Barack Obama: Redefining America

By Jane Pomeroy

EARLY LIFE & POLITICAL CAREER

Born in Hawaii in 1961 of a former Kenyan goat herder and small-town Kansas woman, Barack Obama grew up both in Hawaii and Indonesia before moving to mainland USA to study and graduate from Colombia University in 1983.

Ever interested in community service, Obama has consistently participated humanitarian efforts to reduce crime and improve living conditions of poor neighborhoods. Upon graduating from Harvard Law School as the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, he went on to become a civil rights lawyer, and then was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served for eight years.

CURRENT POLITICS

Somewhat of an idealist, Obama seeks to unite the US not under a single political party, but as humans deserving economic, political, and social equality. He fought for tax cuts for low income families, disability payment for veterans, non-proliferation legislation to reduce weapons of mass destruction around the globe, and has promoted the use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards.

THE ISSUES

With the economy in a downward spiral as of late, voters will be looking to the presidential candidates to propose the best plan to boost the economy. Proposing his “Making Work Pay” tax credit to middle income families across America, Obama is seeking to appeal to middle class America, turning away from current economic policy which provides tax breaks for the wealthy, following Ronald Reagan’s “Trickle Down” theory. Supposedly, this plan will completely eliminate income taxes for 10,000 families, as far-reaching as it sounds. As well, the “American Opportunity” tax credit seeks to cut costs of university education, appealing to the younger population so avidly supporting his campaign across the US.

A black man himself, Civil Rights and the fight for true equality are quite important to Obama. Among other actions, Obama proposes to strengthen civil rights enforcement, combat employment discrimination, expand hate crime statutes, and end racial profiling, thus appealing not only to the youth of America, but minority populations as well.

Though requiring health coverage to children, coverage for adults will be voluntary. This plan has been highly criticized, predicted to fail as only those in need of immediate health care will presumably buy health insurance (and often those in need of health care are lower class), increasing premiums for those who actually need it and then will not be able to afford it. Though in theory, guaranteed eligibility and comprehensive premiums are appealing, many are skeptical and are shying away from Obama in search of another candidate with a more “universal” healthcare plan.

THE RACE TODAY

So? Will he come out on top? Criticized for unprofessional participating with Hillary Clinton in bickering and mudslinging against his fellow candidate of the same party during recent Democratic debates, and for presenting a seemingly naïve health care plan, Will Obama’s fresh face and shining optimism be enough to gain votes beyond South Carolina? We’ll just have to wait until February.

Gross Politics Ignore Gross Polution

Gross Politics in the Primaries
Despite the numerous pressing issues that face America today, candidates are instigating and/or participating in “gross”, mudslinging politics. Most recently, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have been in the spotlight. With the democratic constituency torn between the two, each candidate is vigorously defending their reputation. As we have seen in the past with the fall of Howard Dean’s campaign due to his accidental screech, now known by some as the “Iowa yell,” it is not beneath us to ridicule a candidate for something minuscule, and potentially irrelevant. Two weeks ago there was a feud over a controversial statement made by Hillary regarding Martin Luther King. Last week Obama supporters accused the Clintons of teaming up on him, and this week they are battling over endorsements from the Kennedys. Ultimately, we must overcome these petty issues and use the little time we have left of the primaries to discuss issues that have been neglected up until now. Namely, our future plans for the environment.

Negligence of Gross pollution

Candidates from both parties are being light on detail when discussing environmental and energy policy. According to Andy Karsner, assistant secretary in the US Department of Energy, "The candidates are fiercely competing on who loves renewable energy more, who's greener. I try to remind people, no matter what party the candidates come from, to force out a discussion on the more challenging aspects. We need them to rise to the leadership so they can tackle the serious part of the challenge, not just the easy parts."

