Text Messaging: The New Voting Nuisance

I have a cell phone and for the most part I hate every single thing about it. I get calls from people I don’t want to talk to. I get calls from people I want to talk to, but at the most inconvenient times. More importantly I get text messages. Keep in mind that I personally think that text messaging is probably one of the worst inventions ever. The typical American will spend minutes typing, with their thumbs, what they could have said in seconds with their mouths.

The biggest reason that I hate text messaging is because I do not have it included in my cell phone plan. This means that whenever a lazy friend of mine decides to send me one, I get charged almost a quarter for the damned thing.

A quarter isn’t much, but when people keep sending them to you, they can rack up an impressive amount on your bill. What’s even worse is now the service provider has sold my number to all sorts of telemarketers who text message me with silly offers. Even the cell phone company themselves will send me text messages about a new phone or service they are offering. And who pays for all these unwanted messages you may ask, well it’s me, the consumer, of course.

Then I heard a story about how political candidates and politics in general will start to text message people to remind them to vote. Okay, so that means that the millions of dollars spent in radio and television advertisements aren’t good enough. Nobody must read print anymore, because certainly no one is paying attention to the paper advertisements either.

I’ve always felt that campaigning was annoying to begin with, but now not only will candidates raise money from special interest groups to fund their campaigns, they will also be taking money right out of John Q. Public’s pocket when sending this bloody messages.

I wouldn’t care so much, if I wasn’t getting charged for it. Besides doesn’t this seem like overkill? You won’t be able to spit come 2008, without hitting a campaign poster. Do we really need to be pestered in this manner?

It also seems like an invasion of privacy. I bought a cell phone so my friends and family can get in touch with me at anytime anywhere. I didn’t buy one so politicians can spread their spin on it.

I commend the politicians for recognizing popular technological trends and wanting to take advantage of them. I commend them for reaching out to younger voters as well. However, they keep making the same mistakes. Younger voters are not going to vote because you inundate them with visual/textual reminders. You have to make voting worthwhile. You may be appealing to high school/ college aged students who use lots of text messaging but you still aren’t talking about anything that would interest them.

If anything annoying younger voters with reminders to vote, when they have no real interest or want to vote, will only discourage them further. Most people will just blow it off and complain, much like I am now, about how stupid these text messages are.

I will vote in 2008. I already know who it’s going to be. So everyone out there can stop trying to change my mind. Let me make one thing clear though; I have no interest in voting for Hillary Clinton, but if she sends me a text message that I get charged for, the gloves are coming off.

J. Lewis '07
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

Analysis of Anti-Hillary “1984” Commercial

(click title for video)

You may recall the 1984 Super bowl, not for its excellent athletics, but rather a particular commercial that aired during the game. In an attempt to portray the colorful, yet unexpected revolution in computers that was about to undergo, Macintosh ran a clever ad promoting the ingenuity of its new Apple Computer. A spin-off of George Orwell’s dark novel “1984”, the ad linked the evil imagery of Big Brother to the Microsoft Computer Corporation. In recent months, we have seen a similar advertisement emerge; this time it delves into the realm of electoral politics…

Hillary Clinton is the definite target of the contemporary version of this “1984” advertisement. As the first shot opens, the camera focuses downward on a transparent tunnel that bridges a vast, seemingly endless, almost Star-Wars like gap. The number “14” marks the bridge in a bland font on a wall. Colors are light blue and gray, suggesting a stark, lifeless environment. Crammed people can be seen marching forth through the tunnel. In an echo that subconsciously implies emptiness, Hillary’s voice can be heard lecturing the moving masses. “One month ago, I began a conversation with all of you”, she begins, “and so far, we haven’t stopped talking, and that’s really good.” The use of simple language makes it appear that Hillary is speaking to a group of innocent, vulnerable children. This is very persuasive in the fact that it suggests the people have been dumbed down and robbed of their intelligence. Further, the word “conversation” juxtaposed against blatant visual conformity draws an undeniable irony. Hillary comes off as being a deceptive and self-interested.

The camera cuts to the inside of one of the tunnels where the people wearing all- white clothing continue their drone-like march. The left wall is lined with television screens bearing Hillary’s lecturing face. Because the lens is zoomed, any chance for comfortable or familiar depth is collapsed.

For a split second, the camera reveals the first glimpse of color; the image of a women running. She is strong and blond. She wears “80’s” workout clothes, carries a sledgehammer, and is strangely wearing a barely noticeable ipod (I wonder if itunes had a hand in the creation of this commercial). The orange markings on her clothes represent the only warm colors used throughout the entire commercial. The rest are cold and sterile.

As the shot returns to a close-up of the peoples’ faces, Hillary continues to talk down to them. “I intend to keep telling you exactly where I stand on all the issues”, she explains. In the background, a distressing, mechanical beep can be subtly heard every few seconds. As the people walk by, their faces look the same. All heads are shaved, all tones are pale, all expressions are empty, and some of the folks are even wearing gasmasks. This re-enforces the mind-numbing danger of a world run by Hillary Clinton.

The camera turns its focus to a number of guards running down a hallway armed with clubs. The guards are dressed in black (the opposite of the people) and are wearing helmets that protect their heads. Glass shields hide their face in shadow, giving them nameless identities of darkness. There are no human-like characteristics for the audience to relate to. This capitalizes on the notion that people fear the unknown.

As the camera cuts back to the people walking, it shows a zoomed shot of feet marching in synchronicity. The march is not proud nor energetic, but rather forced and obedient. It is soon revealed that the people are marching toward a large room, where a screen displaying Hillary’s gaze oversees the order below. Wisely, the producers of this commercial chose to insert rather animated clips of Hillary speaking. This is tremendously effective because it not only shows a huge juxtaposition of intelligence between Hillary and her controlled people, but it undercuts her credibility on the deepest of levels. If they were to choose a bland expert of Hillary to display, the real-world audience would have ample room to breathe. A person could always rebut the commercial claiming that “she is more life-like in reality”. But now, her gestures of deep sincerity are cast in the light of ultimate deception. Even if she, herself rebuts the commercial in the most genuine way, a seed of mistrust will be linked to her mannerisms in the mind (conscious or subconscious) of the audience. Not to mention, the blue filter and off-centeredness of her face ad eerie imagery.

