On November 4th, we will face a choice for our next president: two patriots running for the highest office in land because they believe that America’s better days are yet to come. It is a clear and distinct choice: a senior Senator from Arizona who has served this nation heroically in uniform, but who is offering little in terms of taking this country in a new direction. John McCain himself has said that “on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” We also have a young Senator from Illinois who is offering a different kind of politics — of hope and change. “ We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight,” he has said. The candidates are offering two distinct directions for the future of our economy and our country. Senator Obama’s plan is the more progressive and forward looking — albeit ambitious — one. But since when have hope and ambition become a no-no in America?

Today we meet at one of those pivotal moments when history calls upon us once again. We meet at a time when our economy is in trouble, our country is at war on two fronts, Main Street is hurting and Wall Street is in the middle of the worst crises since the Great Depression. We meet at a time when our soldiers are dying in war that should have never been fought, Americans are working more for less, forty seven million of us have no health insurance and more than two million are facing foreclosures. We meet at a time when the world is yearning for American leadership to meet the common challenges of climate change and global warming, of poverty and disease, and of terrorism and nuclear proliferation; at a time when America’s image abroad has been tarnished by an administration that has little regard for the fundamental values of the United States or the Constitution that binds them together. At a time for solutions — when a deficit of leadership has led to record deficits and debt — Washington has only given us more of the same old politics of division and partisanship. Washington has let us down and the Bush Administration has failed us — over and over again for nearly a decade. It is time for Change.

Moving forward, it is going take a “working majority,” a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, as well as Independents, to get the job done. We need a president who can inspire us to take action, reach across the aisle to find the solutions we so desperately need and restore America’s image abroad. The politics of the past eight years has not and will not work. It is time for a new course and a new direction.

I am voting for Senator Obama because he has inspired me to believe that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America” and that “the men and women who serve in our battlefields … have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag.” That “they have not served a Red America or a Blue America — they have served the United States of America.” He has inspired me to believe in the American promise, the common decency of individuals and the common hopes and dreams that unite us all. My experiences as a grassroots volunteer have only reaffirmed this belief — in Republican neighborhoods in Ohio, as well as the projects on the east side of Richmond; in small towns like Scranton & in big cities like Philadelphia. Barack Obama does not just offer change as a slogan, he has lived it — as a community organizer and later as a civil rights lawyer when he had other, more lucrative alternatives. That says a lot about this man’s character. He does not preach hope with blind optimism but rather with the belief that “ together ordinary people can do extraordinary things” and that “nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.”

We have seen much of the same old fear-mongering and dirty politics of the past in this election and we will see more. But “in the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?” I have chosen the politics of hope and I hope you will join me in voting for Barack Obama as our next president on November 4th.

On election night, Nov. 4, we will have the answers to several key questions that have emerged during the course of this campaign. Here are a few things to look for.

Can McCain close a 6 to 8 percent gap in national tracking polls within a week of election day? If so, how? In 1980, Reagan closed in on Carter and in 2000, Gore closed in on Bush after being behind before the last week of the campaign. If McCain is going to win, his campaign would need to take a similar turn.

Can Obama be the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter (1980) to win a majority of the popular vote? And, if so, by how much? If not, how could he fail to lose given all the advantages he has going into Election Day?

How many “red” states can Obama turn “blue;” can McCain turn any “blue” states “red?” In order for Obama to win the election, he will need to carry enough states to gain at least 18 more Electoral College votes than John Kerry won in 2004. Whereas McCain is only competing in a few states that voted for Kerry (Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin), Obama is competing in numerous states that voted for Bush: Virginia, Florida, North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada (not to mention Georgia and West Virginia).

Will Virginia be one of those red states to vote for Obama? All eyes will be on Virginia in the early moments of election night. Since polls in Virginia close at 7 p.m., it will be the first battleground state that Bush won in 2004 to report results. Thus, Virginia will be a bellwether state on election night. If McCain holds Virginia, he has a chance; if Obama wins the state, he is almost certain to win the election.

What role will race play in voting behavior? Although many skeptics believe polling results are unreliable indicators of voting preferences, the exit poll results from 2004 provide important benchmarks. Note that partisan voting preferences were divided along racial lines in the last election. In 2004, 77 percent of voters nationwide were white, and 58 percent voted for Bush, the Republican, whereas among the 11 percent of African Americans who voted, 88 percent voted for Kerry, the Democrat.

What effect will young voters have on the outcome? In 2004, 18 to 29 year olds made up 17 percent of the vote and 54 percent voted for Kerry. Obama will do well if the percentage of 18 to 29 year olds increases and/or a larger proportion of them vote for Obama.

Will the economy be the deciding issue during the campaign? In 2004, the economy, terrorism, moral values and Iraq were all considered important issues to voters. Recent polls have shown the economy is the dominant issue and people believe Obama will do a better job than McCain in handling the economy. If this trend holds up, it will go a long way toward explaining the results; if not, a change in the issue mix may create an opportunity for McCain.

Will we see record voting turnout? In 2004, a record number of people, 122 million, voted; some prognosticators say the number could reach 140 million this year.

By the time those questions are answered, most Americans, thankful that the long campaign is over, will pay much less attention to politics.

But, of course, that is when a whole host of new and interesting questions will arise.

I don’t have any inseparable allegiance to any political party, but I am a conservative. I believe in limited government, personal responsibility, and capitalism. This election cycle has presented some interesting choices, so for what little it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the choice before us.

Barack Obama has attempted to portray himself as a moderate, but the facts tell a different story. He has been consistently voted as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, holding a more straight party-line voting record than almost any other federal office-holder. Beyond his statistically proven unwillingness to engage in bipartisanship, Obama has ridden on the waves of hope and change into the national political spotlight with very little experience. The challenges America faces in the next four years are great and daunting, and Obama simply does not have the experience to handle U.S. foreign policy at the presidential level.

When it comes to economic policy, Obama has advocated on numerous occasions for what can almost be described as a redistribution of wealth. Add to this a huge tax increase in a time of economic downturn, and America is in for real trouble. What’s even more unnerving are Obama’s ties to radical characters of his past. He admits in his own book that he was attracted to Marxist professors. He sat in the church of the racist, America-loathing Rev. Jeremiah Wright for more than 20 years. And Obama started his career in the Chicago political machine under the wing of an unrepentant domestic terrorist — Bill Ayers. The truth is that we really don’t know who Barack Obama is. His voting record is slim, he hasn’t served as an executive, and his past associations are dubious.

