Campaign Watch 2008

Sources of Information

2008-12-07T20:28:00.000-08:00

____________________________________
MUMBAI ATTACKS
5 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
___________________________________

The November 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks across Mumbai, India’s financial capital and largest city. The attacks began on November 26 2008 and ended on November 29, 2008 when Indian security forced back control of all attack sites. More than one hundred people were killed and at least three hundred were injured in the attacks.

The Mumbai attacks prove that the news is not dead. It is all around. Some are better than others, while some give a new perspective, or new vessel in which to reach it. in any case, these five sources exhibit some of the best news coverage of the attacks because they follow up and update their reports, give sources of information, and keep the reader interested on events that, even though happened thousands of miles away, still affect us and the world everyday.

These five credible sources did an exemplary job in the coverage of the attacks on Mumbai. Each brought an element to the table that aids the reader in understanding the situation, its investigation, and its resolutions.

1. CNN

CNN's information is based on sources that say that all of the attacks were "NO doubt" planned by Pakistan. Late edition with Wolf Blitzer had special coverage from this source, which made the coverage definitive. CNN has even responses from counter terrorist officials explaining their opinions and straight hard facts.

2. The Guardian

The Guardians coverage was spot on, and offered eye witness accounts of the attacks, making it easier for readers to relate and correspond to the similarities to other terrorist attacks (i.e. 9/11). Something that they also had was a daily update of the findings from investigations of the attacks on their website, which had its own sub section for the Mumbai attacks and its investigation.

“We were expecting the worst. We knew the hotel was on fire, we knew there were terrorists next door. We knew they might storm the room any second, the fire might engulf us, an explosive might go off. It seemed too many things were stacked against us. We were ready to die. We had no idea if we'd be there for one day or five days. The uncertainty was terrifying. We decided we wouldn't be separated. It didn't matter if we had to die, we wanted to be with one another.”
-Amrita Jhaveri, jeweler from London, there with her husband

3. BBC

The BBC website was most informative. What the BBC web site had that no other did was the minute by minute, hour by hour coverage of the attacks. From the first gun shots to the arresting of the remaining terrorist, the BBC World news coverage truly took the reader on a step by step journey of the attacks, which made for a better perspective of the situation.

4. Mumbai Mirror

The Mumbai Mirror, not as big as BBC or CNN, had excellent coverage of the attacks. An interesting part to this coverage is that unlike the World news programs, the attacks are considered city news, and in such fashion are covered with attention to every detail. The coverage also brought the effects of the massacre on a deeper level to the city. It offered a side that only a city paper/website can because it is happening in their “backyard”.

5. SAJA: South Asian Journalist Association

The SAJA used the growing technology of the age and applied it to great news coverage. The SAJA used web cats to cover the attacks, and out did eye witness accounts by having live radio updates as the attacks were happening, as well as the aftermath. In the coverage they also include interviews with several analysts and commentators to help in understanding who, what, where, why, how, and most importantly the why questions.

* At the same time, keeping up with the technology that we have at our disposal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m443AvZ0arQ
This clip is taken from the breaking news on CNN IBN. it shows footage of the attack, including the evacuation out of the hotel . It also includes a segment called "the terror time line" where the news correspondent explains in details how the attack exactly happened with location and time of the terrorists' moves. it shows recorded live footage of the terrorists attacking civilians and journalists.

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqeAALzAhKY
This clip is live footage of the terrorists who were caught on camera. It also includes sensational television footage of the hotels on fire, the hijacked police jeep shooting at people, the hostages looking out the window of the Taj, and the terrorists inside the hotel shooting and throwing grenades. As the news anchor explains, "these images will not be forgotten" and will make people realize the danger.

Put the Brakes on an Auto Bailout

2008-11-25T12:22:00.000-08:00

Representatives for the big 3 car companies (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) were on capitol hill last week begging for money to keep their companies alive.

The cash deprived members of the auto industry arrived in Washington DC via corporate jets; a move that members of the House of Representatives did not take kindly to. At one point, a representative asked the 3 men who would be selling their private jets and returning to Michigan, the car capital of the US, in commercial aircraft. Nobody raised their hand.

"This is all part of what we signed up for after we made this request," said Rich Wagoner, the chief executive of GM after the hearing.

Wagoner along with Robert Nardelli of Chrysler and Alan Mulally of Ford were also criticized for poor business practices like failing to produce more fuel efficient vehicles like the Germans and Japanese auto makers have been doing.