The woman continues to run down the hallway with the sledgehammer in her hands; this time she is being chased by guards. The symmetry of the camera (closed camera) provides the feelings of order and isolation. Hillary continues to lecture, “I don’t want people who already agree with me, I want honest, hard working, patriotic people who want to be part of a team”. The discourse here simply implies that people who agree with Hillary are not honest, hard working, nor patriotic. The uncomfortable beep continues.

As the guards get closer and closer to the woman, she begins to twirl her sledgehammer. The camera shows a close-up of Hillary’s blue, evil-looking face. With a cry of raw emotion from the woman, the sledgehammer is thrown through the air, and the screen explodes in a white burst. The shocked faces of the people are illuminated by a white mystical light as a wind blows their clothes. It is cinematic; as if a demon has just been destroyed. As the screen fades to white, the words, “On January 14^th, the Democratic Primary will begin. And you’ll see why 2008 won’t be like “1984”. A colorful apple then fades in with the words “BarackObama.com”.

It should be noted that throughout the entire commercial, the proximity of the camera gradually became closer to Hillary’s face (with the exception of the last shot in which the screen explodes). This is a tactic used by filmmakers to imply power. The closer the camera to the subject, the more power he or she is perceived to have. The feeling provided by camerawork here is that Hillary is gaining more and more power throughout the ad.

Overall, this was an incredibly persuasive commercial. With rhetorical tactics ranging from visual to verbal and from subtle to obvious, the clear message becomes engrained in the minds of the audience. Let’s hope that if Hillary wins the election of 2008, she’s not that power hungry.

Jim Feeney '07'

Wilkes University Student

Communications studies

Bring our troops home.

Dear Mr. President,

It is time to bring the troops out of Iraq not time to send more in. Every American is asking, when will it end? After four years, you would think our troops would be home, safe and sound. Yet here you are advocating sending more troops into the chaos. January 10, 2007 you asked for 20,000 more troops be sent into Iraq; part of your New Way Forward Plan. Last week that number grew to 30,000. When will you realize that enough is enough? It is time to bring the troops out of Iraq not time to send more in. How many innocent lives must be lost before you realize that you made a huge mistake sending us into this war? A strong President would have the courage to admit that he made a mistake and take action to correct it. You, Mr. President, on the other hand hide behind “the war on terrorism”; trying to make Americans believe that the only way to succeed is to continue this ludicrous fight; a fight, a battle, a war that no longer has a convincing cause. It is time to realize that many Americans no longer support the war. Many Americans, along with myself, wonder why we are continuing this fight. Can you truly answer that question, Mr. President? America is waiting…

A recent polls conducted by CBS News revealed that only 25% of Americans believe that the military can be truly effective in curbing the fight between Iraqis. Half of Americans believe that the war is getting worse and nearly three-fourths reported that they believe the war is going poorly. Two thirds oppose your troop surge, Mr. President, and 45% say that Congress should block funding for more troops in Iraq. As of the beginning of this month 505 billion dollars have been spent on this war and on March 10, 2007 you requested 3.2 billion more dollars to send troops into Iraq. These figures are becoming astronomical!

May I remind you of a speech that you gave May 1, 2003 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, you said; “… my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” You gave this speech four years ago and here you are now asking for more troops to be sent into Iraq. This war should have long been over.

Mr. President, the time is now. Stand up for our country and show America that you still believe what is right and what is wrong. Bring the troops home, it’s the right thing to do.

Jeanne Stapleton '07'
Wilkes University
Communications Studies

U.S. Past and Current Treatment of Immigrants Based on Greed, Not Need for Diversity

The controversial issue of immigration into the U.S. has been a recurring problem for many decades. Immigration seems to be a fresh “hot” topic due to constant media exposure. Yet, this hot topic that appeared President Bush’s State of the Union Address and many other outlets that discuss immigration as a “problem”, really have roots as far back as the late 1800’s.

There should be restrictions on the amount of people you allow into the U.S., because if immigration is not monitored then it will result in an overwhelming amount of foreigners jeopardizing a national identity. Also, for security reasons we should place limits on immigration. In reality history shows that the U.S. only places restrictions on those countries in which the U.S. does not have any allegiance to (which is understandable), but also even those countries who have had citizens here the U.S. Then, when the U.S. government no longer has use for them they deport them back to their countries.

In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which suspended Chinese immigration, and indirectly endorsed definitions of race and class to define certain groups as “undesirable aliens”, which made them ineligible for entry citizenship. Defining a certain group of human beings as “undesirable aliens” closes the door of opportunity for the Chinese race, without any consideration. Now prior to this Act, there were German immigrants who lived in the U.S. and established their culture on U.S. soil by creating newspapers, schools, clubs, etc. The Germans were able to stay due to the fact that they were bi-lingual, and that was an advantage in trading. That’s fine, but what is the usual basis for the U.S. to choose between which immigrants are allowed, and which are not? I have yet to see that reasonable basis.

During World War I, the major concern for the U.S. was over shortages of farm labor. This heart-throbbing problem allowed the U.S. to call upon 76,802 Mexican workers temporarily. Six years following the war, the U.S. Border Patrol was established to “secure” the borders. In the 1930’s, which equals the Great Depression, thousands of Mexicans immigrants, and citizens were deported. Now where is the fairness? Mexicans are human beings just as U.S. citizens are, and to give them an opportunity just to take it back is cruel.

Today’s immigrants have families, and need a constant home to go to. They are not toys to be used and played with, and when you’re done you just put them down. This particular situation is like when you’re a baby, and your mother wiggles your food around in the air on a spoon until she gets ready to feed you. But as far as the Mexicans are concerned, they never really got a chance to be fed. Did I forget to mention that with the onset of World War II, the U. S. established the Bracero Program which forced Mexico to import more workers, because of the labor shortage scare? Well they did. During 1942-1967 Mexicans were forced to do the jobs that American citizens refused to, such as working on the farms. This Bracero “strong arm” Program provides temporary work for Mexican’s until the clock says “ding”, and then they are forced to travel back to their country. Unfortunately, it appears that the United Stated government has no regard for those citizens who may be seeking opportunity on the “the land of the free.” Besides, we have the authority to force these individuals out of their homeland to work for us, but after temporary work is over, we kick them out the door. It’s not fair to the Mexican population, especially those that have families to care for. This brings us to post WWII immigration conditions.