Is John McCain a real conservative? No. But when faced with the choice, McCain offers unmatched experience dealing with foreign affairs. He is a supporter of the free market and holds a reasonably conservative position on most issues. Unlike Obama, he has a record of reaching across the aisle to work on difficult issues (though sometimes to the detriment of conservative causes). McCain is a man we know, and we have seen him serve Americans for years, even from before he was in elected office. While even I have minor disagreements with him, McCain is a man of principle who really does put country first.

So as you go to the ballot box on Tuesday, I’m not asking you to vote for McCain because I’m some party hack with a vested interest in him winning. I’m asking you to vote for McCain because I think he’s better for America. And whoever you vote for, vote for the right reasons. Don’t vote for amorphous and undefined change for the sake of change. Don’t vote for (or against) Obama based on race. Don’t vote for a candidate because it’s the popular thing to do. Look at the issues and make an informed decision.

This is a high stakes election. The next president is likely to shape the policies that will affect us as we go out into the workforce, start paying back our college loans, and begin raising a family. It’s too important to take lightly.

On Nov. 4, Americans from all walks of life will partake in a sacred civic tradition that began more than 200 years ago with the election of George Washington as the first democratically elected leader of the free world. Much has changed since 1789 but what continues to unite Americans of all colors and creeds are the same values that led a band of patriots to stand up to the mightiest empire tin existence and declare that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These values were to be tested as we sought to perfect our union over the years and freedom lived on because time and again, Americans rose up and met the challenges that faced them. That is the genius of this nation: every election, the people have the opportunity to renew their government and elect leaders that can rise up and meet the challenges with them.

Today, we meet at one of those pivotal points when history calls upon us once again. We meet at a time when our economy is in trouble, our country is at war on two fronts, when Main Street is hurting and Wall Street is in the middle of the worst crises since the Great Depression. We meet at a time when our soldiers are dying in a war that should have never been fought, when Americans are working harder for less, when 47 million of us have no health insurance and more than 2 million are facing foreclosures. We meet at a time when the world is yearning for American leadership to meet the common challenges of the 21st century — of climate change and global warming, of poverty and disease, and terrorism and nuclear proliferation. We meet at a time when America’s image abroad has been tarnished by an administration that has little regard for the values of the United States or the Constitution that binds the country together.

A time when a deficit of leadership has led to record deficits and debt, at a time for solutions, Washington has only given us more of the same old politics of division and partisanship. At a time for diplomacy, Washington pursued a “with us or against us” approach to international relations. At a time for a new direction Washington is looking back and playing the blame game, Washington has let us down and the Bush Administration has failed us — not once but over and over again for nearly a decade. It is time for Change.

On Nov. 4, we will be faced with a choice for the next president of the United States of America: two patriots who have served this nation and who are running for the highest office in land because they believe that America’s better days are yet to come.

But it is a clear choice: on one hand, we have a senior senator from Arizona who has served this nation heroically in uniform, but who is offering little in terms of taking this country in a new direction. John McCain himself has said that, “on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” On the other hand, we have a young Senator from Illinois who is offering a different kind of politics and a new approach — a politics of hope and of real, meaningful change in how business is conducted in Washington.

“We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight,” he has said.

And on issue after issue there is an every apparent contrast between the two.

On the economy, Barack Obama is offering a new stimulus package — something the McCain camp once mocked, but which has now been proposed by the Fed and Treasury as well as the Bush White House. Obama is proposing tax cuts for the 95 percent of American families at a time when they need it most. John McCain wants to continue the Bush-tax policies for the richest corporations and people in America, which, by the time of their expiration, will have cost us $1.3 trillion. Apart from that, it is also a matter of judgment when it comes to dealing with the financial crisis. On Sept. 15, the same day the Dow Jones industrial average plunged more than 500 points, John McCain said, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

On Sept. 24, he “suspended” his campaign because America was facing “a historic crisis in our financial system” and “we must pass legislation to address this crisis.” Obama showed leadership, temperament and good judgment — as he has with other issues — and laid out a six-point plan to deal with the economic crisis.

On the war in Iraq, Obama showed the right judgment in 2002 before we went into Iraq in opposing a war that he said would “require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences … that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.”

McCain, by contrast, argued that “we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time” and that “there’s no doubt in my mind that once these people (the Saddam Hussein regime) are gone that we will be welcomed as liberators.” Obama’s proposal for timetable for withdrawal and calls for diplomacy — long dismissed and mocked by the Republicans — are now being pursued by the Bush Administration. How about electing someone who gets it right the first time?

On education, Obama offers $4,000 toward college tuition for students and will in return ask our young people to volunteer to serve their communities. He wants to make sure that every young man and woman who wants to go to college can do so, regardless of his or her ability to pay. He also wants to invest in early childhood education and improve teaching science and math. McCain seeks to improve the No Child Left Behind Act, but offers no tax credit toward tuition costs.

On health care, Obama believes it is the right of every American to have access to affordable and accessible health care, which is why he is proposing $50-65 billion to help lower premiums for all families and save American taxpayers, on average, $2,500 per year. John McCain’s plan is to give $5,000 for use toward health care costs — which will be taxed — while the average cost is $12,000 annually.

On the environment, both Obama and Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware acknowledge the existence of global warming as a man-made phenomenon and believe we must take action to fight it. Obama plans to invest in cleaner, renewable energy sources and new technologies that would eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil in ten years. His energy plan will lead to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. McCain’s plan is similar in some aspects, but does not contain the 10-year goal of eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, it aims at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050. The McCain camp’s slogan and solution for dealing with high gas prices has been “drill here, drill now.” However, currently there are about 70 million acres of leased areas — both offshore and on land — that the oil companies are not even drilling in. Further, drilling would not affect gas prices in the near future as the oil could take a decade to make it into the market — not to mention it could destroy wildlife preserves, such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Obama is not opposed to all drilling, but insists that because “we cannot drill our way out of the problem,” we must pursue a more cohesive and comprehensive plan to achieve energy independence and fight global warming.

The above-mentioned are only some of the main issues and the different approaches the candidates have taken in addressing them. When it comes down to it, we have two candidates who are offering two distinct directions for the future of our economy and our country. Obama’s plan is the more progressive and forward looking one — albeit ambitious. But since when has ambition and hope become negative things? It is hope, ambition and the search for new frontiers that has made this country the greatest nation on Earth.

Whether we agree with a certain candidate’s proposals, the important thing to keep in mind is that they are just that: proposals. It is going take what Obama has called a “working majority,” a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, to get the job done. It is going to take a president who is willing and able to reach across the aisle, to encourage and inspire not just members of his own party but of the other one as well, to accomplish the solutions that we so desperately need. We also need a president who will restore America’s image abroad through tough diplomacy and through working in concert with our allies to meet the common challenges we face. The partisan politics of the last eight years and the “with us or against us” mentality have not worked and will not work. It is time for a new course, a new direction. It is time for Change.