As of November 25th, the auto makers haven't been given any money yet, but that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Senator Harry Reid, a democrat from Nevada, wanted to take $25 billion dollars of of the Wall Street bailout package and give it to the auto makers. Senate Republicans rejected the plan which killed it for a little while.

A compromise is however in the works that would free up $25 billion dollars that the auto makers would be receiving anyway sooner than expected. Sen Reid objected to that plan because the money was supposed to be used for developing more fuel efficient vehicles, according to The New York Times.

These bailouts, the Wall Street one and the proposed auto industry one are a bad idea. The US doesn't have the money to award businesses that behave badly. An extra $25 billion here and $700 billion there isn't there at all. IT DOESN'T EXIST! THEY'RE MAKING THE MONEY UP!

Whenever the government prints new money, the value of the money in your pocket goes down. Therefore, the price of goods and services goes up. This is called inflation. Inflation is bad.

We can't bailout car companies and banks because they did the wrong thing. You can be sure that no one is going to bail out the average citizen when they can't pay their bills. Why should these huge companies get help when they can't pay theirs?

Martin Eisenstadt Hoax

2008-11-18T13:18:00.000-08:00

Question: Martin Eisenstadt hoax. What was it? What does it say about journalism today, in particular the coverage of the 2008 presidential race?

The Decisive Group
Response: As noted at ABC News, Martin Eisenstadt is just a fraud created by two filmmakers, Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish, in an attempt to highlight today's media's "liberal use of anonymous sources." The two men essentially tricked the media into believing that Eisenstadt was a key political insider.

They have been using the fraudulent Eisenstadt through blog postings and video clips, which the media incorporated into their reports.

Of course, the most famous and recent instance of this was when Fox News reported that an anonymous John McCain aides stated that Sarah Palin doesn't know Africa is a continent. The suspicious "Martin Eisenstadt" came forward as the anonymous source. But after further investigation, William K. Wolfrum of the Shakespeare's Sister concluded that "There is no M. Thomas Eisenstadt. There is no Eisenstadt Group. There is no Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. M. Thomas Eisenstadt is a hoax."

It was later revealed that Eisenstadt was not the true source of Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron, which suggests that the Sarah Palin allegation may still be true.

It is also significant to note that Eisenstadt's previous hoax in which "he attempted to promote a smear aimed at Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher ("Joe the plumber"), whose verbal confrontation with Barack Obama had become the centerpiece of the McCain campaign's effort to paint Obama as a socialist who wants to raise everyone's taxes. Eisenstadt falsely claimed that Wurzelbacher had hidden connections to both the McCain campaign and to "Charles Keating of the Keating 5 scandal." That of course, was a complete lie, but it convinced a number of people.

More importantly, the Martin Eisenstadt hoax shows "the media's willingness to report (and the public's willingness to believe) unverified falsehoods." It shows that the media, perhaps in an effort to publish news quickly, fails to verify their sources. This can be a bit disturbing considering most people perceive the media (at least in the United States where there is freedom of press) to be reliable in the sense that it acts as a filter through which politicians and other public figures are put through to ensure the validity and credibility of their statements. But the Eisenstadt hoax completely shatters that belief and essentially questions the validity of the news we read, hear, and see in newspapers, radio broadcasts, and televised news, respectively. With today's standards of "whoever publishes first wins," it seems in the midst of competing for the latest story, they fail to complete the goals that journalism strives for, which is objectivity and factuality.

In terms of the 2008 Presidential Election, the Eisenstadt hoax has been going on for more than half a year and has certainly added unnecessary and unvalidated claims to the heated political battle. Many conservatives also cite the hoax as "proof that Sarah Palin is an unfairly maligned victim" and complain about "journalistic recklessness," which more information can be found below from the first source.Also, the Chicago Tribune's Frank James noted that "Sarah Palin deserves an apology."

Technosailor.com makes a number of conclusions that are significant and definitely worth discussing. "People tend to belief that which reinforces their expectations." That is certainly true of the Sarah Palin Africa story because people already had negative views about her after her SNL performance. It also states that "Modern Day journalism is about being first, not being right." "In an era of 24 hour news cycles, news organizations (and news bloggers too) have taken the tact that it’s better to be first than right."