In the SOC118 campaign announcements the candidates minimally discussed their environmental plans. Reporters too, have failed to ask questions relating to the issue because they are preoccupied with questions concerning issues that the campaign organizations deem controversial, like healthcare and foreign policy. Not that these issues aren’t important, but we need to make the environment priority as well, before it’s too late. According to their official websites, Clinton and Obama both plan to auction 100 percent of carbon emission credits. This ensures that companies pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than being able to give their emission rights to oil companies. They also plan to cut emission down to 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. They plan on doing this by cutting foreign oil imports and investing in alternative sources of fuel. Sounds like a plan, right? Easier said than done. The Kyoto Protocol, which is the international treaty designed to slow down the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, was presented to President Clinton when he was in office. He was able to sweep it under the rugs for President Bush, who definitively threw it out. He felt that meeting the target of reducing U.S. emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels would be too much of an economic burden. He was right! By 2006 the U.S. was already 15.8 percent above 1990 levels.

Can They Meet Their Promises

Obama and Clinton have equally ambiguous plans. While the goals are clear, the means of attaining them are unrealistic in a capitalist, democracy such as the U.S. Can they promise us that the economic pain won’t outweigh the green gain? Although President Bush is scorned by environmentalist for not being environmentally conscious, he was honest enough to admit that he was not willing to suffer the economic consequences of signing the Kyoto Protocol. I would be surprised if the president elected was able to uphold his/her promises. But then again, it’s difficult to measure the success of one president’s policies if they’re only in office for 4-8 years.

John McCain: The Republican Answer or Conservative Disgrace?

By Jane Pomeroy

Elected to the House of Representatives from Arizona’s first congressional district in 1982, elected to the US Senate in 1986 and re-elected three times thereafter, and then running in the presidential elections of 2000, it is safe to say John McCain, a catholic born in Panama, has quite a bit of experience in politics. With extensive participation in US Naval Academy, having fought in the Vietnam War and held as a prisoner of war, and following in his father’s and grandfather’s footsteps, McCain is a proponent and advocate of American military operations. A staunch political conservative, he hopes to represent right wing politics with a few unorthodox policies.

Having butted heads with leaders of the Religious Right and Moral Majority, in no way is McCain a proponent of the religious conservative community, unlike President George W. Bush, a born-again Christian who sympathizes greatly with this group. As well, vying significantly from immigration reform programs advocating complete security of borders, a 7-foot wall, and deportation of illegal immigrants, McCain supports the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which seeks to form a compromise between this generally right-wing stance, and that which proposes legalization of all illegal immigrants.

However, McCain is a supporter of lowering taxes as a means to provide revenue to the nation. He believes our troops must succeed in Iraq and remain there until they do. As well, he believes in “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life,” (i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade), another classic aspect of the conservative republican party. Yet, as wholesome and relatively flexible to change as he may appear, McCain’s face is popping up all over the leading internet video-sharing website Youtube for reasons that would not traditionally be considered respectful.

During an informal press conference, McCain was asked by an audience member, “How do we beat the bitch?” Referring to Hillary Clinton and her threat to McCain as a fierce opponent in the presidential race (and as a woman), the inquirer—who happened to be a woman herself—stirred up quite a bit of laughter in approval. To the surprise of many Youtubers, not only did McCain laugh along, he acknowledged the question, proceeding to lie down his plan to win the presidency over this “bitch.”

Though his politics may satisfy the interests of both conservative republicans and those looking to slightly move away from President Bush’s current politics, will the spread of such a degrading image of blatant disrespect lose him votes? We will simply have to wait and see.

Who Doesn't Want Peace?

By Raquel Martin
Unfortunately, the future of the war in Iraq is not a simple matter of being in or out; it is a question of when and how. Most candidates will admit to wanting peace for both nations. However, peace requires a plan and everyone has their own recipe. Both the immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq and deployment of additional troops will have consequences. Security, democracy, finances, morals, and precious lives are all on the line.