I am voting for Obama because he has inspired me to believe that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America” and that “the men and women who serve in our battlefields … have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag.” That “they have not served a Red America or a Blue America — they have served the United States of America.” He has inspired me to believe in the common decency of every person, a belief in the American promise and the common hopes and dreams that unite us all. My experiences as a grassroots volunteer have only reaffirmed my belief in those principles — in a Republican neighborhood in Ohio and in the projects on the East side of Richmond, in small towns like Scranton and in big cities like Philadelphia, alike.

Barack Obama does not just offer change as a slogan, he has lived it — as a community organizer and later as a civil rights lawyer at a time when he had other, more lucrative alternatives. That says a lot about a person’s character. He does not preach hope with blind optimism, but rather with the belief that “together ordinary people can do extraordinary things” and that “nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices for change.”

We have seen much of the same old fear-mongering and dirty politics of the past in this election and we will continue to see more. But “in the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?”

I have chosen the politics of hope, and I hope you will join me in voting for Barack Obama as our next president.

In 1982, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley was poised to become the first African-American governor in history, leading his rival by 9 points or higher by some estimates. Come election day, he lost the race — giving birth to the so-called Bradley Effect phenomenon. The question in 2008 is whether such an effect may be over-inflating Senator Obama’s lead over John McCain in pre-election polls showing him leading by an average of 8 points. What historical trends and recent research on race as a factor—not to mention the record number of new registrations — lead us to believe is that the Bradley Effect will not be a factor against Senator Obama in the outcome of this election. Furthermore, the so-called Facebook Effect may mean a net-gain for the Senator from Illinois.

The first argument against the Bradley Effect as a factor in the 2008 election is that it happened a quarter century ago. Subsequent elections in the 1980s and early 1990s, such as Doug Wilder’s bid for Governor of Virginia, provided supporting evidence for the effect as more African-American candidates underperformed the polls — regardless of whether they lost or won. However, in more recent elections African-American candidates’ performances have been consistent with pre-election public opinion polls. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Harold Ford, Jr. are often cited as examples of African-American candidates who performed very close to pre-election predictions.

Furthermore, while it is argued that the Bradley Effect causes an inflated prediction of about six percentage points Obama’s lead has consistently been over seven percent for several weeks—still putting him ahead of his rival, Senator John McCain.

The example of what happened in New Hampshire in the primaries, where Obama was leading by comfortable margins in pre-election polling but narrowly lost he contest to Hillary Clinton, is sometimes pointed out as a possible Bradley Effect being in play. However, as Nate Silver demonstrates in his article “The Persistent Myth of the Bradley Effect,” Obama outperformed Clinton in more contests and “on average, Barack Obama overperformed the Pollster.com trendline by 3.3 points on election day.” There may have been other factors in play here that had little to do with race.

The Facebook Effect—the use of the internet and the surge in enthusiasm and involvement by young people, that is—could very well produce a net gain for Senator Obama. In his article “The Real Debate,” Howard Fineman argues that despite the fact that “there are white voters, especially older ones, who will hide their prejudice until, alone in the voting booth, they vote against a black candidate because of his race,” we must not forget that “this year there is another force at work: young voters, especially those under 30.” The young voters, he argues, are “more or less oblivious to race in their political thinking.” According to AP reports, there have been over 3.5 million new voters registered this year alone and “figures are up for blacks, women and young people” (Fox). Young voters turned out in record numbers in the primaries and have overwhelming favored Senator Obama over John McCain, according to Gallup and other polling sources—of the 13% first time voters, Gallup reports, 65% will likely be voting for Obama, as opposed to 30% for McCain. Overall, Obama is leading McCain 59% to 38 % among likely voters under the age of 30.

We may conclude that based on historical trends, polling data, the changing electorate, and more importantly priority in terms of voter preference, the so-called Bradley Effect will be a negligible factor in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, the surge in young voter participation and Obama’s advantage among first-time voters will likely result in a net gain for Barack Obama. Amidst all the talk about how big of a factor race may or may not be a factor we often forget the inherent advantages that the Democratic ticket has going into this election: the economy is in trouble and the number one issue on voters’ minds and the incumbent party and president have very unfavorable ratings. As Nate Silver points out:

“Barack Obama has an advantage that Howard Dean and George McGovern didn’t have — the partisan ecology is so favorable to the Democrats that he can win the election even without turning out young voters. But they are his ace in the hole. If he can get them to turn out in something resembling the proportion that older voters do, his election becomes a near certainty.”

The political climate, combined with even a small advantage in terms of the Facebook Effect may just be all Obama needs to become the very first African-American President of the United States.

With the third and final Presidential Debate behind us it is clear that while none of the candidates delivered the knockout punch, Barack Obama did emerge as victorious in all of the three debates.

According to Gallup, roughly two-thirds of Americans tuned in to watch each of the three debates, with 63 percent for the Sept. 26 debate, 66 percent for the Oct. 7 town hall, and 65 percent for the most recent one. According to polls conducted by CNN/USA Today/Opinion Research Corp., 58 percent of debate watchers saw Obama as the winner of the last debate. Thirty one percent thought McCain did a better job.

“The poll also suggests that debate watchers’ favorable opinion of Obama rose slightly during the debate, from 63 percent at the start to 66 percent at the end. The poll indicates that McCain’s favorables dropped slightly, from 51 percent to 49 percent.”

At a time when people were looking for answers to their questions on the economy and jobs, health care and gas prices, John McCain focused on attacking his opponent more than offering any solutions. Eighty percent of debate watchers, according to the CNN poll, thought McCain was more on the attack.

On the economy, the dominant and most important issue at hand, “59 percent of debate watchers polled said Obama would do a better job handling the economy, 24 points ahead of McCain.”

Although McCain spent significant amount of time attacking Obama on taxes and claimed he would raise taxes to “spread the wealth around,” debate watchers sided with Obama by a 15-point margin (56-41). On health care, “by a 2-1 margin, 62 percent to 31 percent, debate watchers said Obama would do a better job.”

Obama also scored higher marks for clarity in expressing his views (+41), coming across as the stronger leader (+23), as well as likeability (+48).

McCain won in categories he’d prefer not to: “80 percent of debate watchers polled said McCain spent more time attacking his opponent,” compared to 7 percent for Obama. He also won in the “who seemed more like a typical politician” category 54-35.

