Democratic Debate

I found an interesting feature on The New York Times web site today. On the home page, there was a link for Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate. I did not watch the debates and planned on watching the post-game wrap up of sorts cable news usually puts together, but the blog on the Times web site broke down the debate throughout the two hours.

Obama has been coming out of late exerting that now that he has established his biography, he is ready to show why he is a better candidate than the other Democrats running for president, presumably front-runner Hillary Clinton.

The blogger, Katherine Q. Seelye did an outstanding job, in my opinion, of highlighting the most exciting parts of the debate which honestly enough, center around who is attacking who.

A post at 9:02pm reads

Barack Obama is given his chance off the bat to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton.
(And to make the first “Rocky” reference.) After a long wind-up, he says Mrs. Clinton has
been on both sides of Nafta, torture and Iraq and says, “I think what we need right now is
honesty with the American people about where we would take the country. That’s how I’m
trying to run my campaign.”

But wow, if that was his opening shot, it was pretty soft. Mrs. Clinton got the signal and goes
after the Republicans, not Mr. Obama. But John Edwards picked up the baton from Mr.
Obama and also starts in on Mrs. Clinton and says, “I think it is crucial for Democratic
voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who’s honest, who is sincere, who
has integrity.”

I especially liked the comment feature. Every time I refreshed the page, more comments were added. Some of them were quite witty and controversial. For example, Mike said at 9:34 pm, "God help us if one of these Socialists take the office." Javier, from Chile, said at 9:43 pm, "I, personally, am not against Hillary nor in favor of Obama, but I think the american people, and the world, is not prepared for a woman. I’m from Chile, and I know that women as presidents are a mess in the kind of world we’ve got nowadays."

 Do You Think Interactive Blogs Are a Useful Media Tool?

• 
  
  Yes


• 
  
  No


• 
  
  I Don't Know, I've Never Read One.

view results
Free vote poll

I just wanted to post this link to a feature The New York Times has on its web site, "Pictures of the Day." Some of the photos were really moving. I was never very interested in photography, but as the SMAD program at JMU continues to change and I am exposed to the integration of media which is and undoubtedly will continue to take place in journalism, my curiousity is growing.

The New York Times - Pictures of the Day

Rep. Pete Stark

Last week, Representative Pete Stark (D) of California suggested that "President Bush was sending troops to Iraq to get their "heads blown off for his amusement.'"

Pretty shocking statement that obviously ruffled a lot of feathers, isn't it? The "original comments came before a failed override vote on the president's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program." However, they also unfortunately reflected the sentiment of many far left anti-war activists who hate President Bush.


So, what's different about Stark's comment? He apologized today. The apology came after a motion was voted on to table a resolution to censor Stark. The motion failed.

"I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president. his family, to the troops that may have found (offense) in my remarks as were suggested in the motion that we just voted on, and I do apologize. ... With this apology I will become as insignificant as I should be and we can return to the issues that do divide us but that we can resolve," Stark said to applause.


After his apology, he walked off the floor to the Democratic side of the chamber were he stood sobbing for at least five minutes while fellow Democrats gathered around him.

So why the emotional outbursts of hatred and then sorrow?


Ohio Demoratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur told FOX News that the war "takes a great toll on members ... within that context their measure is tested, but there's not that much in the cup because it's so painful to face this and detest what's going on."


I thought that Kaptur's take on the reason for Stark's outburst was interesting and legitimate. I feel passionately about a number of subjects, including the war in Iraq, and if I was thrust into a position where hundreds of other people, most of who which do not share my viewpoint, and was forced to work alongside them to reach reasonable compromises each and every day, I am sure that an outburst would be inevitable.

However, I do not feel that stress or passion excuses Stark's behavior. When I watch the news, I like to hear that the Congress accomplished something of some significance that day in Washington, not that a member accused the President rejecting a bill on health insurance so he could watch them grow old enough to go to Iraq and have their heads blown off.

Now that is a childish comment.

I was reading the talking points online today for the O'Reilly Factor (the opening segment of the show that introduces the main focus of that night's program) and they were dedicated to recognizing Lt. Michael Murphy, a Navy Seal who sacrificed his life in Afghanistan to help his unit. Lieutenant Murphy's family received the Medal of Honor in a White House ceremony today.

According to the talking points, "the story received minimal attention from the liberal press. It ran in the 'Metro' section of The New York Times, for example."

I didn't really find this information too shocking. To be honest, when I read the New York Times, I do not look for nor expect to see stories of this nature. I do not think that this classifies this publication poor or something we should turn our noses down on, but I do think it is a good example to support an assertion made by O'Reilly in his talking points.

He categorized FOX News not as conservative, but prone to adopting a "pro-USA viewpoint." He defines this as giving "our country the benefit of the doubt." Other publications typically categorized as liberal do not take this stance.

Now which one is correct? Will the shift change when our involvement changes in the war against terrorism?

I can't help but think that FOX News will shift toward the more critical viewpoint exercised by such publications as The New York Times. However, I think that in the times that we live in, a FOX News is extremely important.