Barack Obama, the self proclaimed humanitarian, plans on removing one to two combat brigades each month, and to have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Liberal constituents question whether 16 months is too long. Will we lose more American soldiers if we don’t bring them home sooner? Maybe, Maybe not. The truth is, getting out quickly is difficult and unsafe. It took the Soviets nine months to pull 120,000 troops out of Afghanistan. They were simply going next door, and they still lost more than 500 men on the way out. While it doesn’t sound like much in comparison with the lives that have already been lost in Iraq, it’s more than American families are willing to wager.

And that’s not the half of it, there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and many more U.S. Contractors who would be left vulnerable and unprotected if we were to pull out the bulk of U.S. troops at once. While the U.S. death toll might decrease, the Iraqi one would increase exponentially. This becomes a question of morality, which some candidates aren’t willing to face. Hillary Clinton plans on removing a bulk of the troops within 60 days of inauguration. She believes that an immediate withdrawal will “[push] the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.” According to Clinton, the Iraqi government’s clock is ticking with the presidential election coming up so soon. In an appearance on a Sunday morning talk show she stated that “part of the reason that the Iraqis are doing anything is because they see this election happening and they know they don’t have much time, that the blank check that George Bush gave them is about to be torn up.”

On the Republican side, John McCain feels that more American forces are needed in Iraq in order to support the insurgent strongholds. His ultimate strategy is to give the Iraqi government the ability to govern and secure their own country. If his progress in Iraq is in any way representative of our current presidents’, his intentions may never see the light of day. If bush hasn’t been successful in accomplishing his plan, what makes us think McCain’s plan won’t be just another misuse of America’s tax dollars? On the other hand, if he can establish a strong government in Iraq without too much collateral damage, staying in Iraq may be more successful that his democratic comrades plan.

Plans for the war in Iraq are merely calculated guesses as to what is going to happen. As exhausting as it is to come up with a solution, it remains one of America’s most pressing issues. One thing that most candidates are failing to mention is that the end of the war does not equate to an end of Americas responsibilities to the world. The most obvious place American assistance may have been needed was in Iraq, because the Sunnis and Shi'ites can’t seem to sustain a civilized relationship. But beyond Iraq, other regions such as Israel, Kabul, Somalia, and Darfur are just as unstable. Is it necessary for the U.S. to get involved in their affairs as well? We should take the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq as examples of the minimal success America has had in warfare. Realistically, we need change for the sake of progress, maintaining the status quo will only exacerbate the problems within foreign affairs.

Campaign Ads

For your convenience here are all campaign ads from each candidate (view daily blog for commentary):

Obama's ad


Edwards' ad




Sen. Clinton's ad:


McCain's ad:


Giuliani's ad


Ron Paul's ad


Huckabee's ad


-Sophia

Health Scare in the Primaries

By Raquel Martin
Now more than ever, Americans are expressing fear over the future of healthcare in the United States. Fear not, most candidates are focusing on implementing plans that will benefit their constituency. While each have an explicit plan for improving the system, some plans are questionably unfeasible or underdeveloped. Keep in mind that healthcare in the United States is a policy legacy that politicians are afraid to tackle. On the polar extremes, some constituents would like to develop socialized medicine or universal health insurance; others would like to allow the market to function without interference. Both of these plans, if adopted by a presidential candidate, would likely scare off a large portion of their constituency. Consequently, most candidates have come up with creative ways to implement plans that will attract more votes.

Democrats on Healthcare
Most Americans of working age have employer-based health insurance. The Democrats running for President want to keep it that way. Hilary Clinton would like to provide tax credits for working families who cannot afford health insurance. The proposed tax credits would ensure that families never pay more than a certain percentage of their income on healthcare. Coverage would be portable through changes in employers and insurance companies would not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. According to Hilary, she will not only successfully implement this plan; she will do it without raising taxes. Furthermore, she plans on decreasing U.S. healthcare spending by 120 billion dollars a year. Slightly radical to say the least, but if anyone can do it Hilary can! Barack Obama has a different approach. Two thumbs up for organization, but beware of opposition from employers and healthcare organizations. His plan involves a National Health Insurance Exchange, which is a watchdog group that will create rules and standards for participating health insurances. He too will provide guaranteed eligibility, but he will require employers who do not make a substantial contribution to their employees’ health coverage to contribute a percentage of payrolls toward the costs of the national plan. This plan will likely have American based firms running for the borders! Obama means well, but his opposition fears potential anti-business policies if he is elected.