Perhaps McCain’s taking of a more negative and aggressive tone backfired. For example, 51 percent said that Obama’s ties — or lack thereof — to Bill Ayers did not matter to them at all. The alleged ties to Ayers was one of the main points of McCain’s attempt to make the case that Obama was not trustworthy and should not be elected the next president. As Obama was quick to explain, Obama served on an education board with Ayers, who now has a Ph.D in education and teaches at an Illinois university, along with a number of others, including one or two Republicans. He further explained that when Bill Ayers and his domestic terrorist group carried out their attacks on U.S. government buildings, Obama was eight years old. McCain’s attack — which did continue and continues to air — is one of the most ridiculous in his camp’s attempt at discrediting Sen. Obama.

While dirty politics may have its merits — or may have had in the past — given the state of the economy and the many challenges we face, I seriously doubt such tactics would resonate with the American people. What we have seen in the past several weeks has shown us that Sen. Obama — and not John McCain — is the more calm and collected, more mature and intellectual, and the more trustworthy and reliable candidate. Whether it was in choosing their running mates, or their response to the Wall Street crisis, the two men demonstrated their ability — or lack thereof — at handling crises and at leading us in the right direction.

Barack Obama, in making the right decisions and showing the right kind of judgment in what were their first executive decisions, passed the test with high marks. John McCain made us more nervous about him and perhaps reinforced the notion that he acts on impulses, has bad temperament, and lacks the right judgment to lead this nation.

Below are some more polls from Gallup (Click images to enlarge):

In the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the conservative base has had the same old knee-jerk reaction as years past: outdated and just plain wrong. John McCain said last week on the stump, in more or less words, “…the quickest way to turn a recession into a depression is by raising taxes.” It’s time that the Republicans grow up out of their Reagan-esque image of the world. First of all, Barack Obama will not raise taxes on 95% PERCENT OF ALL AMERICANS. John McCain and the average Bill O’Reily follower who regurgitates talking points likes to argue, “Barack Obama will raise your taxes.” Well, no matter how many times you lie, it’s not going to be true, but the sad part is that some Americans start to believe this non-sense. Well I’m here to say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. The American people are tired of these gutter politics. Has anyone else noticed how much race has crept up in the past weeks? Every news channel, especially Fox news, is posing the question: “Is American ready for a black president?” At McCain rallies people are yelling out “terrorist” and “kill him” when Obama is referenced. Granted, McCain did confront a supporter hinting at this garbage a few day’s ago, but it’s clear he’s doing the bare minimum to prevent this election from getting dirty, and ultimately doing very little to keep this country from becoming bitterly divided. Do we want our next president to embrace erratic, child-like, and capricious leadership tactics?

Barack Obama has never made this race about race, but many Republicans and surrogates of John McCain are eager to turn back the page to a sad time in our history. This election is not about Barack “Hussein” Obama nor John McCain, but who has the best paradigm for the future.

It’s time the Republicans own up and admit that their immature policies of the Reagan years are finally coming to their pathetic fruition. The idea that taxing the top 3% percent of income-earners, who by the way have control of 90% of the wealth (a modest estimate), is going to somehow lead to the sky falling is simply a outdated talking point of the white-backlash era of the 1980’s. During that time, these fiscally irresponsible policies let our cities deteriorate, it embraced the exponential separation between the rich and poor, and it ultimately lead to the current crisis on Wall Street. For a party that is fond of fiscal responsibility, who was the last president to leave office with a budget surplus?!? The average CEO makes 150 times more than his worker. Fifty years ago it was just 35 times.

The Reagan administration cut welfare, health-care, and educational-enhancement programs by three percent by 1984. At the same time, the poverty rate went up by three percent. As Mark S. Hamm writes, “Reaganism had made conditions worse for the dispossessed and disenfranchised, and exceedingly better for the wealthy. As such, big money had replaced participatory politics as the critical element of American democracy.” In other words, supply-side economics and conservatism of the Reagan era can be blamed for the widespread power of corporate interests in current-day politics- which reflects the buddy-buddy relationship Republicans have with big business- and their reluctance to tax corporations.

It’s time that we get our house in order. We can’t let CEO’s make record profits while “Joe six-pack” is laid-off. It’s time the Republicans and the rich stop there selfishness, and pay their taxes. Because of the de-regulation on Wall Street that the Republicans have embraced since the 80’s, the average American is footed with an 800 billion dollar bill while the CEO’s of Fannie-Mae gets a 200 million dollar check. America has never defaulted on a foreign loan, but if the Chinese lose their confidence in us, this recession will turn into a depression. We can’t fund a multi-trillion dollar war and an 800 billion dollar bailout plan for Wall Street by giving the elite tax breaks, unless we want to keep taking loans out from China. In a globalized economy, the rich aren’t creating jobs for the poor, they’re just getting richer. It’s about time we stop accommodating our economy based on the leisure of the rich and started looking out for the little guy. Democrat or Republican, this country is on the brink of devastation, and reverting back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan isn’t helping anyone.

 Lets just face it; the conservative economic ideology of the past thirty years has been fundamentally flawed. You can run from your past, but you can’t hide from the future.

There may be a desire by many to turn this post into a “us” versus “they” or rich versus poor type argument. But by no means is this a class issue- but rather a critique of the selfish and greedy pursuit of wealth. I would like this country to leave the day’s of exploitative capitalism behind, and embrace the benefits of innovative capitalism- capitalism which rewards hard workers and not swindlers.

This update includes the USA Today-Gallup poll results.

Last night’s town hall-style debate was yet another win for the Senator from Illinois, viewers across the country say.

According to a post-debate survey, 54% of viewers said Obama showed a better performance, compared to 30% who said that about McCain (CNN/Opinion Research Corp). This despite the fact that McCain has been stronger (in the primary season, he was) in such a setting. McCain had challenged Obama to a series of townhall-style forum across the country — he’s perhaps glad now Obama did not take him up on that.

When asked who they had a favorable opinion of viewers responded as follows: Obama 64-51 McCain (compared to Obama 60—51 McCain).

On who seemed to be a stronger leader: Obama 54-43 McCain.

On Likeability: Obama 65-28 McCain.

On who viewers thought was more intelligent: Obama 57-25 McCain.

On who clearly expressed his view: Obama 60-30 McCain.

Further, 63 percent said McCain went more on the attack, as opposed to just 17 percent saying Obama. Perhaps the McCain camps decision to go increasingly negative and attack Obama’s person was not such a great idea at this stage of the game when they are trailing him in the polls. The extent to which it will backfire — and whether they will continue down this path — is yet to be seen.

