Hillary won the Pennsylvania Primary? How did that happen??
I was a little disappointed that Hillary was able to grasp the Pennsylvania delegates even though I am not in the Democratic Party. Although she only won ten percent higher than Obama of the popular votes, I believe Hillary will continue to run for presidency, since her campaign plans on gaining $10 million as a result of her win in Pennsylvania.
Unfortunately, it does not really matter that I dislike Hillary because for the 2008 Presidential Election, I would not endorse any of the candidates. I am a registered Independent and I feel that neither Obama, Clinton, nor McCain fits the qualifications I deem necessary for the President of the United States.
Since January 2008, I have been researching the current issues of our nation and each candidate’s position on the concerns. Each candidate has his and her own strengths in their campaign, but I cannot bring myself to choose between them. I feel that I am choosing between “the lesser of two/three evils”. When speaking to many people about the presidential race, it seems as though they feel the same way I do at this point in time, especially young voters.
I believe the reasons for my choice relates to my limited experience with voting and politics. This election is the first time I have the ability to vote and I never truly followed politics before in my life. Regrettably, I admit that I am apathetic to issues concerning the United States, like many of my college peers.
I believe my Controlling Spin class has made me more aware of the issues and I will be more in-tune with my country now and into the future years. Even though I dislike the presidential candidates this year, I hope to become more educated before the next election in order to fully participate as a voter and “endorse” a candidate.
Amy Fusco '10
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, May 5, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Senator Hillary Clinton Continues Smear Tactics at King’s College
On April 1, 2008 Senator Barack Obama held a town-hall meeting at Wilkes-University while Senator Hilary Clinton held a similar event at the rival school, Kings College. I attempted to get into Obama’s town-hall meeting but was sadly locked out with hundreds of others. After an almost four hour wait hoping to see Senator Barack Obama as he exited the building, I decided to give up and head over to King’s College to catch Hillary Clinton’s speech. Once there I fought my way through the crowd and ended up directly in front of the stage where Senator Clinton would be speaking.
Senator Clinton walked in to what she appropriately called, “…a feisty crowd” of supporters. She was just as “feisty” as the crowd jumping into her speech and directing her focus on the people. Hillary began with an appealing statement, “This campaign is not about me, it’s about you” and went on to address Pennsylvania’s primary issue, the economy and “jobs, jobs, jobs.” She was very convincing and energetic as she continued addressing significant issues such as taxes, jobs, trade, security, and oil. I was impressed with Senator Clinton up until she slipped into her trademark mudslinging.
She immediately brought up Senator Obama, “…he thinks that this campaign could be compared to the baton death march…or that it was like a movie that had gone on too long. Well we haven’t even gotten to the part that includes Pennsylvania…some of his supporters are saying that I should quit…” On she went complaining about Senator Barack Obama rather than addressing more important issues. I wonder if she failed to realize that there were supporters of her rival in the crowd or if she was purposely trying to anger them. That opening statement about Senator Obama tainted the rest of the speech but Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t stop there.
About half-way through her rival came up again, “my opponent just started running an ad in Pennsylvania which said he ‘never took money from the oil companies’…well it’s illegal to take money from the oil companies”. By this point I began to believe that Senator Clinton’s speech was about Senator Obama rather than her own policies. To me the speech had an, “anything you can do I can do better” juvenile tone.
Senator Clinton’s negative comments have been going on since the South Carolina primaries and have now become a staple move of hers. Needless to say, these actions do not befit her. Speaking about Senator Obama in a negative tone during a town hall meeting not only takes time away from important issues but also takes the focus off of Senator Clinton and brings it back to Senator Obama.
Mudslinging is nothing new to American politics but it certainly doesn’t have to surface in every speech given to the public. Senator Obama does his own mudslinging in the American tradition, but Senator Clinton steps over the line far too often.
Heather Chulick '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Senator Clinton walked in to what she appropriately called, “…a feisty crowd” of supporters. She was just as “feisty” as the crowd jumping into her speech and directing her focus on the people. Hillary began with an appealing statement, “This campaign is not about me, it’s about you” and went on to address Pennsylvania’s primary issue, the economy and “jobs, jobs, jobs.” She was very convincing and energetic as she continued addressing significant issues such as taxes, jobs, trade, security, and oil. I was impressed with Senator Clinton up until she slipped into her trademark mudslinging.
She immediately brought up Senator Obama, “…he thinks that this campaign could be compared to the baton death march…or that it was like a movie that had gone on too long. Well we haven’t even gotten to the part that includes Pennsylvania…some of his supporters are saying that I should quit…” On she went complaining about Senator Barack Obama rather than addressing more important issues. I wonder if she failed to realize that there were supporters of her rival in the crowd or if she was purposely trying to anger them. That opening statement about Senator Obama tainted the rest of the speech but Senator Hillary Clinton didn’t stop there.
About half-way through her rival came up again, “my opponent just started running an ad in Pennsylvania which said he ‘never took money from the oil companies’…well it’s illegal to take money from the oil companies”. By this point I began to believe that Senator Clinton’s speech was about Senator Obama rather than her own policies. To me the speech had an, “anything you can do I can do better” juvenile tone.
Senator Clinton’s negative comments have been going on since the South Carolina primaries and have now become a staple move of hers. Needless to say, these actions do not befit her. Speaking about Senator Obama in a negative tone during a town hall meeting not only takes time away from important issues but also takes the focus off of Senator Clinton and brings it back to Senator Obama.
Mudslinging is nothing new to American politics but it certainly doesn’t have to surface in every speech given to the public. Senator Obama does his own mudslinging in the American tradition, but Senator Clinton steps over the line far too often.
Heather Chulick '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Undecided in Pennsylvania Primary
In the latest census done by Strategic Vision Political in Pennsylvania, Clinton is expected to lead the polls with 48 % and Obama close behind with 41%. But with 11% still undecided this close to voting day this primary election for the democratic nominee can go either way.
