in order to thwart traders from unjustly lining their pockets. The plan calls for a swap of light oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for heavy crude oil to help bring down those ghastly oil prices. Obama would like to see an increase in fuel economy standards, while establishing a national low carbon fuel standard to reduce carbon in fuels 10% by 2020. Also, there would be a “use it or lose it” approach concerning oil and gas leases. Under this approach, oil companies must develop 68 million acres of land which are leased but aren’t drilled in. He promotes responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas, prioritizing the assembly of the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline. Although he suppors more domestic production of oil and natural gas, Obama realizes the need for better and cleaner energy. He proposes $1 million of Plug-In Hybrids to be on the road by 2015. A $7000 tax credit would be created for purchasing advanced vehicles. In addition, Obama would ensure that 10% of electricity would come from renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025.

Since man has walked the Earth, we have developed new and innovative ways to power our world, whether it was wood, coal, and now petroleum. What’s next on the list? Only time will tell. Whoever is elected this November cannot ignore the need for alternative energy sources.

Sources:
www.johnmccain.com
www.barackobama.com

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

We all make choices every day. In November 2008, we must make a tough decision concerning the future leadership of our nation. Will it be John McCain or Barack Obama? One of the foremost concerns of the American public is the economy. Each candidate presents plans to solve, or at least help, our economic woes.

John McCain provides an economic plan that is to help relieve the American people. McCain’s plan involves a decrease in the price of oil and an increase in the value of the dollar. He believes a summer gas tax holiday should be implemented, suspending the 24.4 cent diesel tax and the 18.4 cent federal gas tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. According to McCain, small business is the ticket to economic growth. He intends to help small business by reducing individual tax rates and permitting access to capital from small tax rates on dividends and capital gains. McCain would like to curtail expensive mandates as well as boost international competitiveness to keep jobs here in the United States. The mortgage crisis has affected many Americans all of the country; therefore, McCain proposes a new “Home Plan” to help those in need. This “Home Plan” would provide timely, vigorous, and targeted help. In addition, McCain’s plan calls for reform in Social Security and control of Medicare growth by supplementing current Social Security with personal accounts and improving on quality care.

Obama plans to jumpstart the economy through tax relief and relief for the current housing crisis. Obama proposes to establish $10 billion in a Foreclosure Prevention Fund as well as $10 billion in relief for state and local governments that were stricken powerfully by the housing crisis to avoid cuts in fundamental services. In order to protect home ownership and crack down on mortgage fraud, Obama resolves to create a new FHA Housing Security Program. He believes in mandating an accurate loan disclosure, requiring a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit Score. In addition, he pledges for more accountability in the subprime mortgage industry. Obama’s plan includes a “Making Work Pay” tax credit, which could be up to $500 per person and $1,000 per family. He would also like to simplify tax filings for the Middle Class. Like McCain, Obama supports small business. A national network of public-private business incubators would be created, investing $250 million per year.

Whether Democrat, Republican, or out in the mid-field, we as United States citizens have a very important and tough decision to make this election year. Perhaps to make the decision easier, we should leave Florida out in this one. Just kidding, folks.

To learn more visit: www.johnmccain.com or www.barackobama.com

In our first election satire since 2004’s “This Land” and “Good to be in DC”, we bid farewell to Bush and give Obama and Mccain a proper JibJab hazing! And, of course, who could forget about Hillary and Bill? This rip-roaring musical romp gives the election process the proper spanking it deserves!

ENJOY!

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

As a young American in the 21st century, I have never known oppression. I have never longed for freedom because I was born free with the ability to make my own choices and be whoever I want. Thousands every day live in fear of just speaking their own minds. As Americans we look on to those nations of tyranny half-way across the world. We sympathize, but never truly realize. One such nation lives in our very own backyard just 90 miles off the tip of Florida. That nation is Cuba.

US-Cuban relations have been virtually non-existent for decades. Since 1961, official US policy has been economic embargo and diplomatic isolation. Key issues for America’s “beef” with the island nation arise from human rights violations, Guantanamo Bay, and the Cuban exile community living in Southern Florida. During his administration, President Bush has kept things tight concerning Cuba. Americans may only visit immediate family once every 3 years with an allowance of up to $300 to carry into Cuba. In 2003, President Bush established the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, where several Cuban-Americans sit. Under the CAFC, a fund called the “Cuba Fund for a Democratic Future” was developed to support independent civil society, finance university scholarships, and break the information barricade in Cuba.  Congress has been a little more lenient on the island by amending the trade embargo to allow agricultural exports from the U.S. to Cuba.