Their attempts at painting Obama as an out-of-touch elitist has not worked so well. Afterall, more Americans think Obama is more understanding of their situation that John McCain. McCain undoubtedly cares about the American people but his conduct — or misconduct — has eclipsed that so much so that debate watchers said Obama seemed more in touch and seemed to care more about them by 14 percentage points.

By a 16-point margin, debate watchers thought the Arizona senator seemed more like a typical politician during the debate.”

“Fifty-four percent of those identifying themselves as independents said the Illinois senator performed best, with 28 percent saying that McCain did the better job.”

How TIME graded the candidates:

  http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1848156,00.html

Latest National Polls

1. CNN

2. Gallup

While none of the presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, delivered the KO, the first Presidential Debate did sharpen the contrast between the two and gave Obama an edge on not just the economy, but also foreign policy and national security — considered by many to be John McCain’s strong points.

We have yet to see extensive polling on the reaction of likely voters to the debate, however, it was pretty clear that Barack Obama was calm, collected, confident and presidential. (Note: early voting by CNN, CBS, etc, show respondents thought Obama won the debate). John McCain, who showed many of the same traits, seemed a bit irritated and uncomfortable at times. Obama further matched — if not bested — McCain on his understanding and vision of foreign policy. It was interesting to see how much more familiar McCain is with affairs as they relate to Russia, the Balkans, Easter Europe, etc, than he is with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

“Toward the very end of tonight’s debate—which was quite a good one, I believe — John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the “knowledge and experience to be President.” The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that — but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy … and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces” (Klein, TIME).

Gallup/USA Today polls evaluating responses to the First Presidential Debate:

(Click on graphs to enlarge)

Latest Gallup National Polls (Sept. 28, 2008) :

Time Magazine’s evaluation of the candidates followed by latest national polls:

While Senator McCain made it clear that he wasn’t winning any awards for “Mr. Congeniality”, and he may need a new hire to pick out his ties, when the debate moved to foreign policy 45 minutes in, things finally got interesting. Initially the moderator, Lehrer, focused a large amount of time on the economy. Now while I see the merit in doing so, with such a great deal of national attention on the issue – this debate is supposed to be about foreign policy.

Personally, I feel that a 30 person audience reaction gauge at the bottom of CNN’s screen is a very small sample size, and is probably not giving the most accurate results, so lets ignore that for a second and move instead to what was said.

I must admit that I am impressed with Obama. He came to play and was able to take McCain toe to toe on some key foreign policy issues. He did his homework, even if it forced him to “agree with John” on some issues. McCain, on the other hand, clearly was able to use more precise language and details when explaining his positions, whether this be due to his superior level of experience and understanding or how he was briefed for the debate, he was effective and impressive – but he didn’t blow Obama away.

I’m going to say that round one was a tie – they held their ground and were informed. I’ll be interested to see if the candidates are able to generate more of a debate next time around. Bring on the VPs.

The blog recently posted with the title “Battlefield Shifts to the Economy” may seem factually sound and intellectually logical on the surface; but the underlying argument beneath the complicated tax talk is false. The following is a rough outline of how the argument veered off track.

First: The concept that governmental spending hurts an economy during a recession or depression only exists in “reactionary minds and out-dated economic text books.” A trip down memory lane will bring us back to the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It is the Laissez-Faire/free market ideology that John McCain supported for twenty six years as a product of the Reagan Administration that created the current financial mess. And as for creating a trust corporation, this will pretty much be a blank check for creating a completely new governmental organization. Not only is this governmental spending, but it is governmental spending that doesn’t go to the struggling American people. It is simply paradoxical to argue that massive governmental spending will hurt the economy while supporting a blank-check governmental organization. Doesn’t that go against your “reduce government influence in the public sphere” platform anyways? What we are seeing here is the collapse of 8 years of fiscally conservative policies and the Republican base running away from their own beliefs. The irony is that while a crisis on Wall Street demands more government involvement—and has already resulted in it—John McCain promises to give us a small government. This is similar to the Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson who believed in small government and whose only major presidential accomplishment was the Louisiana Purchase.

Second: The article “Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary: Obama’s spending programs in disguise” by Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara is referenced as the backbone of the post. Just by looking at the authors it is obvious that the content and agenda of the article is slanted and is designed to help the Republican cause. It is also argued that there is a necessity for the presidential debate to return to the real issue at hand: the economy. This is true, but to reference an article written by Newt Gingrich, the man who single handedly stonewalled some of the best bi-partisan public policy efforts in decades during the Bill Clinton sex scandal is simply antithetical. If one wishes to return to the real issues, Newt Gingrich is not a man with credibility. Since when is Newt Gingrich an authority on economics and the economy? Also, Peter Ferrara heads the Bush Administration’s Social Security Project of the Free Enterprise Fund whose aim is to privatize social security and given the recent financial crisis, it has become more evident that privatization of social security without providing a safety net for seniors to fall back on in case the personal investment accounts see losses is imprudent and unwise. Overall, it is clear that these two men are not objective in their reporting and have very flimsy economic resumes.

Third: The argument is made that a 500 dollar tax cut for middle and lower class families would hurt the economy because of an increase in spending. There are many holes in this assumption: First of all, President George W. Bush has offered a similar solution with multiple stimulus checks, and it has been proven helpful. Secondly, the argument is made that this would increase debt, not stimulate the economy. Well, in the year 2000 when President Bill Clinton left office this country had a budget surplus; it has been the last eight years of fiscally conservative policies that created the massive debt the next president will inherit. Was all that peace and prosperity during the Clinton years so bad? And obviously, putting 500 dollars into the hands of the average American would not only reassure them, but HELP them curb the rising costs of everyday necessities. Doesn’t John McCain support a gas-tax holiday? What will help Americans more: a couple of cents at the pump or $500 cash in hand? The gas-tax holiday will not only cut 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline from the US Treasury income, which in turn would have to cut funding for highways, roads and bridges to compensate for it, but it also offers very little relief to the average consumer. Average Americans would only save about $30 over the “holiday.” You only need to understand the basics of supply and demand to know that the gas prices will likely rise back up after the tax-holiday has been implemented because of the rise in demand. Offering the $500 to working families will go a long way in encouraging spending and stimulating the economy, this being compared to a gimmick gas-tax holiday that would do nothing to change anything for better nor offer long-term solutions.

 If one really wants to talk about fixing the economy, then why don’t we bring up the millions of bankruptcies that are caused by lack of affordable health-insurance?

Fourth: What will John McCain do to stimulate the economy? It seems all the blog post did was criticize Obama’s plan and offered very little sustenance on the John McCain side. John McCain’s solution: regulation on wall-street. Something he has opposed for a life-time.