According to The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly's ratings outnumbered those of MSNBC and CNN in that time slot with over a million to spare. That sheer volume of numbers must tell us that Americans are looking for something in their news, whether it be a pro-American stance or not, and FOX News is providing it.

Blog Candidates, Blog!

Why are Americans so apathetic when it comes to voting? What factors in their lives, backgrounds, ethnicity, etc. contribute to this apathy? What can be done to change it?

These are only a few questions that we covered in my Political Parties and Election class last year at JMU. It was by far one of the most interesting classes, and one of the most important classes, that I have ever taken. We addressed issues related to why almost half of this country is apathetic when it comes to politics and voting. We studied statistics related to those who actually do vote including their race, age, socioeconomic background, gender, etc. We also followed voting trends and tried to determine why certain people vote the way they do.

I learned so much pertaining to the history of political parties and elections, but when it came to what can be done about the lack of voting in this country, I got a pretty hopeless feeling. It has never, in the history of our country, been easier to vote. All it takes is a few minutes online or an extra form to fill out at the DMV when you're sitting there waiting all those hours, yet people still do not do it, or they do, their political voice stops there.

Why? Because we're too busy, registration is too complicated, many of us have to vote absentee, candidates do not address areas of interest, political bickering is a turn off, political campaigns are negative, election day is not a holiday, or unfortunately enough, you don't get free stuff.

So pushing aside for now our laziness in registering to vote, how can we get closer to our candidates? Well, perhaps our candidates can become more personal, more on our level, show us that they partake in some of the same activities that we do...like blogging!

Then I realized...most of the candidates web sites already have a tab for their blogs. Would they be impersonal and scripted like most of their interviews? I wanted to find out.

So what did I find when I clicked on the tab for blogHillary? She doesn't write her own blog. Instead, spokespersons for different organizations that support Hillary do.

Well, what about Rudy Giuliani? Nope. Granted, his is a little more personal and engaging, but his Deputy Communications Director, Maria Cornello seems to be one of the most frequent contributors. He also includes various video clips featuring him in interviews and other political figures voicing their support.

And Obama? His blog is more like a page of every day run-of-the-mill "joe schmoe" supporters and why they think Obama should be the next president.

So why are the candidate's blogs more like...group blogs? Wouldn't it be interesting if each week a candidate could sit down and spill their guts a little? They could give us a deep down honest assessment of the weeks events. They could tell us how their campaign is going. They could introduce us to some new thoughts that they might have had that week which they think might help establish their campaign or set them apart from their competitors.

Of course, they would have to have their "people" oversee what they have written and edit it for content, but hey, at least it's a little personal. I, for one, would be more than willing to check out the blogs of the future leaders of the free world every once in awhile, and I'm pretty sure a good portion of America would too.


I can't think of a better way to reach out to the "young adult" category of America which traditionally has the lowest percentage of voters. We're technology savvy and we're on the internet for hours each day. Hey, they could even include an RSS feed and we could stick it on our iGoogle portal.

Just an idea, candidates!

Rudy's "Blog"
Hillary's "Blog"
Obama's "Blog"

A small update on a past topic I blogged about: The Collegian and it's controversial statement on the house editorial page. The editor-in-chief of Colorado State University's paper, David McSwane, will keep his job after the controversial column. (I have provided the link a few posts below). Jim Landers, who spoke for the board that oversees student media, said "We see the editorial as an opinion which is protected by the first amendment."

According to CNN.com, "McSwane's column resulted in lost revenue for the self-funded newspaper, including 18 advertisers and up to $50,000, director of student media Jeff Browne said at the public meeting on September 26."

Now, student Republicans are beginning production of their own newspaper.

So, due to the editorial, the student paper lost thousands of dollars in funding and the college media is now extremely politcally divided...but McSwane's 1st amendment rights sure were exercised to their fullest extent.

Was it really worth it?

CNN article

Ann Coulter's New Book

Last week, I bought Ann Coulter's new book, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans. It was definitely an impulse buy, but I like Ann Coulter's biting commentary and shocking opinions on current events because I think that a lot of times she says what other Republicans are afraid to say. A good portion of her book includes comments and jokes she has made in scattered interviews and lectures. I just wanted to post a few of the ones that caught my attention, made me laugh, or I thought went a little too far. However, as Coulter would say, "liberals prefer denouncing people with idioms - over the top, gone too far, crossed the line, beyond the pale..."

Q: Entre nous, what's the new book about? When will it be finished and available?
A: I was going to tell you, but then you started with that entre nous business. You know how I hate anything French.

-Interview, NewsMax 9-28-05 (Coulter 79)

Q: What do you enjoy most about your life as a bestselling author and columnist?...
A: Enjoy most: the prospect of having an impact on the public debate. Irritating liberals is a close second.

-Interview, Human Events, 6-6-06 (Coulter 81)

Q: Who will win the elections in 2004?
A: That's for the Supreme Court to figure out, you ignorant foreigner.

-Interview, II Foglio (Italy), 10-04 (Coulter 98)

My pick [for president] so far is this guy in Philly who put up the "this is America - please order in English" sign in his sandwich shop. Hey, at least the guy has a coherent immigration policy.