Earlier in 2008, Fidel Castro stepped down and relinquished command to his brother, Raul. Who else better to leave your throne to than family? The change in power has sparked a debate on future US-Cuban relations. Raul seems to have indicated a willingness to at least listen to what the U.S government has to say. Perhaps it hasn’t gotten as much media time as the energy debate, but Cuba is still an important topic for the 2008 Presidential race. McCain and Obama have similar, yet different views concerning Cuba. John McCain would keep the embargo in place and not permit economic aid. In general, he has voted in support of restrictions on Cuba. In 1992, he cosponsored the Cuban Democracy Act. According to McCain, he would “press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media and to schedule internationally monitored elections”. Barack Obama would also not lift the embargo unless Cuba liberates its political prisoners, start instituting free press and take other steps to democratize. He has voted twice to cut off TV Marti Funding.  However, Obama looks to stabilize relations at some point. He would allocate for unrestricted family travel and remittance to the island. In his May 2008 speech in Miami, Obama stated “There are no better ambassadors for Freedom than Cuban-Americans”.

The change in leadership within both nations may bring about more diplomatic relations in the future. Perhaps, one day we will see a free Cuba.

Even the McCain camp did not find the cover to be in good taste. John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds agreed with Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who stated “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

AUTHOR: Megan Yarbrough

Keeping up with the candidates and their individual details can be difficult at times. This article, designed as a quick overview of four of the current presidential candidates, will help you feel and appear knowledgeable.

U.S. Senator John McCain (Republican)

Biographical Background
John McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, later serving as a pilot in the Vietnam War. During his service, he spent five years as a prisoner of war. McCain was elected to Congress in 1982, representing the 1st congressional district of Arizona. Four years later, he was elected to the Senate. He is now a senior senator and serves on the committee of commerce, committee of science and transportation, and the committee of Indian Affairs. McCain has seven kids and four grandchildren. Currently, McCain and his wife, Cindy, reside in Phoenix, Arizona.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: According to Senator John McCain’s statement on stem cell research, McCain realizes that stem cell research may provide new cures and treatments for diseases. He supports funding for adult stem cell research and other stem cell research provided that it does not involve the use of human embryos. He also supports legislation to ban the creation of human embryos, by any means, for scientific use. Additionally, he believes that scientists should only be able to conduct embryonic stem cell research on embryos that were leftover from in vitro fertilization and would otherwise be frozen or destroyed. The use of embryos in embryonic stem cell research, in his opinion, should be contingent upon the donor initially being aware that embryos adoption is an option, and then only later being informed of the ability to donate them to research. Written consent should be received and financial compensation should be illegal.

Education: McCain believes that the public school system is in need of reform. He supports the creation of additional recruiting and training for teachers, paid for through funding by the federal government. Furthermore, he believes that annual reports on the school’s performance should be available to the public. McCain is a strong advocate of the voucher, or school-choice, system that would allow parents to choose which school their child would benefit from the most. He believes that the voucher system would give disadvantage children a better chance of succeeding and improve the overall performance of schools.

U.S Senator Barrack Obama (Democrat)

Biographical Background
Married with two children, Malia and Sasha, Obama currently lives in Illinois. Born in Hawaii, he moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, with his mom and stepfather when he was six years old. He lived there for four years before returning to Hawaii to be raised, for the most part, by his grandparents. He attended Columbia University and later graduated from Harvard Law School.  Obama has always had a strong interest in civil rights and started his career working in Chicago as a community organizer. He served on the state senate for seven years. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have two children.

Issues
Stem Cell Research: Barrack Obama believes that stem cell research has the ability to cure many diseases that currently are difficult, or impossible, to cure. He supports the use of stem cell research, and realizes the limitations of the research on only adult and umbilical cord cells. Therefore, he does support embryonic stem cell research provided that it is done on the embryos that would otherwise be discarded. He also feels that review boards should monitor all scientific research involving embryonic research.

Education: Senator Obama supports an increase in funding for the early education program, Head Start. He supports a plan that involves all school district’s submitting a plan for improving their school through reforms. The top twenty plans would be accepted, and those schools would receive additional funding to implement their plans provided that they show results. He is also an advocate of the Step Up program (Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Progress) that would provide disadvantaged students with summer learning opportunities. Additionally, Obama supports an increase in the maximum of federal grant money available to future college students.

It can be challenging to research and understand each candidate running for the presidency. However, next time someone strikes up a conversation about the differences in the candidates, you will have some knowledge of the candidates.