It is also argued that a raise in the capital gains tax would hurt middle class investments. This is a flimsy assumption at best. Why don’t we talk about the billions of dollars in tax-cuts given to big Oil? Are we really worried about the middle class here, or just the wealthy elite?

The argument over the economy is more simple than complicated. Bill Clinton inherited a recession from the fiscally conservative policies of Ronald Reagan in 1992 and was able to turn it around. The same thing has happened in the last eight years with the ‘trickle down’, ‘pull yourself up with your own bootstraps,” “ownership society” governmental mentality. If we are going to take advice from Newt Gingrich, then this country will have some serious problems in the next four years.

A response to “What Are the Issues?” (Opinion, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008)

Albert Einstein, one of the greatest geniuses in the history of mankind once said, “great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Enough said. However, in the spirit of a fair and open-minded debate, I will try to elaborate on why Jarrett’s opinion piece is nothing more than a typical Republican smear attack/Fox News talking points article.

Firstly, regardless of one’s position on the issues — or the candidates — a civil discussion requires that we maintain a certain level of respect for the persons of our candidates for the highest office in land. I have no doubt that both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain love this country and are running for president to better it for us all. Thus, the question should rather be: Who is the better choice for President?

Jarrett’s blind accusation that the Obama campaign has been avoiding discussion of the issues shows a certain — and very unashamedly biased — evaluation of recent events. We know that it is the McCain campaign that has been releasing negative attack after negative attack, much of which manipulates and misleads the audience, forcing the Obama campaign to respond.

So let’s talk about the ISSUES. For millions of Americans the choice is clear in this election: On the one hand we have a long-time senator from the state of Arizona who served this nation in uniform but who offers nothing new and more of the same. On the other hand, we have a young Senator from Illinois, whose message of hope and change has inspired millions to believe in America’s promise once again. One offers a continuation of failed George W. Bush policies on, among other things, the economy, including huge tax cuts for the top 5% and little relief for working, middle class Americans. He supports an unending and indefinite occupation of Iraq — something even the Bush Administration has recently moved away from. On the other hand, the young Senator offers proposals to promote economic stimulus and shared prosperity by providing tax relief to the great majority of Americans who do not make over $250,000, own 7 homes or 13 cars. He also wants to bring our troops home from a war that “should never have been fought and never have been authorized.” He had the judgment to get it right and to oppose the war when it was politically unpopular — John McCain did not. Ironically enough, the Bush Administration, more recently adopted policies that are closer to Senator Obama’s proposals than those of John McCain’s — especially when it comes to dealing with Pakistan and the future of the occupation in Iraq.

Further, Jarrett, we ought to keep our standards upon which we judge our leaders constant and ask the same of everyone of them. To criticize Senator Obama’s ability to inspire millions of Americans and draw thousands to his rallies and to dismiss him as a “man of fashion, [who] has enjoyed a near-celebrity status,” while praising Sarah Palin for attracting crowds in a similar fashion, is not only absurd, but hypocritical, too — she attracted a crowd of over 60,000 at a recent rally in Florida. So, who is the “celebrity” now?

When we rise beyond partisan and ideological biases, we see that the choice in this election is very clear and simple: It is between John McCain, who pointing to a “recent study” showing he voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time on Meet the Press, said that “on the transcendent issues — the most important issues of our day — I have been in total agreement with president Bush.” He offers more of the same old Washington politics and failed policies that will not do in a changing world. We also have a candidate in Barack Obama who is offering a progressive, forward-looking vision and direction that is more in tune with the demands, challenges, and opportunities of the 21st century. Barack Obama inspired many of us before he even arrived in Washington by uttering 17 words that capture the true spirit of this nation: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America—there is the United States of America.”

It has been said that “the essence of statesmanship is not a rigid adherence to the past, but a prudent and probing concern for the future.” Barack Obama has the judgment, the track record, and the ability to move us in the right direction. He has the ability to bring us together to face the common challenges facing our nation and, as Senator Kennedy said, “he is tough-minded, but he also has an uncommon capacity to appeal to ‘the better angels of our nature.’” To oppose the great spirits of the Senator and his people-powered Movement for Change, and to dismiss it as just “fashion” and “celebrity,” as Albert Einstein would agree, is only a reflection of a mediocre mind.

The financial crisis, which the Wall Street Journal described today as the worst economic hit since the early 1930s, is beginning to drastically change the tide of presidential campaigns.

Election coverage has shifted away from the controversial VP pick of Governor Sarah Palin, and instead moved toward the candidates’ positions on financial markets and back to policies. It is obvious from the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Fed’s bailout of AIG, that the fiscal climate will be addressed as a key factor in Presidential debates.

And debate they have.

This week Obama and McCain have spoken about their plans for the economy should either be elected. While historically Democrats are favored during tough economic times, Obama’s economic plans are nothing but reckless in the wake of economic downturn, while McCain focuses on precautionary tactics and measured tax cuts.

Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara addressed the extremism of Obama’s policies in an article last week in the Weekly Standard, “Tax Cuts, Real and Imaginary: Obama’s spending programs in disguise.”

Their assessments could not be more accurate.

While Senator Obama claims to be creating tax cuts for 95% of Americans, it is important to realize the cost at which he could do this. His proposal seeks to provide a $500 tax refund to Americans in all but the 5% top income bracket. This check given to the lowest 40% of income earners is nothing but a cash grant that the government cuts, increasing spending, not reducing debt. How would this stimulate the economy?

A second avenue of the Obama economic plan calls for a raise in the capital gains tax by approximately 33%. This would drastically decrease the worth of the middle class’ IRAs, 401ks, stocks and mutual funds. Now I am no business major, but essentially, by applying this cut in tax revenue, the middle 2/3 of the America population would see a slow in their savings and investments and there would simultaneously be an increase in the national debt. I ask again – how would this stimulate the economy?

Messrs. Gingrich and Ferrara conclude their article by pointing out, “Obama’s plans are the opposite of tax reform. Instead of closing loopholes and lowering rates, he is creating new loopholes and raising rates. ”

But what would McCain do? Are his policies any better? While Senator McCain does not propose an ideal fix to all the economic crises, his proposals are more obtainable and appropriate. McCain would stimulate the economy by creating a new government agency specifically designed to handle bailouts and failed investment institutions.

One may recall the Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980s, which did a fine job handling the failure of savings institutions. This policy would create a protocol for dealing with financial institutions instead of the current arbitrary decisions on which companies are worth bailing out, and which should fail. McCain also seeks to tighten financial regulations insuring that access to federal loans and the roles of regulatory agencies are better managed. Now while this may not directly stimulate the economy it certainly provides a safer and more responsible approach.