Those of you reading this blog, if you don’t know who Hazleton, PA Mayor Louis Barletta is, you will know after I’m done. Post-Gazette.com reported that on March 14, 2007, Barletta testified that his city needs 30 more police officers, because his priority is to establish laws to kick illegal immigrants out of town. He believes that Hazleton is becoming corrupted by violent crime, crowded schools, and a clogged emergency room at the city’s private hospital. He believed that “illegal aliens” are the blame for this list of problems that plague Hazleton, but admitted that he has no idea how many illegal citizens reside in Hazleton. So Mayor Barletta, you know that immigrants are the problem in your city, but you don’t know how many “illegal aliens” live in Hazleton? That seems quite contradictory. Barletta is a direct reflection of our country’s ability to toss immigrants out of our country without any regard to the fact that immigrants are individuals, and treated as so.

Two of the laws initiated by Barletta would punish businesses that hire illegal immigrants and the landlords who provide housing to them. Jose and Rosa Lechuga are legal immigrants who once owned a grocery store in Hazleton, PA before police damaged their store by parking police cruisers nearby in an attempt to intimidate the couple, and force them out of their store. The entire operation that involved removing immigrants out of Hazleton is unfair to those who are business owners, and those who have families. Barletta also believes that the city’s crime rate is caused by immigrants. Since 2000, Hazleton reported 8,575 felonies, and only 20 were linked to illegal immigrants. So Mr. Barletta, who is the blame for the other 8,555 felonies in the city of Hazleton?

Since 1882, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act until today our government has labeled immigrants as “undesirable aliens”, or “illegal aliens”, but in the same instances, needed immigrants for one reason or another. Labeling a group of individuals as “undesirable" insinuates that there is no need for foreign individuals. Labeling immigrants as aliens dehumanize their character, what they stand for, and places a cruel title on innocent people who are only seeking opportunity. Using individuals for their services and deporting them back to their country after the United States is done with them is not “cool.” These immigrants have families, jobs, seeking quality education, just like we are. That being said, either love immigrants or leave them alone, because how we treat our guests, is a direct reflection of what “the land of the free” stands for.

Carlton Homes '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

How Much Do Celebrities Influence the Vote?

Right or wrong, in today’s society many in the younger generations look to celebrities as role models. Celebrities are very important to today’s society. Just take a look at how younger people get their news. Much of the time The Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart (who was an actor in movies such as Big Daddy before starting his politically geared show) is watched as a primary source for news.

During election time celebrities are out in full force supporting their choice candidate. During the 2004 election, John Kerry visited Scranton, PA and was accompanied by supporter and “friend” Ben Affleck. At the rally there were many younger women there to see Ben Affleck (in fact he was the reason that I went) but while there I got to hear John Kerry and John Edwards speak and I was able to learn a few things about the candidates.

Celebrities are a great way to get the younger generation interested in politicians and what they believe in. Many consider this generation to be apathetic and not interested in what politicians say but if celebrities get them interested then what’s the problem.

Some criticize the use of celebrity in politics. In 2002 singer Kevin Richardson was invited to testify at a Congressional hearing about mountain top removal mining. Richardson, founder of his own environment charity called Just Within Reach, was criticized by Ohio Senator George Voinovich. Voinovich said that Richardson was not at all qualified to testify at the hearing. He stated, “This witness was put in as an afterthought because someone thought it would add to the glamour of the hearing and attract media attention.”

What’s wrong with media attention? The environmental issues being discussed at that hearing were important and the more media attention there was the more people knew about what the issues were. Richardson stated that was one of the major reasons he agreed to testify.

Other celebrities that have been invited to appear in Congress have been Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Julia Roberts, and Sheryl Crow. Some celebrities don’t just appear before Congress or speak on behalf of other politicians, they become politicians themselves. Ronald Regan was an actor before becoming the 40th President of the United States. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and wrestler/actor Jesse Ventura both became governors. Sonny Bono also got into politics, and the singer was elected as a representative for California.

Celebrities are very influential and I encourage them to continue to support politicians and speak out on important issues. The younger generation looks up to celebrities and are influence by what they say. Celebrity endorsements are a great asset to the causes that they support and should be looked at as such. The effects that they have on the issues which they speak about can be very influential and lasting. Think about it, after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, Michael J. Fox became the spokesperson for stem-cell research and is still working to inform people on the subject.

Samantha Clarke '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

Political March Madness

There is one time each and every year that the eyes of the sports world entirely turn to amateur athletes on their quest for a national championship, March Madness. It is when colleges and universities from all over this great nation have an opportunity to prove that their team is the best in the country. These “kids” don’t play for the sponsors or salary, they play or the shear love of the game, to fulfill that childhood dream of being the best. March Madness is a totally democratic tournament, all teams have to do is win their conference tournament or have a selection committee vote them in. This is why we have seen the likes of small schools taking down the upper crust of the college basketball world. This year Duke University saw an early exit to a much smaller and lesser-known school, Virginia Commonwealth University. VCU is just the latest David vs. Goliath story. Small teams have prevailed over the “goliath” teams proven themselves worthy on this exalted stage.

This year, the month of March saw more than basketball madness, we have also seen political madness. Nearly two years away from the elections candidates have already been campaigning like the election is next week. And the 2008 presidential election shows signs of being just as exciting as the NCAA Basketball Final Four.

For all those at home filling out the presidential campaign bracket, lets do the break down. Our bracket is going to have two sides: the Democratic side and the Republican side. Just like the NCAA tournament, we have to rank the candidates. In the Democrat’s side the number one spot is hard to determine, it’s between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is a lot like the University of Florida; she has campaigned at this level before – twice (courtesy of Bill) and is a favorite to end up in the White House again. Obama would be The University of North Carolina, a crowd favorite with a strong possibility of winning the whole thing, with strong support from the African American community. Now that the easy part is done and the “power houses” are out we can look at the smaller candidates, the mid majors.