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Raquel Wheby '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Raquel Wheby '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Undecided in Pennsylvania Primary
In the latest census done by Strategic Vision Political in Pennsylvania, Clinton is expected to lead the polls with 48 % and Obama close behind with 41%. But with 11% still undecided this close to voting day this primary election for the democratic nominee can go either way.
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Where does the problem stem from? Why can’t voters make their final decision? After numerous discussions with people from all walks of Pennsylvania the same issue keeps coming up. Policy-wise each Democratic candidate appears to be a great choice, with few differences. So, now it comes down to picking candidates based on the personal characteristics rather than their plans for the country.
Today, in the United Press International an analyst sated, “Undecided voters tend to pick U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., which could help her win in Tuesday's Pennsylvania presidential primary.” However, after an interview this morning, April 21, with CBS’s The Early Show, I reevaluated what I said. I said that the candidates’ characteristics are playing the defining role in many voters selection. I know that I am only one of many voters who have just made up their mind less than a day away from the polls opening.
Although I have taken the time to inform myself on each candidate’s plans I am going with Obama because I simply trust him more. It goes much farther than his ability to give a good speech; but rather that once he makes a mistake he is willing to admit, apologize, and fix it. Also if Clinton is caught in the wrong, Obama doesn’t constantly harp on the situation. In several debates Clinton resurrected issues that have been laid to rest, to the point of slowing down the progression of the discussions. I can’t remember Obama ever bringing up Clinton lying about having to find cover in Bosnia from “sniper fire.” And when Clinton finally chose to apologize she didn’t portray someone that made a human mistake and was genuinely sorry. More accurately, I saw a candidate that got caught in a lie and would have kept the lie going if she didn’t get caught. This situation along with her conduct in various debates made my perception of her turn from respectful into her being unnecessarily hostile.
The biggest difference between them is in their ability to compromise. Ask yourself this question, if either candidate was in office and they realized a policy that they set in place might not go according to plan, which one would admit that they might not have the best policy and adjust it to better suit the circumstances? And who would be stubborn and try to push their policy knowing it might not work?
Clinton won hands down the last Democratic debate in Philadelphia. The wear and tear of the 15 months campaign showed clear as Obama. Clinton appearance was great and answered each question effortlessly; it looked as if it was her first day on the campaign. And for her sake I wish it was. I’m sorry, Senator Clinton it is a little too late. The damage is already done, you crack under pressure and you’ve got a hot head.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Such a Sucker for a Sweet Talker
Senator Barrack Obama recently made a campaign stop right here at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. As anyone who knows me will say, I am not shy about being a Hillary Clinton supporter through and through. But, my attendance at the recent speech given here at Wilkes by Obama had me nearly second guessing my choice to support Hillary.
On the same day Obama visited Wilkes University, Clinton made a stop at our very closely neighboring school, King's College. Of course, being the headstrong Hillary supporter I am, I was looking forward to attending her speech. However, the fact that Obama tickets were much easier to require, plus the fact that I had no ride to King's led me to my decision to go see Obama and see what he had to say.
As I sat among the boisterous Obama supporters, I couldn't help but find the little Obama chants they shouted to be a little bit catchy. As Obama came out, cheers filled the gym here at Wilkes. As Obama started talking, I was still not expecting to be thrilled.
Half way through the speech, I found myself nodding in agreement and clapping with each assertion Obama made. His voice was sure and powerful, and his demeanor was very relaxed and approachable. He seemed to quickly develop a rapport with all of us in the audience, making us feel as if he was speaking to us individually as well as a whole community. He smiled as people asked him questions and even took time to approach a young boy that was seated in the audience. I'll admit it. I was completely put under the Obama spell that so many friends of mine have fallen under. Was I actually starting to like Obama more than Hillary?
As I walked out of the gymnasium, I started thinking that this guy deserves some credit. Even though the answers he gave to all of the questions in the meeting were void of any detail and actual plan, I still liked the way they sounded. How is it that a candidate who repeatedly avoids going into detail about any of his policies manages to do so well? The combination of his powerful voice, his charismatic attitude, and his ability to, pardon my French, bullshit may actually win him the Democratic nomination. Amazing.
Katie Marzzacco '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
On the same day Obama visited Wilkes University, Clinton made a stop at our very closely neighboring school, King's College. Of course, being the headstrong Hillary supporter I am, I was looking forward to attending her speech. However, the fact that Obama tickets were much easier to require, plus the fact that I had no ride to King's led me to my decision to go see Obama and see what he had to say.
As I sat among the boisterous Obama supporters, I couldn't help but find the little Obama chants they shouted to be a little bit catchy. As Obama came out, cheers filled the gym here at Wilkes. As Obama started talking, I was still not expecting to be thrilled.
Half way through the speech, I found myself nodding in agreement and clapping with each assertion Obama made. His voice was sure and powerful, and his demeanor was very relaxed and approachable. He seemed to quickly develop a rapport with all of us in the audience, making us feel as if he was speaking to us individually as well as a whole community. He smiled as people asked him questions and even took time to approach a young boy that was seated in the audience. I'll admit it. I was completely put under the Obama spell that so many friends of mine have fallen under. Was I actually starting to like Obama more than Hillary?
As I walked out of the gymnasium, I started thinking that this guy deserves some credit. Even though the answers he gave to all of the questions in the meeting were void of any detail and actual plan, I still liked the way they sounded. How is it that a candidate who repeatedly avoids going into detail about any of his policies manages to do so well? The combination of his powerful voice, his charismatic attitude, and his ability to, pardon my French, bullshit may actually win him the Democratic nomination. Amazing.
