Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

OBABY!


Inauguration news was inescapable yesterday, and rightly so. I watched the event with my 8 o'clock class. After that, I went online to check my email and was bombarded with headlines on Yahoo about the momentous occasion. It was almost too much of a good thing.

I thought the one place that wouldn't have news about the event was my work; I was surprised to discover that my prediction was completely wrong. A baby wore a tiny, pink t-shirt that read "OBABY," with Obama's campaign symbol placed right above it, and another toddler sported a brown t-shirt that read "First Family" above a picture of the Obama family.

During lunchtime, one girl even told me about the "election party" she would be having with her mom, dad, and baby brother after school. The best part of the celebration, in her opinion, was that she got to wear her red, white and blue party dress. I guess it says something if even babies and toddlers are excited about the event.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

A Buddy for Obama


The question concerning most Democrats is no longer who will be the Party's presidential candidate, but rather, who will be the vice-presidential candidate? A Gallup poll conducted this month reported that 55% of Democratic Party voters surveyed wanted Hillary Clinton to be Barack Obama's running mate. The poll also reported that 75% of Clinton supporters and 43% of Obama supporters desire this "dream ticket." However, if such a ticket does reach fruition, Barack Obama's American Dream-like campaign will wither.

The bitter primary battle between the two candidates has exposed the nasty character of running for office in America. It is unfortunate that public office must be fought for "by any means necessary" rather than by civil debate or personal honor. Granted, the stakes are high. Passions are understandably inflamed by such important issues as war, healthcare, and immigration. However, it seems the intensity of campaigns lies not in arguing issues but in attacking an opponent's character.

The Obama campaign began as a breath of fresh air. The articulate and dignified senator sought to pursue the presidency with class and integrity, not with the fierce drive that has maligned most other campaigns, from Congressional seats the the Presidency, since the dawn of the negative television add. But it did not take long for Obama to be drawn into a back-and-forth fist fight of words and accusations with Senator Clinton. Yet, the Obama campaign remained focused on the idealistic notions of hope and change - indeed, the hope that the political process, from campaigning to consensus-building in government, could be changed.

Opponents have charged that the Clintons carry political baggage that could make it hard for Hillary to be elected in November. This charge is more dangerous not in terms of the Clinton's history, but in terms of their political personality and perspective. The 1990's saw the growth of partisanship and divisive political posturing. Leon Panetta, who served as President Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1994 to 1997, argues fervently that politics is compromise. The Clintonian approach, in my eyes, is more focused on winning. And so it is with so many other candidates for public office at every level throughout America. The system is broken because of the continued failure to reach, or even strive for compromise. And it is the American people that suffer from this lack of leadership and common decency from elected officials, as such momentous issues as immigration and social security remain unreformed, and the burden awaiting future generations - my generation - becomes heavier and scarier.

Opinion polls might organize data and tell a person one thing, but they must not dominate decision making. Whether 55% or 80% of Democrats believe the "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton could be elected in November is not nearly as important as whether Democrats and Republicans can BEGIN to work together in Washington, through compromise and empathy. The aim of politics is not winning but good government. Senator Obama must stay focued to the core message of his campain, and realize the broad support his message has built. Change is so desired and so needed in this country. And change cannot come without bipartisanship and compromise. President Obama will lack legitimacy if he reverts to "old-style" politics of division rather than hopeful oratory reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Karl Rove may have gotten President George W. Bush elected to two terms through aggressive, adversarial campaigns. But in all honesty, the presidency of W. Bush has been a horrible failure. Iraq War aside, domestic policy has become stagnate due to the complete absence of bipartisanship. Elected officials have not become public servants but policy procrastinators, and the country is disgusted by
this.

And so Obama stands at a crossroads. Political pundits on television and in the nation's most respected newspapers and magazines have all but crowned Senator Obama as the Democratic Party nominee for president. If the delegates to the Democratic National Convention concur, Obama must decide how to pursue the presidency. Will he satisfy (current) polls and choose Senator Clinton so as to appease Clinton supporters and guard against their defection, or will he satisfy the integrity of his message, and work not only toward winning the presidency but toward building a more effective political climate in America?