Republicans for Self-Care
Contrary to the Democratic candidates, Republicans are proposing truly radical plans. They want to do away with six decades of employer-based health insurance. Prior to WWII healthcare was an individual responsibility. During WWII employers introduced healthcare benefits in order to stay competitive despite wage freezes. Since then, our government has been giving tax breaks to employers who provide health insurance, but not to individuals who purchase their own healthcare coverage. Republicans want to change that. Erica Huckabee would like to shadow her healthcare reform in Arkansas. Her ARKids First program was a surprising reform which provided healthcare for 70,0000 Arkansas children who would have gone without. Her plan for American adults is not based on healthcare. She promotes health. She herself lost an astounding 110 pounds, which shows a notable effort to improve her own health, but will she be able to do the same for our country? Her Healthy America Initiative encourages Americans to stop smoking, exercise more and eat healthier by giving discounts on health insurance premiums in exchange for healthy behavior. This plan sounds great on paper, but it ignores the fact that the working poor don’t have insurance to receive a discount on, nor do they have the resources to eat and live healthy. Huckabee mentioned several times in her speech that she “loves America,” does that include the working poor? John McCain also promotes making families in charge of their own health insurance. He would like to reform the tax code to eliminate the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance, and provide all individuals who purchase “innovative” multi-year plans with a $2,500 tax credit ($5,000 for families). Unfortunately, this plan is yet another conservative attempt to appeal to a pro-business constituency. The proposed tax credit couldn’t cover the costs of premiums and co-pays for the working poor. Liberals fear that these plans will end employer-based health insurance as we know it. They’re probably right. We must ask ourselves whether it is best to unravel the employer-based health insurance which is already falling apart, or mend a broken system by implementing more government control. One thing is certain – the invisible hand is not doing its job and whoever is elected will have to acknowledge that.

Hillary Clinton: Future Face of the Nation?

By Jane Pomeroy

Born to a middle class family in Illinois, considered the most influential and politically active first lady in American history, a renowned senator and now presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have laid a very clear path for herself toward becoming America’s first female president. However, with competition from fellow Democratic candidates who champion similar ground-breaking accomplishments (i.e. Barack Obama, the first black male presidential candidate), will her determination persist to see her to the White House?

Advocating innovative policymaking, including what she calls “progressive” tax-cuts for lower- and middle-income households, Clinton aims to boost the economy from below unlike Ronald Reagan’s infamous “top-down” tax philosophy in which the upper-classes were awarded tax breaks. As well, she ambitiously hopes to begin to redeploy US troops from Iraq quickly and efficiently (in 90 days), bringing our brave young men and women home. And unlike Obama’s medical plan which makes paid coverage voluntary, Clinton’s universal health plan aims to bring basic medical care to every member of society.

Ever a voice for the people, Clinton historically fought for middle class families, working to maintain government-sponsored social security, boost health care and create jobs, all the while paying particular attention to minority struggles within our society. Thus, it seems odd she would make a careless statement alluding to the idea that Martin Luther King, Jr. would not have been successful without the aid of white male President Linden Baines Johnson.

At no time did she suggest King’s actions were in vain simply because he was African American. To the contrary, it seems more she was attempting to provide an example of collaboration between two racial groups achieving universal civil rights. However, Obama’s campaign has focused its attention on the possibility that her words could be construed as racially insensitive, even racist, encouraging bickering and mudslinging within the Democratic Party.

Though this appears to be yet another blip following a string of attacks against Clinton—including assertions that she seems too cold, then too soft; too masculine, if you will, then too womanly—she has not lost faith. When asked in an interview what she would do if she were to lose the raise, she simply stated, “I’m going to win.”