Katie Marzzacco '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Live in Person with Obama and Clinton
April 1, 2008 will always be a day I remember because it was the day I had the privilege of seeing two of our nations presidential firsts in person. I saw Presidential Candidates Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton when they visited Wilkes-Barre, PA.
After word spread that both Democratic candidates would be in Wilkes-Barre, I decided this was an opportunity that needed to be taken advantage of. Therefore, at 9:30 a.m., I was in line waiting to be admitted into Wilkes University’s Martz Gymnasium to hear Senator Obama and by 1pm I was running cross-town to hear Senator Clinton at nearby King’s College. I planned my day around these two events because by the end of the day, I was determined to know who would be receiving my vote on Tuesday, April 22, the Pennsylvania primary.
Upon Senator Obama’s entrance into the gymnasium, the entire room was on their feet applauding their Presidential hopeful. With all the chanting and cheering, one would have thought we were awaiting a famous music band or celebrity. It is now my understanding that indeed, we were. At that moment I realized I was not just about to see two presidential candidates, but two of the most renowned political celebrities in our nation.
Obama and Clinton both are excellent candidates. After doing much research on their campaigns and their political agenda, I concluded they are more similar than different when it comes to politics. However, as individuals the two could not be more different.
Senator Obama was incredibly articulate. His charisma and oratorical skills enabled him to fully engage the audience—men, women and children alike. The eyes of his constituents smiled upon him as he spoke of issues that he finds important. I found it quite surreal as I looked at the crowds and saw them mesmerized by his person. It was as though they fell in love with the man and not the candidate.
Clinton was also adored by her constituents, but for entirely different reasons. Senator Clinton took the stage with a feminine dignity and grace which was greeted by a very large crowd who all chanted her name but fell silent the minute she took the mic. Unlike Obama who needed to silence his audience, Clinton was listened to the moment she began to speak. Her magnetism was not of charisma or oratorical skills, but of her political agenda. Her passion for what she was talking about was reflected through her word choice. The vocal variety and kinesics of her speech were impressive and allowed the audience to truly see her as a leader.
After seeing both candidates in person, on the same day, I felt that I would have a clear mindset about which one I was going to vote for the Pennsylvania State Primary. But I was mistaken. Although I feel both candidates are more than capable of leading this country, I still have skepticism concerning their plans. Senator Obama, as eloquent as he was, did not explain how he will bring his changes about. And Senator Clinton, as precise as she was in explaining how she will go about her plans, she did not engage her audience with her personality or speech which I believe is a trait our Chief Diplomat needs. Consequently my mind has yet to be decided but at least, I now feel like I am closer to knowing who Senator Barack Obama and who Senator Hillary Clinton are.
Valerie J. Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
After word spread that both Democratic candidates would be in Wilkes-Barre, I decided this was an opportunity that needed to be taken advantage of. Therefore, at 9:30 a.m., I was in line waiting to be admitted into Wilkes University’s Martz Gymnasium to hear Senator Obama and by 1pm I was running cross-town to hear Senator Clinton at nearby King’s College. I planned my day around these two events because by the end of the day, I was determined to know who would be receiving my vote on Tuesday, April 22, the Pennsylvania primary.
Upon Senator Obama’s entrance into the gymnasium, the entire room was on their feet applauding their Presidential hopeful. With all the chanting and cheering, one would have thought we were awaiting a famous music band or celebrity. It is now my understanding that indeed, we were. At that moment I realized I was not just about to see two presidential candidates, but two of the most renowned political celebrities in our nation.
Obama and Clinton both are excellent candidates. After doing much research on their campaigns and their political agenda, I concluded they are more similar than different when it comes to politics. However, as individuals the two could not be more different.
Senator Obama was incredibly articulate. His charisma and oratorical skills enabled him to fully engage the audience—men, women and children alike. The eyes of his constituents smiled upon him as he spoke of issues that he finds important. I found it quite surreal as I looked at the crowds and saw them mesmerized by his person. It was as though they fell in love with the man and not the candidate.
Clinton was also adored by her constituents, but for entirely different reasons. Senator Clinton took the stage with a feminine dignity and grace which was greeted by a very large crowd who all chanted her name but fell silent the minute she took the mic. Unlike Obama who needed to silence his audience, Clinton was listened to the moment she began to speak. Her magnetism was not of charisma or oratorical skills, but of her political agenda. Her passion for what she was talking about was reflected through her word choice. The vocal variety and kinesics of her speech were impressive and allowed the audience to truly see her as a leader.
After seeing both candidates in person, on the same day, I felt that I would have a clear mindset about which one I was going to vote for the Pennsylvania State Primary. But I was mistaken. Although I feel both candidates are more than capable of leading this country, I still have skepticism concerning their plans. Senator Obama, as eloquent as he was, did not explain how he will bring his changes about. And Senator Clinton, as precise as she was in explaining how she will go about her plans, she did not engage her audience with her personality or speech which I believe is a trait our Chief Diplomat needs. Consequently my mind has yet to be decided but at least, I now feel like I am closer to knowing who Senator Barack Obama and who Senator Hillary Clinton are.
Valerie J. Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Former President Bill Clinton Did Not Disappoint in Wilkes-Barre
I want to make my personal position clear. As a product of the early 80’s, a child of the early 90’s, and an avid Hillary supporter it only seemed logical that I visit my old alma matter, Coughlin High School, to hear the campaign speech of the greatest president of my lifespan, Bill Clinton. Sure it was rainy and cold and the line seemed to take hours to move inches but in my opinion it was well worth the wait.
While I was in line for two hours, it only seemed natural to speak to my elders and get their opinions on the election and why they were braving the cold and rainy conditions. I got more than I bargained for when I struck up a conversation with an older woman named Margo. She did not think that in her lifetime she would ever see a presidential race like this one. “A black or a woman, nah it would never happen; it‘s a great time to be alive,” she said. It was just a simple surface conversation until I asked her why she was there. In that instant our surface banter became an all-out political discussion. My intention was never to use her in this blog, but to simply pass the time. However, without her this experience wouldn’t have been quite as amusing or as informative. Margo said, “I voted for a Clinton in 92 and again in 96 and I am honored to vote for another Clinton in 2008. Race or sex has nothing to do with my decision. She‘s a good woman with great ideas.”