In the NCAA tournament most of the mid major schools come out of the Mid West. In this Presidential campaign most of the smaller, but potentially strong candidates are coming out of the Mid West or West. Bill Richardson is a candidate from the state of New Mexico. Richardson would be the University of Nevada, the team has one of the best players of all the mid majors and Bill has that same “trump card” with his environmental platform and strong experience in diplomacy, a solid team and a solid candidate guaranteed to surprise some people. Another strong candidate is John Edwards, defiantly UCLA. One of the strongest teams in the country, defiantly going to make it deep into the tournament. UCLA is seen as a glamour team and having been to the dance before and making strong showings with history on their side. Edwards was the Vice President candidate in 2004 and knows the game just as good as anyone. Rounding out the field are Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, Long Beach State and New Mexico State, it doesn’t really matter who is who because like the teams they should just be happy to make it to the big dance.

Now for the Republican side of the brackets, starting with Sam Brownback. Brownback can be his home state university, Kansas, a team that people expect to go deep in the race and has the potential to represent the party at the end. The same way Kansas is a deep team with there talent, Brownback has depth in his professional life working on big projects that have been successful. The heralded spot of Duke University goes to none other than the former mayor of New York, Ruddy Giuliani. Just like Duke he may be a big name and nothing else. Can he go the distance? I am going to predict an early exit for the former Mayor much like the Blue Devils. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, can only be one school, and one school only, his alma mater BYU. The only Mormon in the whole race Romney has been taking a lot of flack from the other candidates for his religious beliefs. And what about John McCain? He would have to be the biggest name in the republican bracket and could very well win his side. Ohio State is a school that is right up McCain’s alley. Young people are huge fans and like the team he is considered a powerhouse that marches to the beat of his own drummer (Greg Oden).

My final four predictions are Obama and Hillary coming out of the Democrats side and McCain and Brownback representing the Republicans. Keeping in mind that these brackets are subject to change due to the fact that some people have not yet officially declared and others are expected to drop prior to the elections. One candidate has already withdrawn, Tom Vilsack, someone that lots of people had their eyes on. Vilsack would have been Texas A&M, really exciting and different but just doesn’t have the resources to get it done (withdrawing due to financial support). While March Madness is coming to an end in the basketball world, Political Madness is just heating up. As the lists grow think what school you think each candidate would be, then get your final four and your champion. No trophies in this tournament, its bigger than that. Who will be the next leader of the free world?

Tyler Jenkins "07"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major

The greatest gift ever: asking others to register to vote & voting

There are many misconceptions in society about 18-25 year old voters. One of them is that we don’t vote because we don’t care. I disagree with those who say we don’t care about the political system. When I graduated high school in 2004, I asked all my friends and family to register to vote for my graduation present. Not only that, every year since 2000, I have asked all my family and friends to do this.

Today, all my closest friends and both immediate and extended family are registered. How many people can actually say that all they want for Christmas, Hanukah, their Birthday and graduation presents are to have the ones they care about register to vote? I did it. The fact that politicians don’t listen to my generation is not only disturbing, but undemocratic. This is why I am proposing to ALL people, both young and old, ask those you are close to, family and friends, to register to vote and vote on election day as a present for your birthday, graduation, Christmas, Hanukah or an other holiday or occasion you celebrate.

If they tell you that they don’t know anything about voting, how to register to vote, or that their vote doesn’t count, educate them. There are numerous websites that will provide information on how to register to vote, where to send it, and many also provide information about stances that political parties and politicians take. Some of these websites include: http://www.rockthevote.com/, http://www.register-vote.com, http://www.publiccitizen.org/congress, http://www.lwv.org, http://www.declareyourself.org, and http://www.justvote.org. Moreover, after you encourage and get family and friends to register to vote as a gift, you must make sure to encourage them to vote on Election Day.

Make sure you call your family and friends to ask if they voted. If they haven’t, persuade them. If you don’t want to call them, give them a ride to the polls and vote with them. This is especially true of people my age. Once they see how enthusiastic you are about the democratic process, they most likely will be too. Once politicians realize that we have the power and influence to get people to register to vote and to the polls, they will start to listen to us, the 18-25 year olds, and we will be able to provide fresh ink to the democratic process! If we all do this, we WILL have a very powerful voice and vote in the 2008 presidential election and those thereafter. Politicians would most likely not take our votes for granted. Additionally, since many of us know how to use technology, do research, and can sniff out when we’re being manipulated or BS, politicians will eventually have to be more honest and straightforward. Most importantly, we will be the leaders of this country in 15-20 years!

That’s right; in 15-20 years WE will be running this country and making policy. It seems many of our current leaders don’t realize this, and as a result, they are not sincerely listening to our opinions, which is part of the reason why some people our age can become apathetic and cynical about civic involvement, voting, the government and the democratic process. If we want to be effective leaders in 15-20 years, we MUST and NEED to get involved NOW! So, encourage those around you to give the greatest gift of all, ask them to register to vote and vote on Election Day!

Mark Congdon Jr."08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major

Ethics in Politics: A Glimpse at Hillary Clinton

Let’s talk politics. It is ideal to think that politicians of today are free from vice and should work solely toward justice and the betterment of society; although, this is often not the case. At the voting polls, the political process has become a choice between the lesser of evils. Justice may have been the objective of those who have lived before us, the thoughts of great minds of the ancient Athenian democracy such as Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle, but are of little concern to leaders today. The political process is in dire need of social reform to attempt to put honesty back into government policy.

Even now, candidates for the 2008 presidential election are starting their campaigns, hoping to manipulate the public by feeding them mounds of bullshit, or what they think the public wants to hear, while at the same time making their opposition seem “unfit.” The United States, as a whole has put great emphasis on the individual, which is reflected in the way we conduct Presidential campaigns. Candidates are more concerned with their personal gain and the power associated with the Presidential position, rather than a concern for the people. Politicians #1 top priority is to get elected, rather than represent the American voters concerns. Political campaigns have turned into a game of who can afford to hire the best spin doctor rather than who might have the best innovations in good government. It is about who is born with the silver spoon in his or her mouth or who has an oil well in the family, rather than skills and leadership? It is estimated that candidates will have to raise a $100 million dollar entry fee by 2008 if they want to be viewed as a “serious candidate” (Kirkpatrick). The high cost of politics poses an ethical dilemma, because the other candidates will be significantly disadvantaged if they do not raise as much money.