As much as the country might wish it, there is no all-encompassing solution or instant fix to the current financial crises. Senator McCain’s plan to adjust the market oversight and increase regulatory control however, will go much further in alleviating economic stresses than his opponent’s suggestion to increase government spending under the rouse of tax cuts.

As much as Senator Obama promotes sweeping change, this particular change, if implemented, will do more harm than good.

Amy Saucier is a senior majoring in political science. She is working for Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R) in Richmond for the second year. She spent the summer of 2008 in Washington, D.C., working for a non-profit on Capitol Hill. She worked last semester in the Virginia General Assembly with Del. John O’Bannon (R-Henrico) during the 2008 session. She will be a new contributor to the blog.

This morning on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Sen. Joe Biden confidently asserted that the wealthiest Americans need to pay more taxes, and not only that, but that doing so is PATRIOTIC.  They already shoulder a significant portion of the nation’s tax burden, yet Obama and company are demanding more.  Why do they plan to introduce more capital gains taxes, windfall profit taxes, and many others?  Well, quite simply, to redistribute the wealth. 

A few weeks ago, Obama said “For decades, we’ve seen … tax cuts that favor wealth, not work. And for decades, we’ve seen the gaps in wealth in this country grow wider, while the costs to working people are greater.”  That quote is insulting.  Who does he think these wealthy people are?  A bunch of lazy bums laying around watching Oprah or The View?  Does he honestly mean to say that wealthy people don’t work hard?  The truth is, wealthy people are working people, and some of the hardest working people at that.

Add this to Obama’s quote in June. “Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers,” he said, “and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably.”  No, that’s not from the Manifesto, it’s from the Wall Street Journal.

For Biden to go on Good Morning America and tell the country that the wealthy deserve to pay more and that it’s patriotic is ridiculous.  He said, “We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”  Addressing America’s wealthy, he lectured, “It’s time to be patriotic.”  That’s socialism, Joe; not patriotism.  “We want to take … and put it back…”  Obama’s contrived class warfare and socialist economic policy is extremely dangerous, but I guess we shouldn’t expect any less from a man who, in his younger days, admits to flocking to “the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

Wake up America.

There is no question that during his lifetime John McCain has put his country first, something all Americans can agree upon, respect, and admire. In fact, he has made this the central theme of his campaign: Country first.

However, in the past two weeks I’m wondering if John McCain has “lost his bearings” a little. After meeting Sarah Palin no more than two times, he offered her the vice presidential job. Is this honorable or impulsive? Some serious questions need to be asked about his decision to put a relatively unknown and supremely inexperienced one-year governor a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world. Was his VP decision purely politically motivated? Or was he putting the “country first” as he likes to advertise?

McCain is famous for saying, “I’d rather lose an election than lose a war.” I find myself questioning the sincerity of that statement after leveling the charge of in-experience against Barack Obama and then picking a woman just as in-experienced. Many argue that the questions of experience raised against Sarah Palin reveal deep bias within the media and sexism, because Barack Obama is just as inexperienced. (I would disagree pointing to the extremely successful and organized campaign he has run for the past two years.) But let us not forget: Barack Obama got to where he is by a little thing called Democracy. He actually fought his way to the top, and he earned the trust of more than 18 million Americans.

Sarah Palin has not.

I think John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin is not just political pandering, but unethical. It is simply irresponsible on his part as a 72 year old man to put someone so inexperienced and so profoundly un-examined by the American people this close to the Presidency.

Sarah Palin’s first on-camera interview proved she was not ready to be President. She decided that war with Russia was justified, that God has a pre-ordained destiny for this country, and she was unable to tell Charlie Gibson what the Bush Doctrine was. And many say that Gibson was too soft!

Charlie Gibson: “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Sarah Palin: “In what respect Charlie?”
Charlie Gibson: “What do you interpret it to be?”
Sarah Palin: “His world-view?”
Gibson: “No the Bush Doctrine, annunciated in 2002.”
Palin: I believe what President Bush has attempted to do is … rid this world of Islamic Extremism, terrorist who have been hell-bent on destroying this nation.”

Enough said.

John McCain’s campaign released a new web ad accusing Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator Obama, of referring to the Republican VP Nominee, Sarah Palin, when he said: “You can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.”

What is interesting (and hypocritical?) about this is the fact that John McCain himself used those same exact words — yes, the very same John McCain who falsely attacked Senator Obama with the “Lipstick” advertisement — on more than one occasion to refer, among other things, to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s health care plan. Here are some of the highlights:

1. John McCain (May 2, 2008): “Yes, in 1993, we rejected the then ‘Clinton universal health care proposal.’ It was rejected by the American people.” He went on to say that “the latest [Senator Hillary Clinton] proposal is putting lipstick on a pig.”
2. John McCain on NPR’s “All things Considered” Feb. 1, 2007: “It’s all about withdrawal or not withdrawal, okay? I mean that’s what it’s all about. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

I thought John McCain promised that he “will do everything I can to keep anything that may be that kind of ugliness out of this political campaign.” Whatever happened to the “maverick” agent of change?

At a time when Americans seek answers on the most important questions of our time — from the economy to the war, from health care to rising cost of gas and food — the McCain campaign continues to employ the Karl Rove tactics of the past eight years which serve as nothing more than a distraction in the campaign. Senator Obama’s response truly captures the sad nature of this kind of politics:

“They’d much rather have the story — this McCain campaign — would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future. This happens every election cycle. Every four years this is what we do. We’ve got an energy crisis. We have an education system that is not working for too many of our children and making us less competitive, we have an economy that is creating hardship for families all across America. We’ve got two wars going on. Veterans coming home not being cared for. And this is what they want to talk about.”

By the way, here’s the full context of Senator Obama’s “putting lipstick on a pig” comment:

“John McCain says he says he is about change, too. And so I guess his whole angle is: ‘Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics, we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.’ That’s not change — that’s just calling the same thing something different. But you know, you can … you can put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper, call it ‘change,’ it’s still gonna stink after eight years. We have had enough of the same old thing. It’s time about real change in Washington and that’s the choice you have in this election.” — Barack Obama

The following video, which includes most of the smear ad, also provides context and gives one the bigger picture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbQ1OUi-j3M

You know, ever since the Lipstick ad came out, I’d been wondering when the McCain campaign was going to release a second ad using Obama’s “old fish wrapped in a piece of paper” comment to accuse him of sexism.