We are two women from two very different generations but I stand by her words. It’s nice to find common ground between generations when at times the gap seems too large to close. We may not have the same reasoning behind our decisions, but I am also honored to vote for a Clinton on April 22nd and with any luck again in November.
As the line started moving and the conversation dissipated I couldn’t help getting butterflies in my stomach. By the time I finally reached the gymnasium, that very same one I used to run laps around just a few years ago, I became filled with a child-like excitement. My father was an intense Clinton supporter in the 90’s and I guess he handed the torch down to me. I’ve been hearing for years what an amazing speaker he was, and the chance to hear him in person was something I just couldn’t wait to experience.
Once we were seated it became a spectacle. There was music blaring and people everywhere. If I didn’t know any better I would have thought I was walking into a concert. Plain and simple, it was crazy.
He arrived a half-hour late, but his speech did not disappoint. He touched on every issue for every age range. He talked about creating more energy efficient cars and making them more affordable for the masses. He spoke about health care and higher education. He really didn’t skimp on anything. He was as charismatic as promised and as charming as he looks on television. In my opinion, he helped sway a few of those undecideds to Hillary supporters with just a few words. My favorite line of the entire speech is when he was responding to remarks made by Barrack Obama about the Clinton era 90’s. Clinton said, “What didn’t you like about the 90’s, was it the peace or was it the prosperity?” The crowd went into an uproar, whether you like the man or not, he can make a speech. I am so glad I had the honor of attending this event. The YouTube feed will never replace the feeling of actually being there.
Was it worth standing outside for two hours for? Absolutely. If you weren’t a Hillary supporter before this speech my guess is you were afterwards. My advice to anyone on the fence in this election is to go watch the candidates or their surrogates speak. I promise the feeling of being there won’t disappoint.
Lyndsay Padavan '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
While I was in line for two hours, it only seemed natural to speak to my elders and get their opinions on the election and why they were braving the cold and rainy conditions. I got more than I bargained for when I struck up a conversation with an older woman named Margo. She did not think that in her lifetime she would ever see a presidential race like this one. “A black or a woman, nah it would never happen; it‘s a great time to be alive,” she said. It was just a simple surface conversation until I asked her why she was there. In that instant our surface banter became an all-out political discussion. My intention was never to use her in this blog, but to simply pass the time. However, without her this experience wouldn’t have been quite as amusing or as informative. Margo said, “I voted for a Clinton in 92 and again in 96 and I am honored to vote for another Clinton in 2008. Race or sex has nothing to do with my decision. She‘s a good woman with great ideas.”
We are two women from two very different generations but I stand by her words. It’s nice to find common ground between generations when at times the gap seems too large to close. We may not have the same reasoning behind our decisions, but I am also honored to vote for a Clinton on April 22nd and with any luck again in November.
As the line started moving and the conversation dissipated I couldn’t help getting butterflies in my stomach. By the time I finally reached the gymnasium, that very same one I used to run laps around just a few years ago, I became filled with a child-like excitement. My father was an intense Clinton supporter in the 90’s and I guess he handed the torch down to me. I’ve been hearing for years what an amazing speaker he was, and the chance to hear him in person was something I just couldn’t wait to experience.
Once we were seated it became a spectacle. There was music blaring and people everywhere. If I didn’t know any better I would have thought I was walking into a concert. Plain and simple, it was crazy.
He arrived a half-hour late, but his speech did not disappoint. He touched on every issue for every age range. He talked about creating more energy efficient cars and making them more affordable for the masses. He spoke about health care and higher education. He really didn’t skimp on anything. He was as charismatic as promised and as charming as he looks on television. In my opinion, he helped sway a few of those undecideds to Hillary supporters with just a few words. My favorite line of the entire speech is when he was responding to remarks made by Barrack Obama about the Clinton era 90’s. Clinton said, “What didn’t you like about the 90’s, was it the peace or was it the prosperity?” The crowd went into an uproar, whether you like the man or not, he can make a speech. I am so glad I had the honor of attending this event. The YouTube feed will never replace the feeling of actually being there.
Was it worth standing outside for two hours for? Absolutely. If you weren’t a Hillary supporter before this speech my guess is you were afterwards. My advice to anyone on the fence in this election is to go watch the candidates or their surrogates speak. I promise the feeling of being there won’t disappoint.
Lyndsay Padavan '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Don’t Let Gender Define this Campaign
With the upcoming Pennsylvania primary just a few weeks away, and considering the importance our state can have on which Democratic presidential candidate gets the nomination, I wanted to remind local residents of the importance of voting for a candidate based on their plan of action, rather than their race or gender.
I’m going through an invaluable experience this semester by studying each candidate and how they plan to make our country better, and I’m also learning how campaigns “spin” a message to their candidate’s advantage. And you know, for the first time I feel educated about the political process. But, it really upsets me when I have taken the time out to study each candidate’s plan of action to find that there are people here in Wilkes-Barre, and across the country for that matter, who vote in the primary based on gender or race alone. Or, they vote on looks as the sole reason for acceptance. Now, I don’t mind if someone is voting for John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, but let’s have some sense when we go to the voting booth!
In this upcoming primary in particular, I’ve heard countless women, including my mother, say they’ll vote for Hillary because “we need a woman as President because a man couldn’t get the job done.” Vote for Hillary, but do it because you find her universal health care plan irresistible, or because you have a child going to college in the near future and you like her ideas to make his or her education more affordable. To strip each candidate to simply their race or gender is being simple and narrow-minded.