-Pengbo Jiang & Anne Rivera (The Decisive Group)

Best source:
http://technosailor.com/2008/11/13/journalistic-recklessness/

Other sources:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6250151&page=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/martin-eisenstadt-non-exi_n_142785.html

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/14-3

Conservative Media Critical of McCain's Reputation as an Republican/ Obama used the Internet To His Advantage

2008-11-11T18:40:00.000-08:00

Q:What was the impact of conservative media in cable television, the blogosphere, and talk radio on the McCain candidacy? How important to the Obama effort were his operations on the Web? What do these developments suggest about the resent and future of the media?

A: Promoting their selves to all of America, both John McCain and Barack Obama used the media as a way for American citizens to get to know them. For John McCain, in terms of conservative media, some were supportive while others were not. Some conservative radio talk show hosts described him as putting the Republican party's reputation in danger. During the time of the February primaries Rush Limbaugh claimed McCain (as well as Presidential candidate ,Republican Mike Huckabee) would "destroy the Republican Party". Some conservative republicans accused McCain of being not conservative enough with his ideas (especially on his unclear views on abortion & Roe vs. Wade) and back in February he declared himself a proud conservative liberal republican but he immediately corrected himself afterwards.

Other conservatives in the media did not approve of Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate and/or the way he operated his campaign. In early October, conservative Bill Kristol ( Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times) wrote "It’s time for John McCain to fire his campaign. He has nothing to lose. His campaign is totally overmatched by Obama’s. The Obama team is well organized, flush with resources, and the candidate and the campaign are in sync. The McCain campaign, once merely problematic, is now close to being out-and-out dysfunctional. Its combination of strategic incoherence and operational incompetence has become toxic. If the race continues over the next three weeks to be a conventional one, McCain is doomed. He may be anyway."

President Elect Barack Obama used the World Wide Web as another method to benefit his campaign. Along with having his own website he also has a number of profiles on popular networking sites to use for his advantage including profiles on Myspace, Facebook, Youtube. As well as other social networking sites catering to a specific ethnic background and/or sexual orientation: Black Planet (popular site for African-Americans), Mi Gente (online community for latino/a's) , Asian Ave (social site for Asian-Americans) and Glee (social networking site for people of the LGBT community).

Using the Internet to campaign was a way to get the youth vote and be more well-known in the media. Media Channel(on Wordpress)'s quote from Julie Germany, Director of George Washington University’s Institute for Politics Democracy & the Internet states Obama's promotion online and how it was an advantage for him “What we’re talking about is a very sophisticated, very elaborate database that allowed the Obama campaign to micro target all of its efforts online and offline,” she said. “They used emails to communicate with people with messages relevant to their districts and relevant to the issues that they cared about and to organize and mobilize get-out-the-vote efforts,” Germany said."

With newspapers and magazines closing at what seems like a rapid rate, the popular use of the Internet in this year’s Presidential election shows that the future will consist mostly online than on paper.

-Ashley-Nicole Weatherington of The Team

Other Links to Check Out:
1) John McCain :Your Conservative Liberal Candidate for President
2) Conservative Media on McCain-Palin Campaign
3) Why Does Conservative Radio Hate John McCain?
4) Did The Internet Elect Obama?

THE END OF THE ROAD

2008-11-04T20:12:00.000-08:00

Whether Republican or Democrat, black or white, young or old, tonight was a momentous event in everyones lives. This is the beginning of a new era, and a new frontier for the United States of America. Barack Obama is the new President of the United States, the first African-American President in the history of this country. Four states have shifted their party views. New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia, and a key battleground state, Ohio. Obama's victory stems from the shift in these states. Pennsylvania was also a very important state and Obama won that as well. Obama has reached out to the middle class, and the working class, as seen in his winning Pennsylvania and Ohio.
To be studying the oppression of African Americans in class, the time period where it was filled with chaos and turmoil due to the Civil Rights Acts and the Vietnam War and the need for change. Tonight, history has been written, and written clearly. Obama has won by a landslide, in a country that is in turmoil and chaos, due to a war in Iraq and an economy in shambles.
The support of the young voters for Obama was also very significant. 62% of 18-29 year olds voted for Obama. 59% of 30-44 year olds voted for Obama. 54% of 45-64 year olds voted for Obama. 56% of citizens 65 and over voted for Obama. Obama is the choice of the Americans.