-Interview, Baltimore Sun, 7-30-06 (Coulter 99)

Legitimate Dissent or Anti-American?

I was watching the O'Reilly Factor last night and I thought Bill brought up an interesting point. He was discussing the difference between expressing legitimate dissent against a country or government and spouting anti (in this case American) comments or accusations.


He showed clips of musician Bruce Springsteen performing a concert on the Today show. Before he performed, he said


"This is a song called 'Livin' In the Future.' But it's really about what's happening now. Right now. It's kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin' Boston, the Bill of Rights, v-twin motorcycles, Tim Russert's haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore... We love those things the way womenfolk love on Matt Lauer.

But over the past six years we've had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of that great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our best men and women in a tragic war.

This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here. So right now we plan to do something about it, we plan to sing about it. I know it's early (in the morning), but it's late. So come and join us."

O'Reilly said that Springsteen's comments could be described as legitimate dissent as long as he could provide facts and examples to support such things as "no habeus corpus" and "an attack on the Constitution."

I think this makes sense. We have first amendments rights as citizens of this country, and if we want to express dissent, we should be able to do so.

O'Reilly also showed a clip of Sean Penn on the Late Show with David Letterman. A portion of their conversation reads

SEAN PENN: Well, I think if people have oil under their ground they're called wacky. I found him a very fascinating guy. Very, you know, he's done, for the moment, incredible things for the 80 percent of the people that are very poor there. But a fascinating character, somebody I'm writing about.

LETTERMAN: But isn't he talking about nationalizing the media? That always makes me a little concerned when somebody's talking about doing that.

PENN: He's, well, you know, one of the things that's been said about him is he's shut down a television station. What happened is that since 1998 they had been encouraging the assassination of Chavez every day on that channel -- something that they would have gone to prison for here. And so he just didn't re-up that license. But meanwhile, you know, the idea that, that there's no freedom of expression, I mean the loons on Fox News are broadcast there every day.

O'Reilly had a different take on Penn's comments. Penn was defending Hugo Chavez's choice to shut down a television station. However, the information he provided regarding why he shut it down was false. O'Reilly uncovered that the station he shut down was not the one that was encouraging his assassination, but a separate one entirely. Therefore he categorized his comments as anti-American.

The facts behind Penn's comments were untrue, and therefore, classified as anti-American by O'Reilly.

I found these classifications interesting because of the controversy over the house editorial in the Collegian and my studies in my law class of the 1st amendment. It seems like Hollywood sure knows how to exercise their right of freedom of speech.

Here are the links for articles related to the Hollywood comments:

Bruce Springsteen

Sean Penn

Is the Troop Surge Working?

Since the surge of 30,000 more troops into Iraq on June 15th, it has been difficult for the average American to evaluate whether the effort has been successful or unsuccessful in curbing Al Qaeda and the amount of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed. I decided to examine two different articles about military casualties in the month of September. One is from foxnews.com and the other from abcnews.com. Both provide that the number of U.S. Military casualties is the lowest it has been since July 2006.

The first, from foxnews.com, was very specific in providing statistics of the decline in casualties of each group affected by the war. It also provided the number of Al Qaeda members killed and other terrorists thought to be involved with Al Qaeda. It provides a good quote from the spokesman for General David Petraeus attributing the decline in casualties of troops and citizens to the surge and its allowance for "American forces to step up operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq."

I think one of the most important facets of the foxnews.com article was its introduction of a Senate resolution adopted last week which "proposed reshaping Iraq according to three sectarian or ethnic territories." The article also provided the negative reactions from the U.S. Embassy and representatives of Iraq's major political parties.

In review of the article, from abcnews.com, it too provided helpful statistics to grasping the effect of the surge. However, it took a broader look at the troop surge, including its downfalls in its early months of implementation. It also reveals lesser known facts of military procedure, such as how they rate the level of security in each of Baghdad's 474 neighborhoods.

I found it interesting that the article pointed out possible flaws in the data and statistics represented due to a report issued last week from the Government Accountability Office. "...the Pentagon data may not capture violence produced by militia attacks on each other. It recommends the Pentagon produce more frequent and detailed reports."

After reading both articles, I felt like I had almost read two different accounts on the progress. The foxnews.com article was hopeful and encouraging providing specific, detailed, and colorful accounts pertaining to how certain Al Qeada members had been captured and killed. The abcnews.com article, however, cast a shadow of doubt over how accurate the numbers released pertaining to casualties of US troops and Iraqi civilians were. I felt, as always, that it was most beneficial for me to read both stories to get the WHOLE story.

From the foxnews.com article, I learned about a proposed resolution in the Senate to end the war and allow for the formation of three ethnic or sectarian territories. From the abcnews.com article, I learned that the statistics may be flawed, and we may not be performing as well in Iraq as we think we are.

Getting news from multiple sources seems necessary in learning the most amount of facts, and perhaps, the whole story.

U.S. Military Casualties in Iraq Fall to Lowest Since July, '06; Iraqi Civilian Deaths Drop By More Than 50 Percent (foxnews.com)

Troop Deaths in Iraq Drop in September (abcnews.com)