I’m not being naive on this issue. I know there will always be people who will vote for a candidate because they like their inspirational speeches or they like their significant other, who previously served in office. But, in a critical primary that can potentially shape the next couple of generations, how about we look at the content of the speeches, rather than listen to the supporters strategically clap between every other sentence?
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
I’m going through an invaluable experience this semester by studying each candidate and how they plan to make our country better, and I’m also learning how campaigns “spin” a message to their candidate’s advantage. And you know, for the first time I feel educated about the political process. But, it really upsets me when I have taken the time out to study each candidate’s plan of action to find that there are people here in Wilkes-Barre, and across the country for that matter, who vote in the primary based on gender or race alone. Or, they vote on looks as the sole reason for acceptance. Now, I don’t mind if someone is voting for John McCain, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, but let’s have some sense when we go to the voting booth!
In this upcoming primary in particular, I’ve heard countless women, including my mother, say they’ll vote for Hillary because “we need a woman as President because a man couldn’t get the job done.” Vote for Hillary, but do it because you find her universal health care plan irresistible, or because you have a child going to college in the near future and you like her ideas to make his or her education more affordable. To strip each candidate to simply their race or gender is being simple and narrow-minded.
I’m not being naive on this issue. I know there will always be people who will vote for a candidate because they like their inspirational speeches or they like their significant other, who previously served in office. But, in a critical primary that can potentially shape the next couple of generations, how about we look at the content of the speeches, rather than listen to the supporters strategically clap between every other sentence?
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Friday, March 21, 2008
Hillary Gets My Vote on the Economy
Think back to 1929, the United States was in the largest slump it had ever been in and people were in a panic. Think now to 2008, thanks to President George W. Bush we may be headed in the same direction. John Schmitt and Dean Baker from the US Center for Economic and Policy Research say that, “A recession in 2008 would raise the national unemployment rate by between 2.1 and 3.8 percentage points, increasing the number of unemployed Americans by between 3.2 million and 5.8 million.”
As a graduating college senior this frightens me more than just a little. The stock market is dropping and the financial stability of our country is dropping, wake up people. Calvin Coolidge was a reason for the recession of 1929; do we want George W. Bush to be the cause of this one? We need to educate ourselves and be aware of this situation.
According to the Morgan Stanley global economic forum, we need to be educated on four main factors: “First, weak US demand may spill into overseas economies through a traditional trade channel, as slower growth in US imports will directly or indirectly affect exports in other regions. Under the trade umbrella, we include the cross-border flows of profits resulting from direct investment in the US. Second, financial channels are probably more important today; financial shocks that began with rising US mortgage defaults are now spilling over into a global credit squeeze, deleveraging of balance sheets, and tighter financial conditions in many markets. Third, the ebbing tide of US and global growth is exposing domestic weakness in economies that had been masked by the global boom of the past few years, so understanding domestic economic health is critical. Finally, while we aren’t bearish on commodities, it’s important to assess the effects on commodity producers of slower growth in demand.”
I’ve done my homework ladies and gentleman and all the facts are leading to one outcome, at least in my mind. A recession is approaching us at a rapid pace and we need to elect the right officials to do something about it. In my eyes, Hillary Clinton is just the right woman to take on this job.
Her economic plan includes establishing a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to help states and cities mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures, take action against the stem tide of foreclosure (which includes a 90-day moratorium on sub-prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages of at least five years), provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills, accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth, and to invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.
What does this mean to me? I am graduating from college in May, the real world is just on the horizon and the fact is I am going to need a job. Hillary’s plan will help to create jobs and open up new opportunities for those of us that need them. The truth is it just isn’t encouraging when your graduating college and the economy is experiencing its “down time.” With the help of young voters such as myself, we can make sure we choose the right person to help us through our journey. I don’t want to be standing in the unemployment line, do you?
Lindsay Padavan '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
As a graduating college senior this frightens me more than just a little. The stock market is dropping and the financial stability of our country is dropping, wake up people. Calvin Coolidge was a reason for the recession of 1929; do we want George W. Bush to be the cause of this one? We need to educate ourselves and be aware of this situation.
According to the Morgan Stanley global economic forum, we need to be educated on four main factors: “First, weak US demand may spill into overseas economies through a traditional trade channel, as slower growth in US imports will directly or indirectly affect exports in other regions. Under the trade umbrella, we include the cross-border flows of profits resulting from direct investment in the US. Second, financial channels are probably more important today; financial shocks that began with rising US mortgage defaults are now spilling over into a global credit squeeze, deleveraging of balance sheets, and tighter financial conditions in many markets. Third, the ebbing tide of US and global growth is exposing domestic weakness in economies that had been masked by the global boom of the past few years, so understanding domestic economic health is critical. Finally, while we aren’t bearish on commodities, it’s important to assess the effects on commodity producers of slower growth in demand.”
I’ve done my homework ladies and gentleman and all the facts are leading to one outcome, at least in my mind. A recession is approaching us at a rapid pace and we need to elect the right officials to do something about it. In my eyes, Hillary Clinton is just the right woman to take on this job.
Her economic plan includes establishing a $30 Billion Emergency Housing Crisis Fund to help states and cities mitigate the effects of mounting foreclosures, take action against the stem tide of foreclosure (which includes a 90-day moratorium on sub-prime foreclosures and an automatic rate freeze on sub-prime mortgages of at least five years), provide $25 billion in emergency energy assistance for families facing skyrocketing heating bills, accelerate $5 billion in energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth, and to invest $10 billion in extending and broadening unemployment insurance for those who are struggling to find work.