Hillary Clinton’s, a 2008 presidential candidate, ethics have been put into question. Hillary was the first 2008 candidate to turn down public funding so she could raise more privately. MSNBC corresponders Edward Luce and Stephanie Kirchgaessner, claim that “Mrs. Clinton can probably raise as much as $500 million from her network of loyal backers in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere, whereas she would be unlikely to receive much more than $100 million from public funds.” Money raised during the presidential election by both the Democrat and Republican parties, along with all other primary candidates, is expected to exceed $1 billion (Kirkpatrick).

The public financing system was established post-Watergate with the hopes of riding politics from the being influenced by the rich moneymakers. With Hillary pulling in her money from private donors, other candidates will most likely have to do that same to compete with her. The ethical issues here are whether the candidates we chose are the ones who are passionate about their issues or if their stance will ultimately make them the most money and gain the most support (Luce).

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center states that “When you are talking about raising $1m each time, it invites abuse – the ability to buy influence and access.” For instance, even in President Bush’s presidency, prominent donors were rewarded with administrative positions and ambassadorships. If the amount of money privately funded increases, the trade-off will only get worse (Luce). It could lead to the wealthy people of America running the country, while the rest of the public sits back and watches. The rich will become the puppeteers of presidential candidates.

Dana Lehman "08"

Wilkes University Student

Communications Studies Major

Is Dodd A Dud?

Enough about Hillary and Obama, let’s move onto the new Democratic candidate, Chris Dodd. On March 12, 2007, Dodd appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Dodd said he had to make a serious announcement…. that he’s “here tonight.” Excuse me? I’ll admit I was shocked to hear this, but just minutes later Jon Stewart took it upon himself to announce that Chris Dodd is in fact running for President in 2008.

I don’t feel that The Daily Show on Comedy Central was the best choice for making his presidential candidacy announcement. Especially knowing that the past three candidates that announced on The Daily Show dropped out of the campaign weeks after appearing on the program. Hopefully Dodd won’t follow in the footsteps of his predecessors.

Dodd joked frequently during his five minute appearance. He compared the 2008 Presidential Election to American Idol. Even though Dodd may have seemed down to earth with his humorous remarks, does he know when it’s time to be serious, too? After all, he is running for president.

Moving onto a more serious note, Jon Stewart did take a moment to find out some of Dodd’s credentials. Dodd has been in the Senate for twenty-six years representing the state of Connecticut. He also spent over a decade helping to make the Family and Medical Leave Act. His focus is on children and making sure that the world they will be living in when they grow up will be a good one. Some examples of his focus on children are, being named “Senator of the Decade” by the National Head Start Association in recognition of his support for early childhood education. He has also offered legislation to amend the No Child Left Behind law in order to make the law work better for America’s children. Jon Stewart referred to Dodd as the “resume candidate” for having impressive experience in comparison to his competitors.

Despite Dodd’s age (he will be 63 in May), he is a first-time father. His website depicts photographs of he and his wife with his daughter. On his website, he comes across as a family man. He seems to put a lot of emphasis upon being a first-time father and I think that his work in the senate focusing on children stems from that.

Although Dodd has not been heard from much yet, now that he has officially announced, he is hoping to be more in the spotlight as his Democratic competitors have been. Dodd said he respects both Hillary and Obama, but “You can’t expect to tear each other apart and win the election.” Dodd has focused his campaigning in mostly Iowa and New Hampshire, but now that he is officially running, will spread out his appearances more.

The question that this leaves us with is, “Is Chris Dodd a viable candidate for the 2008 Presidential election?” I’m not too sure. What we do know is he is up against two strong contenders for the Democratic nominee who have already been campaigning and building support for over a month. He has the experience, even more so than Hillary and Obama. Yet, is he cut out to be our next president? Appearing for five minutes on The Daily Show to officially announce on a program filled with anything but seriousness and allowing Jon Stewart to actually make the important announcement doesn’t signal a strong start. Right now, it’s not looking too good for Senator Chris Dodd. He definitely has some catching up to do as far as the campaign is concerned, but in time I hope we will hear more from Dodd’s serious side and be able to see him more as a competitive presidential candidate.

Laura Nowicki

Communication Studies Major ‘07

Americans Can Handle the Truth about Iraq, but Whose Truth?

Can Americans handle the truth about Iraq? Well, according to President Bush during the State of the Union, not really. “We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented.

President Bush left this quote for us to figure out. By not letting us know the full extent to what is really going on in Iraq, it seems he is trying to save us from the fear we may encounter by knowing what is actually happening. President Bush told the nation at one time that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Winnable, I am not so sure, but difficult is clearly the truth. Despite upbeat encouragement by administration officials, the military situation is unimproved; in fact, it is disintegrating day by day. Just a few weeks ago, a U.S. Military base was attacked in broad daylight. Such bold action does not reassure us that Iraq is stabilizing and that U.S. troops are secure. Clearly, the Iraqi Army shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the damage to the current force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.

The Bush Administration has been saying that Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, but Americans are really wondering whether our sacrifices could actually produce a democratic Iraq. This War, and make no mistake about the fact that this is a war, has been going on now years, and yes, there has been some progress, but not enough to prove this war is the right thing to do. In the recent House Hearing of 2007 Army War Supplemental, there was much talk about how we entered into Iraq unprepared as well as 56 billion dollars short to fund our Army; we should be prepared for this action. Entering into a war unprepared is just not smart. If the U.S. was not prepared, they should have held off.

Many Americans do not want a disaster in Iraq, and the President’s critics can put aside their anger at the administration for its awful planning and its useless conduct of the war in return for a blunt discussion of where to go from here. The President, who is going to be in office for almost another 2 years, cannot continue by tainting Iraq with the memory of 9/11. The nation does not want it and cannot afford it. It seems as though the truth about Iraq is that we are in over our heads. It seems as though President Bush and his administrators are going by the saying “What we don’t know won’t hurt us.” The truth about the truth is it hurts, so we are told something that will comfort us rather then break us down

Many U.S. newspapers as well as many private citizens are pressing the Bush administration for an explanation of how it could have gotten the question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so wrong in the march to war. The Dallas Morning News, in Bush's home state, which had supported the war, has now declared;” We feel deceived by the CIA, which overestimated the threat, and by the White House, which probably stretched the bad estimates to build a case for war." If Bush had found other strategic or humanitarian reasons for the war, "he should have argued the case on that basis," the editorial said. Now if the newspapers do not know the truth about Iraq, what makes anyone think your average American does?