It goes without saying that this is a very exciting moment for all of us (some more then others by the looks of the after party that is already starting on the lawn in front of my dorm). But when it comes time for reality to set in, what does this mean for the country. For one thing it is the begining of a new time in this country when people, no matter what race religon, or creed can be judged on the value of their character and not what they look like or believe in. At least that is the goal. Everyone should be able to agree that this is a change for the better. Obama has been the candidate for change and we can all hope that some of these changes will indeed occur and we can see a time in our near future when benefits will be available for the middle class, that Obama has been professing. As with any election I can't help but to remain cynical to a certain extent. How many of the planned changes will actually come to pass? But one thing is for sure, this election has sparked a nenewed interest in politics in the younger generation. I can't remember an election that was this closely followed by this many college aged students. I know that my most sincere hope is that this political fire that has come to light my
peers remains even now after this historical election has finished.
-Kaitlyn Mallory

This has been the most exciting presidential election in history with revitalized participation from young voters. The issues definitely determined the course of this election with the economy at the forefront. Barack Obama the first black president and a democrat surprisingly won states that consistently vote republican changing the electoral map, and making history. Ohio, Virginia, Iowa and Florida were key.The state of the economy and the war in Iraq has caused the majority of people to look beyond superficial things like race, gender. As president Obama has many challenges and people should not look for magic. John McCain gave a substantive concession speech supporting Obama.
-Glenda Montgomery

THE FREEDOM WRITERS

2008-10-28T20:30:00.000-07:00

What Are the Polls Indicating?

2008-10-28T16:16:00.000-07:00

According to the USA Today Presidential Poll, it is blantantly obvious that Obama has taken the lead. The difference between votes is not staggering, though the two have been closer in difference throughout April and May this year. Still, Obama has managed to dominate the East and West coasts, with McCain taking most of the Mid/Southwest and the South. And while the "Solid South" is known for upholding Republican ideals, it is interesting to note that Virginia, Florida, and Arkansas have been won by Obama.

The New York Times stated that Obama from the beginning has held a “stronger position than McCain.” And though he takes the lead now, it's in the end where the outcome of the election will tell us how accurate the polls are.

The Associated Press wrote on their site five days ago that Obama's seven point lead could be attributed to the fact that most people believe he is better suited to handle the economic crisis. However, there are people who doubt Obama's "socialist strategies" and were won over by McCain after the final presidential debate and his "Joe the Plumber" analogy. A recent survey has also noted that since September, McCain made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women. Perhaps this surge from women is the result of nabbing Sarah Palin?

In the words of Sen. Obama “For those of you who are feeling giddy or cocky or think this is all set... I’ve been in these positions before, when we were favored and the press starts getting carried away and we end up getting spanked.”

Some may feel that where each candidate is favored shows just how complex this election is and the results could fall either way. However, the only result that truly matters will be determined by registered voters who do their part on November 4th.

-Garden Print

2008-10-21T17:52:00.000-07:00

_________________________________________
Home Stretch
The Candidates Last Plea for Our Votes
_________________________________________

On the final debate, fourteen days before the big Election Day, the two candidates brawled it out over the issues of the failing economy, mudslinging, health care, abortions, and education.

Obama’s overall performance was, to us, the best in this debate. However there is difference among the group because Buki feels that Obama did well compared to McCain, but as a whole he lacked the fire that he brought to the first and second debate.

He was very relevant to the questions asked, and tried to answer them objectively, without attacking McCain as much as both candidates have done in previous debates. He explained the main points of his economic plans informing the American people of what he will do as president as opposed to what McCain will NOT do as president. Even when asked if Sarah Palin was qualified to be president, Obama stated that that’s going to be up to the American people. Instead of criticizing her for her few qualifications, which could have backfired on him being that McCain likes to refer to him as inexperienced.

Even though both candidates answered the questions they certainly did not address the questions correctly. One of the first questions was, "How is your plan better than your opponent's?” not "What is your plan? What would have been helpful and cleared the whole argument was if Joe the plumber came to Hofstra University and told his side of the story, since the candidates focused on him for a good twelve minutes.

McCain failed not only to impress us, but to impress his previous followers and according to polls over at CNN, the verdict shows that many are now in favor of Senator Obama. "McCain's favorable rating dropped 51 to 49 while his unfavorable rating increased from 45 percent to 49 percent. Obama ended up with 66 percent favorable rating."