Numerous names have surfaced as possible running mates for Obama, from Governors Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Ted Strickland of Ohio to Virginia Senator Jim Webb and countless others, whom, it is perceived, could carry a particular swing-state vital to a Democratic victory. The most courageous choice would be Michael Bloomberg, the centrist Republican mayor of New York. Bloomberg would appeal to many, many centrists throughout the nation, as well as many hard-line conservatives that admire the mayor's economic knowledge and accomplishments. But the primary strength of Bloomberg lies is in his attitude. The New York mayor
seems to ignore partisanship and focus on policy.

My former teacher, Professor Panetta, emphasized that politics must not be about grandstanding but problem-solving. Mayor Bloomberg fits well into this idealistic view of government. Furthermore, a bipartisan ticket would signal a new approach to political campaigns and culture in America. Rather than demeaning an opponent are lambasting his or her party, a candidate could take a higher road and pursue the virtue of openness rather than the destructive vice of stubbornness. U.S. representatives must negotiate with each other rather than isolate each other.

The stakes are too high for the current political attitudes of representatives to continue to stall policy and taint voter attitudes. The choice for running mate by Obama, the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, will test his values and integrity. Does he seek primarily to be president or to better America? He can have both, perhaps, but right now, one impulse must be primary. The road that could lead to his presidency must not stray too far from its original course, or he will become, like many Americans, lost in the political wilderness of an uncivilized and warring political system.

-James Haight Driscoll

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Who Should Be President?


The question of the right presidential candidate in the next election has loomed in the minds of many Americans. This election is one of landmark historical importance; never before have both a black man nor a woman had such momentum in their quest to attain the title commander & chief. No matter what candidate is chosen, it is clear drastic changes will accompany the installment of the new administration. In my own experience I have not encountered too many people who are fans of Hillary Clinton being our next president. Likewise, I haven't met many more who are in favor of John McCain's presidential bid. The majority of people I have spoken to are for Barack Obama as our next president. That said, I interviewed one McCain supporter who enlightened me on the reasoning behind his support for the Republican candidate. I interviewed Ben, a freshman at Santa Clara, who expressed his belief that John McCain is the only logical choice of our next leader. "He shares my political values," explained Ben, "he's fiscally conservative." Ben believes that in our current state, focusing on combatting terrorism and promoting our overall security is the prominant issue at hand. Ben explained that he dislikes Hillary because her liberal nature and past in the White House. He also doesn't favor Obama because he has "the most liberal voting record in the Senate." Clearly, liberalism is not on Ben's agenda for an appropriate leader for America. Ben added that McCain's experience both in the Senate and in Vietnam adds to his character as a leader. Summing up his views, Ben added, "I can't imagine having a good President other than McCain."

-Collier King

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Presidental Election Time!


Have you been wondering what the great minds of college students think about the upcoming elections? Well, on one particular campus, students expressed their very different and interesting perspectives.


1. Barak Obama- Because I admire what he stands for and his values. I also think that he is a respectable person and great public speaker. ~ By Stephanie Woitte, Senior , Communication Major

2. Hillary Clinton- Beacause she is a WOMAN! ~ By Jessica Williams, Sophomore, Sociology Major

3. Barak Obama- I think he will be like the new Kennedy. He stands for what i do on a lot of issues. And because i don’t like Hillary cause she is wishy washy with her stance on issues. She needs to also grow a set, and divorce Bill . ~ By Christine Andry, Senior, Communication Major

4. Ron Paul- I support a lot of his goals and desires. For example his goals to reduce big government spending, Slow withdraw of troops in Iraq, cure some Social Security issues, and reduction of National Deficit. Also transferring some powers from national and putting more in the States hands. ~By David McCoy, Senior, Finance and Economics Major.

5. Hillary Clinton- Because she has diplomatic experience and has the ability to actually make change happen. I think she will work well with foreign leaders and bring change in a real way. Also she is probably the most likely to beat a republican. ~By Briana Daley, Senior, Political Science Major.


6. John McCain- Because I don't like Obama or Clinton, and because he has a solid Military record and agree with what he says about foreign policy. ~By Ryan Wood, Sophomore, Business Major