An actual truth about Iraq is that this war has no direct link to September 11th. Now, Americans know that truth. However, how should Americans react when President Bush continues to link the two? I think the President owes this nation an apology, for misleading us about going to war and acting as if we cannot handle the truth. Terrorists did not come and steal our newly regained sense of being Americans. Neither did the Democrats, nor did the media, nor did the people. The President and those around him did that. Therefore, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a lock to turn Americans against Americans.

Katie Cappelloni

Wilkes Communications Studies Major

“We’re Young. We Vote!”

In September, along with several of my classmates, I joined in hosting a voter’s drive on-campus to get the local community of Wilkes-Barre and Wilkes University students, faculty, and staff to register to vote. While we were basically focusing on our fellow college students, anyone was welcome to register to vote or to update their information such as address or party. In the second part of our “We’re Young. We Vote!” campaign, we held a statewide televised focus group in which we wanted to find out what was important to young voters. In the last election, 47% of our age group, 18-24, came out the polls, which was a significant increase from the election in 2000. Typically only 25% of the 18-24 age bracket comes out to the polls. However, with the recent debates on global warming, gay marriage, and most importantly the War in Iraq, I believe that the 18-24 year olds will experience another boost at the polls.

The young vote will come out to the polls in 2008 for a bigger reason than the typical politician or American citizen might think. Yes, we want change in our government. We are sick of going to war for the sake of going to war. We are tired of being denied financial aid. We are tired of being judged by the romantic partners we choose to have. We are tired of seeing the signs of global warming being ignored. We will vote in 2008 with the hopes of our government will change for the better.

Some politicians are already noticing this. Politicians are reaching out to college students in a new technological savvy way. The online community website, Facebook, which recently has allowed public access, has become a new medium to target voters. Facebook, before it was public, was a community specifically for college students to have online profiles and groups. Several politicians, taking advantage of this new public domain, have now registered profiles. This allows the web-based college student to learn more about their politicians without looking on their websites. Because, let’s face it not every voter is an educated one. Some politicians who have gone on this virtual bandwagon include Senator Joe Biden, Senator John McCain, and Senator Barack Obama. While searching online to find their profiles, I came across several support groups and some not-so-friendly support groups created by various college students. Facebook has now defined a new era in online campaigning.

Another way politicians are reaching out to the younger voters is through online blogs. Blogs, such as the one we run here ourselves, are becoming a new way to target public interest. It is quite a necessity these days to have a blog on their website that will include statements, such as the ones we post, that summarize their feelings on issues. These blogs allow the public to get to know their candidates a little bit better before heading to the polls, and it also allows them to talk about a lot more issues on hand. Before, we had blogs, we had debates that were only limited to the “hot topics” and no one really wants to read the long never-ending text where every politician stands on these issues. Let’s face it, half of the time we could not even understand what the politician was trying to say! With the politicians starting to post, it makes their campaigns more accessible to a younger audience, who spend a good amount of their day online.

So that leaves me to this – if politicians are now starting to target the younger vote why doesn’t the rest of the country take us seriously? In the next 20 years, we will be the ones running for office, making policies and laws, and deciding if we go to war. Wouldn’t you want that future politician voting and getting their voice heard now? I know, I would.

Cheryl Gressley '08

Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

When Are the Troops Coming Home?

President Bush has once again started searching for support for the war in Iraq. But where exactly does he expect to find this support? Not from the Democrats. And much of the American population probably won’t support him either. Let’s take a look at some of the recent situations as to why people may be questioning Bush’s plans:

• On January 10th, 2007, President Bush revealed his “New Way Forward” and said that 20,000 American troops were being sent to Iraq.
• When the 2008 budget proposal was released on February 5th, 2007, Bush asked for $145 billion to be set aside for use in the war.
• As of March 1st, 2007, $505 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq since it’s beginning.
• On Saturday, March 10th, 2007, President Bush requested $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 additional troops to go to Iraq. More troops = more money and most likely, more causalities.
• As of Sunday, March 18th, 2007, 3220 American troops have been killed, and over 20,000 wounded.

This war started in 2003. We’re going on year four – during which time I, have graduated high school and in three months, will be graduating college. Whether it was someone from school who has risked his or her life to fight for our country, or a friend who’s had their friend overseas, almost everyone (including myself) has known someone involved in the war. Being a sociology major, I can’t help but look at how this affects the general public. The war in Iraq takes its toll on various members of society, from parents, to spouses, to children. Many support the troops, but few support the reasons they are there.

Because the troops have not yet been pulled out, the war in Iraq has a good chance of becoming a major responsibility of the next President of the United States. And what a burden to take on. Many candidates have been making sure that the voting population is aware of where they stand in regards to the war and what they plan to do to change our current situation. But if Bush is unable to finish what he has started overseas, we also need to ask how a new President, whether Democrat or Republican, will handle the situation once they come into power. Instead of focusing on how the candidates felt about the initial troop surge back in 2003, America needs to start hearing workable plans from each candidate to pull the troops out of Iraq.

Pulling the troops out of Iraq needs to be a main focus of our candidates because no one can deny that it is a very important issue. I believe I speak for many when I say that we want the US troops to come home safely, but it’s hard to be optimistic when the end of the war keeps getting pushed further and further out of sight. Please Mr. President, start giving us some hope to grasp onto instead of leaving us wondering when our troops are going to come home and our deficit is going to stop growing.

Kate Broda '07
Wilkes University
Sociology & Communication Studies Major

Why John McCain won’t be the GOP’s Presidential Nomination in 08

As everyone knows, Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, is running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. However, many prominent Republican media personalities including Ann Coulter, James Dobson, and Rush Limbaugh don’t support McCain for many reasons. With little support from big Republican honchos who can persuade the mass conservative base who to vote for, McCain will most likely lose the nomination. McCain will have trouble gaining the presidential nomination for many reasons including “flip-flopping” on issues, his age, and because there are other, more appealing and qualified Republican candidates.