There is no doubt that this election is drawing in more heat. In Florida, a 12 year old girl was accused of being a racist for wearing a McCain/Pailin t-shirt. What happened to standing up for what you believe in? Isn't that what voting is all about? No matter the color of their skin or what distinguishes us from one another.

Something else that this election, especially this last debate, has been drawing up are the echoes of the past. When addressing the question on negative campaign slinging, he blamed it on the fact that Obama failed to adhere to the several town hall like debates that he wanted to discuss, “ like Goldwater and Kennedy once agreed to.” In that same time frame McCain, ironically in an attempt to refute his negative campaigning, associated Obama with the Watergate scandal, stating that “no official has spent more money on negative campaign ads since Watergate.”

What our group also feels very appreciative of is the fact that the candidates focused on other issue like Roe v. Wade, as well as going further in depth in answering other previously talked about issues that each loved to skate around without answering the question, like health and energy.

It’s down to the wire and each candidate is feeling the pressure. Each candidate did their best tying up loose ends during the debate. Whether it was McCain distancing himself from the Bush administration, or Obama finally addressing the true relationship to Ayres. Although we were impressed and appreciated McCain’s fight and drive during the debate, we felt that the clear victor was Obama.

Nobody Likes a Tattle Tale

2008-10-14T09:30:00.000-07:00

Eyes on the World '08

The earliest "mudslinging" campaign was Andrew Jackson's 1828 bid for the Presidency. He won that election, and negative campaigning had found a permanent home in US politics.

The tradition has continued here in 2008. Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain, has spent a good deal of time being negative. he used to criticize Democratic Presidential nominee, Barrack Obama, for being too inexperienced. That bullet let the chamber when McCain chose Alaska's governor, Sarah Palin, as his running mate. Palin is young and woefully inexperienced.

Lately, McCain has tried to add terrorist to Obama's resume. Palin says that Obama "pals around" with former Weather Underground activist, Bill Ayers. (The Weather Underground blew up government buildings in the 1960s and 70s. Ayers admitted to being a member.) The two men were on an educational charity board together, but, according to factcheck.org, there is no evidence to support a friendship between the two. For over 20 years, Ayers has been a mild mannered educator in the Chicago area.

The Obama camp has also fallen to the temptation of negative campaigning. In the VP debate, Democratic VP nominee, Joe Biden, accused McCain of being unwilling to meet with the leader of Spain; a major US ally. According to politifact.com, this accusation is barely true.

"I would be willing to meet with those leaders who are our friends and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion," McCain told a radio station in Miami when asked about a potential meeting with the Spanish leader. McCain went on to compliment the Mexican government for their work on fighting drug cartels.

Independent entities also campaign against a candidate. In 2004, a group of Vietnam vets supported George Bush. The released information that Democratic nominee, John Kerry, received Purple Hearts (a medal given to wounded soldiers) for political reasons. They also claimed that they were in Vietnam with Kerry. What they meant to say was that they were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry, but they didn't actually know him.

Views on the VP debate between Biden & Palin

2008-10-07T16:29:00.000-07:00

___________________________________________________
The Vice Presidential Debate between Biden & Palin -2008 Elections
The Decisive Group
___________________________________________________
The one most noticeable difference between the two candidates was that Palin make it seem as if everything was rehearsed, which made it hard to believe her statements. Biden on the other hand, seemed much more natural and fluent with his answers.

Another thing was that Palin almost seemed as if she was told to bring up energy whenever she could not answer a question comfortably. She constantly went off topic and obsessed over energy, when that’snot currently the biggest issue. Money is the issue! We have major financial problems in the United States right now, finical problems of coarse, and both the candidates agree upon giving the middle class tax cuts.

Biden on the other hand had constant put downs on McCain. Instead of trying to prove why Biden and Obama were correct in believing what they did, he was consistently trying to bring out the negatives inthe other candidate. This created much tension and caused Palin to bring back ENERGY!