Perhaps GOP Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn had some answers when she went on MSNBC. She accused Obama of sexism saying: “It’s what women of America are beginning to see. Because Senator Obama had the choice of Senator Clinton or Governor Sebelius to go in the number two spot on that ticket. He passed over them. The comments he made last night. He followed the lipstick on a pig comment with talking about old fish wrapped in paper.”

Oh, no, she didn’t.

Come on McCain!  With so many better things to attack Obama on, you choose his comment about lipstick on a pig?  Drop the puerile political games.  You’re trying a little too hard, and nobody’s buying your tomfoolery.

In her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said “the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? — Lipstick.”  It was a funny line that got the crowd fired up, but really nothing more.  Well yesterday, Obama said, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” referring to one of John McCain’s policies.  No sooner did that happen then the McCain campaign rushed out with a web ad (found at this link) alleging that Obama’s statement was referencing Sarah Palin:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Home2.htm

It’s pathetic.  How many times have we heard that line used in politics?  Obama used it with Hillary.  Hillary used it with McCain.  McCain used it with Obama.  It’s old, tired rhetoric, and the McCain campaign is seriously reaching for controversy with this attack on Obama’s “smears.”  The truth is, there are SO many other things that McCain could attack Obama on, like actual smears against Palin.  This is petty politics at its worst.

Palin is extremely well liked, with most polls indicating that she is the most popular major politician in the country.  The McCain campaign has greatly benefited from her presence on the ticket.  There’s no reason to exploit her popularity with such asinine tactics.  I like Sarah Palin, but this is only going to make the ticket look ridiculous.  Those independent voters that are swinging McCain’s way now aren’t going to appreciate the stupidity they displayed this morning.

An emerging issue in the Presidential Race is the debate about how to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and hence reduce the price of gas at the pump. McCain and the Republican party have been gaining traction with the theme, “Drill here, drill now.” And for the most part, Americans tend to agree. Sensing popular support, the Right has been milking the issue, calling that Congress be reinstated to help Americans with the price of oil and other purely political moves designed to press the issue rather than solve it.

But what I want to know is this: When the Republicans had the White House, the Senate, and the House from 2000 to 2006, where was this revelation of drilling? I’m not an economics major, but it seems pretty simple to me: supply and demand. George Bush and his big oil friends at Halliburton kept supply low so the price went up. It seems obnoxious to me that the Republicans are pushing this issue like they haven’t been driving the car for the past eight years. Mitt Romney proclaimed at the Republican National Convention, “Throw the Liberals Out!” What did he just say? In the bigger picture, this one issue reveals the problem with our two-party system: Parties would rather score political points on issues than solve them.

Both candidates claim they will bring change, but whoever wins, I’m worried they won’t be able to govern the country.

Daniel Colosimo interned and campaigned with the Democratic Party this summer.

Ever since the ratification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution in July 1971 and the historic 50%+ turnout amongst the youth (those ages 18—24), there had been a continuous decline in the youth vote and participation in the electoral process. It was not until 2004 — more than three decades after the all time high turnout of 1972 — that the youth turnout reached historic heights again.

This year we have the opportunity not only to set a new record and make history but also to make our voices heard, reclaim our government and take charge of our future. The year 2008 could very well turn out to be what Time magazine has called “the year of the youth vote.”

To put things in perspective, let’s look at the numbers: According to the latest figures from the US Census Bureau (2007), the total number of youth nationwide is 29.492 million strong. The number is close to 44 million when we include all young voters (18—29 years of age). In Virginia (population 7.712 million) the Youth Vote accounts for 761,134 potential votes. So far this year, the figures from the Virginia State Board of Elections have been promising: As of September 1st, 2008, 4.789 million of the 5.885 million voting age population (VAP) in VA have registered to vote. (Note that the actual number of people who can vote, i.e. the VEP, is always smaller than the VAP — which makes the percentage of registered Virginias even more impressive). And, of the more than 150,000 new registrants this winter and spring, more than 45% were under the age of twenty five.

Now, whether we make history in this election or whether we are going to be dismissed once again as “apathetic” and “disengaged” (despite the record turnout in ’04) will depend on two factors: voter registration and turnout. I feel—and many may disagree—that the former is a much bigger challenge.

If we look at the numbers, turnout among young people has been very promising recently. In 2004, the battleground states saw an average turnout of 64.4% among young voters. (It was 48% for the remaining states). Those figures are expected to be much larger as we have already seen a record 103% increase in participation among young voters in the primaries/caucuses than we did four years ago.

Furthermore, the 2004 election saw an increase of 4.3 million young voters over the 2000 election—a 9 point increase and more than double that of any other age group. There were nearly as many voters under 30 as there were over 65 years of age in ’04. Additionally, all states (w. the exception of New York) have seen an increase in the number of young voters.

In Virginia, the youth vote will account for more than 1.5% of the vote which could very well decide the outcome of the election. Despite the fact that the youth vote (18-24 years olds) has traditionally been more than 15 points below the older population nationally, the above-mentioned historical trends point to a promising level of involvement in our age group and make the prospect of yet another history-making election even more plausible.

Think about it: we can determine the outcome of the presidential election in what is arguably one of the most important elections of our lifetime. It will not be easy. We will have to make a commitment not only to register and make sure all our friends are registered, but also that we and our friends get out and vote come November 4th.

 Every generation is remembered for one or more remarkable achievement—we can change the course of history by making the 2008 election a landmark of the promise and potential that our generation has to offer.

——————————————–

Summary of Major Sources:

1. http://www.census.gov/
2. http://www.civicyouth.org/
3. http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/

Party conventions are held in order to energize and unify the party and frame the issues for the general election campaign. So, it is not surprising that both major party candidates have repositioned their messages to strengthen their case with voters. Change. Change is the driving issue in this campaign. Obama has always been about change, but “change” for Obama used to be about changing our politics, i.e. moving beyond partisanship, AND changing party control of the White House from Republican to Democratic. Now, he is focused almost exclusively on the latter message. Gone is the inspiring vision of post-partisan politics; the focus now is to attach McCain to Bush and advance a traditionally Democratic agenda. The appointment of Joe Biden as his running mate is further evidence that he wants to mobilize his base and appeal to the lower income, union voters who supported Hillary Clinton. McCain, on the other hand, whose pre-convention message essentially boiled down to experience, i.e. Obama is “not ready to lead,” has shifted to a new message of change, i.e. reforming Washington. By selecting Palin, he has essentially conceded the issue of experience, and his campaign speech was decidedly focused on changing the politics in Washington … post-partisanship. This theme might ring a bill to Obama supporters who voted for him over the more “partisan” Hillary Clinton.