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: 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: 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.

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.

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.