What does this mean to me? I am graduating from college in May, the real world is just on the horizon and the fact is I am going to need a job. Hillary’s plan will help to create jobs and open up new opportunities for those of us that need them. The truth is it just isn’t encouraging when your graduating college and the economy is experiencing its “down time.” With the help of young voters such as myself, we can make sure we choose the right person to help us through our journey. I don’t want to be standing in the unemployment line, do you?
Lindsay Padavan '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Sex, is this all that matters?
We constantly hear that 2008 is the year of presidential firsts. Well, what about concentrating on the content of someone’s character instead of their demographics? Let us be clear, Senator Clinton understood that the road ahead would not only break new ground, but also reopen the debate as to whether a woman could be elected President. Why does it matter that she chooses to take the road less traveled? Is it necessary that Americans continue to elect the same wealthy, Caucasian, middle-aged males? I think not.
Clinton, often referred to as “Hillary” by her competitors and the press, is seen simply as a woman. Her sex is discussed more than her political agenda. For example, in New Hampshire she was accused of crying. Who saw her cry? Where is the proof? I saw photos of a person showing emotion, but I did not see anyone crying. What I have seen is a woman prove that she is more than capable of playing with the big boys. Yet the American people cannot get past her sex. In fact, Senator Clinton has encountered several gender-based attacks and the use of the "B" word. While in Las Vegas for the Democratic debate she acknowledged that what she is aiming for is "toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling." My question is why, in today’s age, is that ceiling so high? And why is she the only one aiming towards an improbable goal?
As a twenty-year-old Latina voting this year, I personally do not look at the candidate’s demographics, but his or her knowledge on what our country needs. Having stated my personal opinion, I realize this is not the consensus amongst a majority of Americans. Instead, the media and many constituents have chosen to teach our youth that sex does matter. By making such a big deal about a woman candidate, people are demonstrating that sex is an issue and cannot be overlooked in a debate, an election, or simply put, a job. After all, that is what the presidency is. It’s a job, a very important job, but a job none the less. The male candidates have been asked about their views on politics, issues concerning America, and their personal beliefs. Senator Clinton has been asked similar questions, but also questions regarding her fashion and romantic life. For example on the Tyra Banks Show, Senator Clinton was asked about her headbands, a hair accessory she wore while Bill Clinton ran for President. She was also asked about her first date, but I do not recall Senator Obama talking about his first date or why he seems to wear blue ties so often. The only “firsts” discussed with Obama were his first job and first priorities if elected President of the United States.
It is shameful that when looking at our presidential candidates a majority of Americans merely see gender. Whatever happened to choosing the best person for the job and not the best sex for the position? I hope that in some ways people realize that if we truly are to claim advancement in the struggle of the sexes, America as a whole will need to treat all the Presidential candidates equally and not simply give “Hillary” a shot but give Senator Clinton an opportunity.
Valerie Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Clinton, often referred to as “Hillary” by her competitors and the press, is seen simply as a woman. Her sex is discussed more than her political agenda. For example, in New Hampshire she was accused of crying. Who saw her cry? Where is the proof? I saw photos of a person showing emotion, but I did not see anyone crying. What I have seen is a woman prove that she is more than capable of playing with the big boys. Yet the American people cannot get past her sex. In fact, Senator Clinton has encountered several gender-based attacks and the use of the "B" word. While in Las Vegas for the Democratic debate she acknowledged that what she is aiming for is "toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling." My question is why, in today’s age, is that ceiling so high? And why is she the only one aiming towards an improbable goal?
As a twenty-year-old Latina voting this year, I personally do not look at the candidate’s demographics, but his or her knowledge on what our country needs. Having stated my personal opinion, I realize this is not the consensus amongst a majority of Americans. Instead, the media and many constituents have chosen to teach our youth that sex does matter. By making such a big deal about a woman candidate, people are demonstrating that sex is an issue and cannot be overlooked in a debate, an election, or simply put, a job. After all, that is what the presidency is. It’s a job, a very important job, but a job none the less. The male candidates have been asked about their views on politics, issues concerning America, and their personal beliefs. Senator Clinton has been asked similar questions, but also questions regarding her fashion and romantic life. For example on the Tyra Banks Show, Senator Clinton was asked about her headbands, a hair accessory she wore while Bill Clinton ran for President. She was also asked about her first date, but I do not recall Senator Obama talking about his first date or why he seems to wear blue ties so often. The only “firsts” discussed with Obama were his first job and first priorities if elected President of the United States.
It is shameful that when looking at our presidential candidates a majority of Americans merely see gender. Whatever happened to choosing the best person for the job and not the best sex for the position? I hope that in some ways people realize that if we truly are to claim advancement in the struggle of the sexes, America as a whole will need to treat all the Presidential candidates equally and not simply give “Hillary” a shot but give Senator Clinton an opportunity.
Valerie Martinez '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
What Can Obama and Clinton Do to Help Me Pay for My College Education and Reduce My Debt?
I am a first semester senior at Wilkes University and that means that I will be graduating next fall. If I do find a job in the communications field, it will most likely be low paying until I can work my way up the corporate ladder. Six months into my profession the bills for the loans that I had to take out will kick in.
My loans have been accumulating interest and now I will almost have to pay double the amount that I took out. In other words, the interest rate is variable and will go up. According to rockthevote.com, in 2005 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, “which cut $12 billion in federal student aid money…the plan includes a hike in interest rates on Stafford federal student loans (rose from 5.3% to 7.14% on existing loans and to 6.8 % on new loans) and loans taken out by parents (from 6.1 to 7.4 percent on existing loans and to 8.5% on new loans).
Why did Congress do this? According to collegejournal.com, “the reduced funding is part of a $40 billion deficit reduction passed by the Senate…to help limit spending…” As a college student, I have many worries on my mind once graduation comes, worries that I will address to the presidential candidates specifically. What can the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates do to help me pay for my education and reduce my debt?