McCain has “flip-flopped” on many issues including his positions on ethanol as an alternative fuel, Roe v. Wade, and other issues. According to the November 12, 2006 airing of Meet the Press, McCain said he now supports ethanol as an alternative fuel, but until recently, he was against it. In 2005 he voted with “ethanol's critics” against Senate legislation which “would require 8 billion gallons of ethanol to be blended with U.S. gasoline by 2012.” Moreover, it was mentioned in a February 19, 2007 issue of the Boston Herald that he is for overturning Roe v. Wade, but wasn’t previously. He also changed his stance on others issues such as Bush’s tax cuts, torture of prisoners, and the use of the Confederate flag in southern states. Not only is his flip-flopping a potential problem, but his age could be a negative factor.

McCain will turn 72 in 2008, which will make him three years older than Ronald Reagan when he was elected in 1980. He would be 77 at reelection time in 2012, and 81 at the end of his second term, if he gets reelected. Americans saw how his age could be a problem during President Bush’s recent State of the Union Address. During President Bush’s speech, the cameras panned toward McCain and it looked as if he was sleeping, even though he said he wasn’t. No doubt, as a result of that glimpse of his slip in stamina, McCain is trying to appear younger and more hip. After all he announced his run for the Republican nomination on David Letterman’s TV show. There are other Republican candidates who are better choices, to appeal to the Republican base, the moderate Democratic voters, and the Independent voters.

Among Republican candidates that most likely would better represent the Republican Party and gain Democratic and Independent votes include Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Newt Gingrich, Sam Brownback, and Chuck Hagel. The fact that John McCain is older and was caught on national TV looking like he was sleeping is an image that will most likely stick in American minds and will ultimately hurt him. Even though other Republican candidates, such as Chuck Hagel are almost McCain’ age, Hagel seems to be more consistent on his issues and will most likely have an easier time gaining support among top Republicans. With other Republican candidates with a broader appeal, McCain’s chances of garnering the nomination are slim. With this said, I will not vote for John McCain in the 2008 Republican primary!

Mark Congdon Jr. '08
Wilkes University Student
Communications Studies Major

Do We Need a 24 Month Presidential Campaign? YES!

Imagine enduring only six weeks of campaigns before voting for the President of the United States. The idea appeals to many Americans as we sit here in February 2007 with over 20 candidates already announced for the 2008 race. But I believe it would be a horrible idea to rush a race for U.S. President.

Let’s say the Presidential campaign begins March 1 and ends April 15. Short campaigns are sufficient for governments such as the British Parliament because on the surface elections are less expensive, less likely to breed negative campaigning, and less likely to lose the public’s interest. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right idea for America. It may seem appealing at first glance, but this is not the right direction. Lesser known candidates’ stand little chance when trying to compete and the public has little time to fully evaluate each candidate’s issues. We need sufficient time to pick our leader and to understand their issues extensively. It takes time for leadership to emerge, especially on the national scene.

We know the popular presidential candidates and the persuasive ones, but what about the lesser known candidates? Having shorter campaigns allows those popular and persuasive candidates to hold their voters’ attention a lot easier without as much effort that would be required in a longer campaign, that is a negative effect. A longer campaign gives lesser known candidates a fighting chance, and makes our country more democratic. Herbert G. Klein, writing for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, supports my argument when he provides an important fact that Jimmy Carter was “a little-known governor and peanut-farmer who went on a two-year, nonstop campaign and upset all odds in winning his party’s nomination and eventually the presidency.”

If we compare picking the President based on persuasive ability within a six week time frame with the idea of picking a spouse based on beauty, then you can better understand my argument. The beautiful suitors would be the popular choice, but we all know that for a long term marriage to work, you need to understand what that person is about more than how beautiful they may look. That is what the result would be if we elected our next President within six weeks. We would select a person with the best image on first impression and have a vague idea of their issues. In a traditional race we begin to see flaws in their arguments over a lengthier period of time.

Although American attention spans are getting smaller, maybe it’s because the candidates are not exciting enough. There will be more people focused on who our next President will be for at least two reasons: our current situation with the War in Iraq and because a woman and African-American have legitimate shots at winning. This race could be historic and fun.

We need sufficient time to pick our leader, to understand their issues extensively, regardless of their attention span. Many people continuously swing their vote from one moment to the next which allows better candidates to emerge due to the competitive field. Randolph T. Stevenson and Lynn Vavreck, researcher for the British Journal of Political Science, tested 113 elections in thirteen democracies, and concluded that campaign length does matter for voter learning. They specifically state that “in campaigns of sufficient length voters may have more time to be exposed to competing campaign messages and to learn about the true state of the economy and the true policy positions of candidates”. We cannot sacrifice knowing each candidates issues extensively. It would be too risky for our country, and especially when we put the elction in context our current situation.

Referring back to my idea on marital relationships, when you meet someone for the first time, do you really believe you know them well within six weeks? It takes more than six weeks to be considered credible. Electing our next President within six weeks would direct our decision making towards the candidate who persuades us now. We could find out later that they have flaws that we just can’t stand, and does the current President ring a bell?

You wouldn’t choose your spouse within six weeks (unless it’s a reality television show, and we know how successful they are!). Therefore, why settle for electing the President of the United States in that short period of time? That can have catastrophic effects! Six weeks is too risky. If time lets us know that a certain person might be the one for us in loving terms, then lengthier elections will allow Americans a chance to vote for the candidate they truly feel is the right person.

Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communications Studies Major

Presidential Candidate: Bill Richardson

Well folks, it’s almost that time again! I’m sure that you’ve been hearing the buzz, noticing the headlines, and maybe even checking in to see what new events may have transpired in our nation’s capital. If you’re anything like me, you’ve been unable to escape the frenzy and anticipation that’s been accumulating around the 2008 Presidential election. When it reaches its peak, it’s going to be a hurricane of controversy and political dispute. Although the election has moved to the forefront of our media agendas, at this point lightning has barely started to hit the ground for younger voters.