Neither Palin nor Biden did drasticly better than the other, so I put doubts upon this debate effecting many of the viewers choices.
~KS~

Click Here to Watch Debate

It seems to me the whole world is impressed with Sarah Palin's performance at the VP Debate last week. I honestly don't understand what the whole fuss is about. If you take the time to listen to the questions and answers carefully, you'll quickly notice that Palin's answers were nothing more than practiced, mechanical, easy ways to say she doesn't not jack ****. Sadly, many people will buy into this the same way many pro-Hilary women bought into Palin for being a woman, despite the fact that her views are extremely unlike Clinton's. She managed to dispose of anymore "bleeding" to McCain's already damaged race. But what can someone say about a candidate when their main objective is to not screw up? The bar has obviously been set too low for future vice-presidents thanks to Ms. Palin. Maybe I'll quit Journalism and study Political Science to one day run for Vice President.

Biden's only problem, on the other hand, is simply he's not a politician in terms of political correctness. He might say things, and he has, that people will use against him, and Palin has. He doesn't BS you, he'll say something to your face. He gave clear-cut answers that were both professional and easy to understand.
Mauricio Moreno

Biden:
Joe Biden, a 35-year member of the Senate, did a good job in getting his point across during his debate against Sarah Palin. Coming into the debate, Biden made sure he spoke against the Republican Party , and he did that by constantly slamming John McCain and linking him to the status quo and Bush. He demonstrated that he was knowledgeable about the issues the country is facing. Biden achieved his purpose of exposing McCain's policies and re-emphasizing the points that Obama made. He added a certain balance by invoking more history to convey his experience as an individual and politician.

Sarah Palin:
Although a lot of people expected Sarah Palin to fail miserably at the debates (especially after her interview), she did a surprisingly good job. She displayed the same charisma that Barack Obama presented in the Presidential debates. She came out fulfilling her goal entering the debates, which was to capture the audience's approval. Many people knew little about her and the Vice Presidential debates was probably the first time they actually saw her speak, as opposed to quotes and pictures. Thus, her performance exceeded the expectations of many Americans with her energetic attitude and unique speaking strategy that emphasized her youth. While to some, such as extreme Democrats, her actions might seem distasteful, her goal is not to win their votes. It is more to strengthen the Republican ticket and solidify the Southern Christian vote.
Anne Rivera & Billy Jiang

I think that essensially what we witnessed during the V.P debates was inexperience vs. experience as well as a performer vs a person. Its somewhat sad that the most memorable woman to be on a VP ticket is now Sarah Palin. Watching the debate I couldn't help but think that I was watching the rusty cogs in the republican party finally come to a screeching halt. With Palin , like Bush and Regan before her ( to a lesser extent Arnold Swartzenegger ) is a performer whose main task is to give a believable and likable performance. This strategy has been a republican juggernuat...until Palin. For Palin there is no Carl Rove nor Kissenger to feed her the necciary lines that saite the American people. Unlike the charismatic repubs of yesteryear who could recite the needed with gusto and feeling Palin sounds more like Ms.North Carolina than a politician. She is painful to watch, her forced folksy-ness and her over projection of her own distinct accent seem contrived and almost condecending. Then agian she's trying to speak to "Joe Six Pack" and she doesn't value his intelct much. Its disheartening that she's percieved as having done "better than expected" by simply not bursting into tears. That is not doing a good job.

Biden I think did well considering his reputation for oral diareah, it was feared that he would come of as a too frank bully. Luckyily for him Palin's own cockiness disolved any pity a viewer might have had for her. While both Biden and Palin made mistakes and spoke untruths, I think that Biden came out victorious becuase he remained composed and didn't mock his opponent even when her answers clearly made little to no sense at all. I felt he in some respects went far to easy on her. When a canidate boldy says that she will not answer a question I don't think it would have been over aggressive to challenge her right to do so.

Sheena Quashie

The addition of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate in this year's
presidential election only highlights the contradictions in McCain's
campaign.
Repeatedly, senator McCain has mentioned Obama's inexperience as an
unfavorable trait for a candidate to be considered for presidency but his
choosing Palin as his possible VP therefore questionable considering that
if anything were to happen to McCain it would be his inexperienced VP
Palin in charge of running the nation.
I think that Palin's addition to the McCain camp has indirectly
discredited him as the logical choice of a candidate.
Kerrah Hunter

The Decisive Group
__________________________________________________

presidential debate

2008-09-30T17:41:00.000-07:00

What Did Each Candidate Accomplish, or Not Accomplish in the debate? Who presents their case best, persuaded more?