Sources:
www.cnn.com
www.washingtonpost.com
mccain.senate.gov
www.exploremccain.com
www.newyorker.com
obama.senate.gov

By Jackson Boyer

With November drawing ever closer, more and more questions are being asked regarding the two remaining candidates for President of the United States. While each party is doing their fair share of political name-calling, one argument particularly stung the Republican candidate in his battle for the White House: how old is too old? While the younger (and some say, more spry) Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is a mere 44 years old, the Republican nominee John McCain is 72; old enough to be his father. Even though John McCain has had almost 20 years of Senate experience, the issue of how his age could possibly affect his judgment in office has been raised. Following is a list of four great American Presidents who were considered “over the political hill” before being elected as President, but when given the chance, accomplished great things.

Most Republicans consider Ronald Reagan to have been the single most economically effective presidents of all time. During his two terms in office, Reagan not only lowered taxes for the average American but also helped mitigate the country of more than a decade of recession. Reagan also helped bring about the end of the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War; needless to say, his fight against communism was one that has echoed throughout the ages. He was 69 years old when he took office in 1981.

Harry S. Truman faced some of the most difficult decisions of any leader throughout history. Truman authorized the use of nuclear weapons on Japan, forcing the end to WWII and saving countless lives that would have been lost had the war persisted. He also made great strives socially, with the implementation of the Fair Deal which was aimed at helping the vast number of Americans still suffering from the Great Depression. Truman was almost 61 years old when he rose to the challenge of leading the free world during one of its most troubling times.

Dwight D. Eisenhower not only led America, but also led the entirety of the Allied forces in WWII as their supreme commander. Eisenhower also helped form NATO with other allies in Europe after WWII and became its first Supreme Commander in 1951, all before even becoming president. While in office, he put pressure on communism, helped oversee Korean ceasefire, formed NASA and advocated social change by proposing and enacting the Civil Rights Acts of 1957. He accomplished all of this while establishing the construction of the Interstate Highway System, which now stretches across the US for more than 46,000 miles. Someone who liberated Europe, generated worldwide peace and launched a fundamental space research organization must have been young, right? Eisenhower was 62 years young when he took office in 1953.

John Adams, the United States second president and first vice-president, is an example of how little age hinders ones ability to lead. Adams was an advocate for the US’ independence even before the revolution occurred. Serving as the representative of the Continental Congress in Europe, he helped negotiate America’s independence from and peace with Great Britain. During his presidency, Adams helped enact a number of strong domestic policies that are still used as models for today’s law making. Adams, one of the most significant founding fathers of our country, was 61 when he took office in 1797…an almost unheard of age for the time.

These individuals were given the opportunity to lead the US and made great progress for our country. It is ignorant to cast aside someone’s experience and proven track record simply because of their age, as so many are attempting to do with Senator McCain. The men listed were the brightest of the bunch, and as they aged, only gained more experience and expertise. It is in my opinion that John McCain, and the like, are like a fine wine and only get better with age.

Japan’s Obama City residents send congratulatory messages to Barack Obama after Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

AUTHOR: Billy Skid

We’ve been hearing a lot about experience in the presidential campaign this year, and we’ve been told that experience is the most important qualification to be President. Well here’s a list of five great American Presidents who, before the job, has less experience in government than Barack Obama will have had if he wins in November.

Andrew Jackson

Prior to becoming President, Andrew Jackson had been military governor of Florida for one year, Congressman for one year and a Senator for three years. Of course, he’d also been a general, and Americans do love their general presidents, but before becoming President he had a total of five years in government service. Obama will have twelve.

Abraham Lincoln

It’s almost bizarre, but before becoming our greatest President, Lincoln had served only two years in the House of Representatives, during which he vocally opposed the Mexican-American War as a war of imperial aggression. (Sound familiar?) Just two years of government service. The rest of the time he spent lawyering around the state of Illinois. (Sound familiar?) Oh yeah. To win the nomination, he had to defeat an immensely popular New York senator in the primaries. (Sound familiar?)

Teddy Roosevelt

Two years governor of New York, six months Vice-President of the United States. That’s it. He was also only 42 years old when he took the job, four years younger than Barack.

Woodrow Wilson

Just two years as Governor of New Jersey. Prior to that, he’d been a college professor, much like Barack has been a college professor, and a college president. And, like Barack and Teddy Roosevelt, he’d written some books, though neither Wilson nor Roosevelt wrote a book nearly as good as either of Obama’s.

Franklin Roosevelt

The guy who rivals Lincoln and Washington for the title of the greatest president, FDR, before taking the job, had been Governor of New York for four years, state senator for two years and Assistant Secretary of the Navy for seven years. All right, so that’s one more year of experience in government than Obama, but only a year.

The point is that while McCain and Clinton keep harping on experience as a crucial ingredient to being a great President, our own American history has shown that experience in government doesn’t really matter. What matters is wisdom, judgment, empathy and compassion. And Barack Obama has no shortage of any of those.