In recent years the price of college level education has skyrocketed. According to rockthevote.com, college costs are up 35% in five years. As a student at Wilkes University I am paying about $34,180 for tuition and fees along with room and board. That phenomenal fee doesn’t include books, supplies, transportation, or living expenses like extra food and toiletries. According to current reports by the College Board, “most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $95 to $1,404 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college (http://www.collegeboard.com/).”
The top two Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are aiming their education policies at lower level rather than college level education. According to HillaryClinton.com, Senator Clinton is planning to increase the maximum Pell Grant, strengthen community colleges through a $500 million investment, create a graduation fund to increase college graduation rates, and increase to $10,000 the college scholarship for those who participate in AmeriCorps full-time for one year. All of these plans are good, but the policies are vague. What about students who will just be graduating? What can Senator Clinton do about the hike in interest rates on the loans, including private lender loans, that students will have to pay off in the next one to two years?
Senator Obama has a plan that supersedes that of Senator Clinton because he provides more information and more opportunities, but he still does not address the issue of loans, other than to support eliminating costly bank subsidies. “Obama will save taxpayer money billions by eliminating the more expensive private loan program and directing that money into aid for students” (http://www.barackobama.com). The issue of loans is addressed, but there is still nothing directed at the 60 percent of college students that will leave college with debt.
Here is a plea to the current Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, start addressing the issue of the cost of college education and reducing the amount of debt that college graduates will have. There will be 60 percent of students in America graduating who will be in debt and that large percentage needs the help of the government now.
Heather Chulick ‘08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
My loans have been accumulating interest and now I will almost have to pay double the amount that I took out. In other words, the interest rate is variable and will go up. According to rockthevote.com, in 2005 Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act, “which cut $12 billion in federal student aid money…the plan includes a hike in interest rates on Stafford federal student loans (rose from 5.3% to 7.14% on existing loans and to 6.8 % on new loans) and loans taken out by parents (from 6.1 to 7.4 percent on existing loans and to 8.5% on new loans).
Why did Congress do this? According to collegejournal.com, “the reduced funding is part of a $40 billion deficit reduction passed by the Senate…to help limit spending…” As a college student, I have many worries on my mind once graduation comes, worries that I will address to the presidential candidates specifically. What can the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates do to help me pay for my education and reduce my debt?
In recent years the price of college level education has skyrocketed. According to rockthevote.com, college costs are up 35% in five years. As a student at Wilkes University I am paying about $34,180 for tuition and fees along with room and board. That phenomenal fee doesn’t include books, supplies, transportation, or living expenses like extra food and toiletries. According to current reports by the College Board, “most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $95 to $1,404 more than last year for this year's tuition and fees, depending on the type of college (http://www.collegeboard.com/).”
The top two Democratic candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are aiming their education policies at lower level rather than college level education. According to HillaryClinton.com, Senator Clinton is planning to increase the maximum Pell Grant, strengthen community colleges through a $500 million investment, create a graduation fund to increase college graduation rates, and increase to $10,000 the college scholarship for those who participate in AmeriCorps full-time for one year. All of these plans are good, but the policies are vague. What about students who will just be graduating? What can Senator Clinton do about the hike in interest rates on the loans, including private lender loans, that students will have to pay off in the next one to two years?
Senator Obama has a plan that supersedes that of Senator Clinton because he provides more information and more opportunities, but he still does not address the issue of loans, other than to support eliminating costly bank subsidies. “Obama will save taxpayer money billions by eliminating the more expensive private loan program and directing that money into aid for students” (http://www.barackobama.com). The issue of loans is addressed, but there is still nothing directed at the 60 percent of college students that will leave college with debt.
Here is a plea to the current Democratic candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, start addressing the issue of the cost of college education and reducing the amount of debt that college graduates will have. There will be 60 percent of students in America graduating who will be in debt and that large percentage needs the help of the government now.
Heather Chulick ‘08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Senators Clinton and Obama Get High Marks for Policies on HIV/AIDS; Republicans Offer Very Little
The War in Iraq, the environment, the economy, and health care are all controversial issues the candidates in the 2008 presidential election are addressing. Thousands have died in Iraq, the economy is steadily declining, and the number of people without health care in this country is staggering. While these are major problems the country faces, these numbers pale in comparison to those affected and infected by the AIDS virus.
After looking at the top two Democratic and top two Republican candidates I was shocked to find out that only the two Democratic candidates have made a substantial effort in the fight against AIDS. Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama are the only two to mention AIDS as one of their issues on their campaign websites. Both Clinton and Obama should be praised for their efforts in the fight against AIDS.
In 2006, Clinton moved to provide better funding for the Ryan White Care Act, which helps lower class families pay for medical care. She also recognized that young people (who are one of the most at risk groups to becoming infected) need to get access to scientific information about HIV and the prevention of AIDS. This would also include educating those people already infected so they can learn how to prevent infecting others. Clinton also stresses the need for testing and lessening the stigma young people have associated with getting tested.
In a statement made at the U.N. Meeting on AIDS, Clinton mentioned her concerns about the global spread of AIDS and the lack of AIDS education. According to the U.N. children in low to middle income countries have little to no knowledge about how to prevent the spread of HIV. She also expressed her concerns on the lack of medical care in these countries, especially dealing with pregnant women who would benefit from treatments that could limit mother-to child transmission.
At the June 2007 debate at Howard University, Clinton expressed her outrage with the White House’s response to the increase in HIV cases in Black Americans, saying. “If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of White women between the ages of 25-34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country.”
Senator Obama has also taken many steps in the fight against AIDS. He has traveled to Kenya to take a public HIV test to encourage testing and to help clear up any negative stereotypes that might linger about testing. He has also pushed for better prevention methods in the global fight against AIDS, which include condom distribution and the introduction of the Microbiade Development Act, which will be used to produce and develop products to help women battle HIV and AIDS.