What are attributes that one would expect from the President of the United States?
-An altruistic leader, who reigns with confidence that reassures the American people.
-A forceful, orator, who speaks with purpose and hope for the future, lending solutions to current problems plaguing the United States.
With that said, we believe that Barack Obama was the more persuasive presidential candidate, if you can even say John McCain showed any indications of persuasiveness throughout the debate. As of tonight, September 30, 2008, just four days after the debate on foreign policy, Barack Obama has risen in the polls, ultimately taking the lead. If that doesn’t lend itself to the efficacy of Barack Obama’s debate strategy, then we don’t know what does.

One might ask why Barack Obama has gained momentum in the polls. Here are reasons as to why:
Although John McCain attempted to separate himself from the current Bush administration and his Republican Party by stating incessantly that he was no “Mr. Congeniality,” Barrack Obama would attach McCain to the current ruling party and blame them for everything wrong with the United States right now. And in this time of crisis, the American people are looking for someone to point the finger at. Seeing the two candidates fight it out on public television really offers great insight as to how the two men will be as future leaders. McCain kept his head down most of the debate. At times, his anger got the best of him and he would speak out of turn, cutting off both Obama and moderator Jim Leher. This could be seen as rude and unprofessional. Would Americans want this type of person representing their country? No! Obama, on the other hand, not only looked at McCain while debating, but he would look straight into the camera. By doing this, he is looking straight into the eyes of the American people. As viewers, this is very reassuring for a potential leader. McCain spoke mostly of past stories, whereas Obama offered solutions for the future. His plan regarding the current economic crisis: oversight prices, tax payers have the opportunity to get their money back, no money will be given to bad businesses, and he wants to help homeowners. It’s one thing to talk about our problems, it’s another to lend solutions.

-THE TEAM

2008-09-23T17:02:00.000-07:00

Compare and contrast the candidates response to the financial crisis and the governments take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Let's first compare Clinton and Obama. Clinton's economic advisors without a doubt have more experience dealing directly with financial markets but they also added to the fall of Wall Street in the 1990s resulting in some of our present-day issues. Most of Obama's advisors have not been victims of this incident but have collected roughly as much money from Wall Street. McCain states, if elected, that he would adopt a "pragmatic" agenda that would "balance regulation with growth" but the public contemplate whether he will just be extending Bush's legacy. Obama, however, specifically promises to reject Bush's deregulation philosophy. One Washington-based analyst states that Obama is more predictable: "He's clearly about regulation. " Obama recommended extending commercial-banking regulations to investment banks, hedge funds and mortgage brokers as well as a commission to monitor threats on the financial system. On the other hand, the McCain-Palin administration proposes to impose "tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings, no special-interest giveaways, and lower taxes to create jobs." Both candidates will promise to reform the financial system that's already been discombobulated but it is uncertain how much change the public will demand. The debate this Friday is critical for both candidates.
Since Obama has been preaching change and moving forward, he has for the last few months talking about the drastic measures that he planned on takeing if elected to office. These changes included reducing our countries dependance on foriegn oil, a public insurance program that would be similar to the benefits that government employees get, and cutting the amount of money that the government is currently using to fund military ventures in foriegn countries. However after the recent government involvement in bailing out large failing corporations, Obama has admitted to the fact that some of these programs will need to either be delayed or cut back based on cost alone.
McCain on the other hand has been going back and forth with his stance on the government involvement with the bailing out of these large corporations, based on an article posted on msnbc's site, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26754552/.

The Freedom Writers

The Garden Print

2008-09-16T16:04:00.000-07:00

How has Palin's presence shaped the race so far?

Sarah Palin’s presence in the race has brought a lot of attention back the republicans. Just as Obama was comfortable with the idea of McCain being an “outdated” bore, Sarah Palin emerges. At face value, Palin represents a real hope of change for the republicans. She is a working mom, enthusiastic, very well spoken, and appears to have that charisma and authenticity that McCain has often been criticized for lacking. Charlie Cook from the National Journal says, “The choice of Palin capped the summer of McCain's resurgence, effectively turning the race from change versus the status quo to two competing visions of change, a necessity if McCain is to win. Conservatives who have never been enthusiastic about McCain might get energized over Palin. Suddenly, McCain was back on top and Republicans had a bit of a spring in their steps.”

Even if some Americans do not necessarily agree with her NRA membership, opposition of abortion, same sex marriage, or even the pregnancy of her teenage daughter, her presence will continue to play a major role presidential race.

It will be interesting to see if Palin will entice those Hillary supporters who were disappointed after Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26741003