With Democratic nominees Barack OBama and Hillary Clinton capturing everyone’s attention, the nation has been speculating whether or not this next term will re-define history in regards to the race or sex of our future President. But alas, there is another, less-noted nominee who would also mark an equally important, historical moment if he were to take the Presidency.

On January 21^st, 2007, Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico announced that he would be running for the 2008 Presidential election. If he were to take the Oval Office, Richardson would be the first Hispanic American President in the history of our nation. Richardson has an extensive and impressive resume of political experience. From his time as a Congressman to his role as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson has been all across the board. He served as the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration, the chairman of the Democratic National Convention, the chairman of the Democratic Governor’s Association, and he’s currently the Governor of the State of New Mexico. Even during his undergraduate time at Tufts University, he was President of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity. Perhaps he is a natural born leader.

Although Richardson doesn’t have the budget to launch a campaign as ferocious as some of his adversaries most definitely will (he is in favor of limiting the budget for Presidential campaigning), he has some interesting perspectives on politics. For one, he strongly supports Native American causes. Having served on the House on the Natural Resources Subcommittee to Native American Affairs, he strongly pushed important bills for the culture. After being signed by President Bill Clinton, these bills are considered to be some of the most valued in all of Native American history. The list of bills is quite extensive.

Richardson has seen much of the world. Having a wide history of diplomatic travels, Bill has bravely ventured into such places as North Korea, Nigeria, and Cuba. Richardson has acquired a belief in peaceful negotiation. He doesn’t find much value in the use of hostile force although ironically, he’s still in favor of more spending on our military. Years back, Richardson traveled to Baghdad to negotiate the release of two captured American aerospace workers who were being held captive. After face to face negotiations with Saddam Hussein himself, the terms were secured and the prisoners released. Richardson is also responsible for bravely negotiating the release of prisoners in the Sudan and in North Korea.

Personally, I wouldn’t be at all opposed to the idea of Richardson for President of the United States. Although we disagree on certain issues, he seems like an overall good man who stands for his own beliefs and has the best interest of the American people. In regards to the hot topic of immigration, Richardson believes that there should be a path to legalization through the payment of taxes and education of the English language. I must agree.

To me, Richardson seems like the kind of guy that you could easily have a good chat and a cup of coffee with. Keep an open eye for Richardson’s advancement throughout the political race/storm that we’re about to witness. Like I mentioned, this is only the beginning. Hopefully with time, Richardson’s name and reputation will come to the forefront of the upcoming Presidential election.

Jim Feeney '07
Wilkes University
Communications Studies Major

Our Next President?

Think Before You Speak, Senator Biden.

This advice does not draw from our first amendment right to freedom of speech. All Americans need to think before we speak, but especially candidates for President. We are a very individualistic society and want instant gratification, so we blurt things we do not mean. And even in our impulsive sayings – things come out of our mouths and we simply do not think about the consequences. Yes, I know, it is hard to think about every little thing you say but especially in politics, candidates need to be aware of their surroundings at all times, including who is listening. Everything they say and do will be recorded and repeated, many times – especially if it has negative connotations.

U.S. Senator Joe Biden from America’s first state, Delaware, has an exceptional background in politics. He appears to be a deserving candidate for the Presidential consideration in 2008. He’s a dedicated family man who has more than 30 years experience in the U.S. Senate. He serves on the powerful Foreign Relations Committee and has served on it for the three decades he’s been in office. In January, he was elected chairman. As chairman he has began to hold hearings on the War in Iraq; the committee also successfully passed a resolution to stop President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq.

During his time in office he pushed for some very impressive legislation issues. In 1994, he wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which set up a national hotline and shelters all across the country. And he also has continuously pushed for crime bills – his Biden Crime Law requires communities to be notified when convicted sex offenders move into a neighborhood.

It is no mystery that Biden’s family is one of the most important aspects in his life. Shortly after being elected into the Senate in 1972, his first wife and daughter were both killed in a car accident; leaving him a single parent to his 2 sons. Even now, with 3 children and 5 grandchildren, Biden still resides in Delaware choosing to take public transportation home every night to be home with his wife and mother. With all of his years of experience in the U.S. Senate, his wonderful legislation, and his dedication to his family –he should be a viable candidate in the 2008 election.

However, despite his dedication to American values and the American family – perhaps the biggest lesson Biden should have learned in his more than 30 years experience in the Senate is to think before he speaks. Recently, in an interview with the New York Observer, Biden referred to one of his Democrat counterparts, Senator Barack O’bama (Ill.), as a “clean, articulate African American man.” This statement set off a media frenzy, which Biden defends by stating his comments about O’bama were taken out of context. Biden’s apology and O’bama’s own reaction - he did not think Biden was trying to offend anyone - are still making headlines. He even got a little time on ABC’s “The View.” Even the very outspoken co-hosts Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar defended Biden’s comment.

Nevertheless, this isn’t Biden’s first run with the insert-foot-into-mouth syndrome. He made comments with racist connotations against Indian-Americans when he stated that you can not go into a 7-11 convenience store without one of “them” owning one. And he even made statements against his own state, as a slave state, that fought with the North because they could not find their way to the South. Biden also had a run in with accused plagiarism charges at several different occasions – the most recent was in 1987 where he knowingly plagiarized excerpts from a speech by a former British party leader, Neil Kinnock. That incident and the background of several other plagiarism cases in his academic past led him to drop out of the 1988 Presidental election.

So that was 20 years ago. And Joe Biden is back to speaking without thinking and it may be at a deadly cost for his presidential bid. His comments about O’bama will not be taken lightly in the upcoming broad-range Presidental election in 2008. His words may have been taken out of context but they will not be erased – which might ultimately mean his campaign could be terminally tarnished. But can Biden regain the trust and forgiveness of the American people like he has done before? Only time and the American people will tell.

Furthermore, before Americans head to the primary polls and elections, the candidates need to be aware that Americans are listening and watching. And, Americans do know how to do their own research and make educated decisions for themselves without the media and without political slander. So politicians, especially, Senator Joe Biden, be aware of your comments because Americans can forgive but we certainly don’t forget, especially, in this era of electronic campaigning.

Cheryl Gressley ‘08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major