At the Howard University debate in June, Obama pushed for greater AIDS education for young people saying, “We don’t talk about it in the schools. Sometimes we don’t talk about it in the churches.”
John McCain really surprised me by his lack of knowledge about anything dealing with AIDS. In March 2007, when asked by a reporter what he thought about using taxpayer money to distribute condoms in Africa to help fight HIV, McCain responded by saying he didn’t know the subject well. He also added that he relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma. He then went on to say, “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about it. Let me think about it a little bit, because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use the taxpayer’s money for it.”
In late 2007, Mike Huckabee refused to retract statements he made in 1992 about quarantining AIDS patients to prevent the spread of the disease. He also said “It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crises it represents.” Apparently Governor Huckabee failed to get the message that health officials have been saying for years— casual contact is not a way AIDS could be spread.
After carefully examining the top four candidates in this election I would continue to praise Senators Clinton and Obama for not only their efforts in raising awareness and their ideas for combating this deadly disease both in the United States and globally. As for the two Republican candidates, they seem to act as if AIDS isn’t one of the major crises we face in this world. Their lack of knowledge and in the case of Huckabee, compassion, is alarming. How can you make a decision on an issue if you’re not informed on it? How can you be a successful leader if you rely on someone else’s opinions when making decisions on an issue?
Jamie Gibson '08Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Edwards: Forgotten, but Not Gone
In a Presidential primary season that is overly rich with celebrity endorsements ranging from Oprah Winfrey to Chuck Norris, endorsements have begun to lack any meaning or influence on the campaigns. Even Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama, which was played up by the media for days, was not able to pull a win for Obama in the Massachusetts primary. However, I think there is at least one endorsement left to be given that might have a significant impact in pulling the Democratic Candidates out of the tie they have been stuck in for weeks.
John Edwards left the Presidential race on January 30, 2008 without making an endorsement of either Obama or Clinton. Throughout his campaign, Edwards had a substantial following, which even enabled him to beat out Clinton for a second place finish in Iowa. He received14% of the vote in Florida,18% in South Carolina,17% in New Hampshire, 4% in Nevada, and 30% in Iowa according to cnn.com. Although these percentages are relatively small, in the close race between Obama and Clinton if one candidate were to receive a significant amount of those votes, it would make a difference.
I think it is highly possible that if Edwards did make an endorsement, many of his supporters would follow his decision. The reason is that unlike actors and other political figures, Edwards was actually in the race and had a clear following who wanted to see him as the next President. As a result they have a logical reason to trust his opinion on which remaining candidate will be the best for the job. Also, there is the good chance that if whoever he endorses wins, Edwards will be at the top of the list of possible running mates for that candidate. For Edwards supporters, seeing their candidate as Vice President is better than nothing, so of course they will want to vote the way Edwards suggests they do.
This week it was reported that both Clinton and Obama had secret meetings with with Edwards at his home. This seems to indicate that an Edwards endorsement could come in the very near future. However, as each day goes by the significance of an Edwards endorsement fades. Soon enough the primaries will be over and all Edwards supporters will be committed to a different candidate. Only time will tell what Edwards chooses to do, but I think it is safe to say that he is the most likely choice for either Clinton or Obama as a Vice President. As for what the media has dubbed the “Dream Ticket,” with Clinton and Obama as running mates, it really is just a dream.
Christine Zavaskas '09
Wilkes University
Communcation Studies
John Edwards left the Presidential race on January 30, 2008 without making an endorsement of either Obama or Clinton. Throughout his campaign, Edwards had a substantial following, which even enabled him to beat out Clinton for a second place finish in Iowa. He received14% of the vote in Florida,18% in South Carolina,17% in New Hampshire, 4% in Nevada, and 30% in Iowa according to cnn.com. Although these percentages are relatively small, in the close race between Obama and Clinton if one candidate were to receive a significant amount of those votes, it would make a difference.
I think it is highly possible that if Edwards did make an endorsement, many of his supporters would follow his decision. The reason is that unlike actors and other political figures, Edwards was actually in the race and had a clear following who wanted to see him as the next President. As a result they have a logical reason to trust his opinion on which remaining candidate will be the best for the job. Also, there is the good chance that if whoever he endorses wins, Edwards will be at the top of the list of possible running mates for that candidate. For Edwards supporters, seeing their candidate as Vice President is better than nothing, so of course they will want to vote the way Edwards suggests they do.
This week it was reported that both Clinton and Obama had secret meetings with with Edwards at his home. This seems to indicate that an Edwards endorsement could come in the very near future. However, as each day goes by the significance of an Edwards endorsement fades. Soon enough the primaries will be over and all Edwards supporters will be committed to a different candidate. Only time will tell what Edwards chooses to do, but I think it is safe to say that he is the most likely choice for either Clinton or Obama as a Vice President. As for what the media has dubbed the “Dream Ticket,” with Clinton and Obama as running mates, it really is just a dream.
Christine Zavaskas '09
Wilkes University
Communcation Studies
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Dump the Delegates: It’s Time for a Direct Democracy
There are many things in life that I’ll never understand. These are things such as the fluctuation of gas prices as an election is near, how our economy solves its problems by increasing the price of everything, and most importantly, why we have delegates in a presidential election.
Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.
In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.
It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.
During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.
I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.
That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?
Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.
A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.
In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.
It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.
During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.
I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.
That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?
Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Why Does Style Matter?
Why does style matter when you are electing a president? In the 2008 presidential election, Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are racing for the hot seat to lead this country through a time of “change.” But which one actually has what it takes to be the next president?
Both Obama and Clinton stand on similar platforms. Both support pulling out of the war in Iraq, both want better health care, both agree that change is needed for the U.S. But even if both said the same words, one may come off as a better candidate than the other. Why?
The answer is style. I am not referring to who looks better in blue, or who wore a better collared shirt to a debate, but rather the personal rhetorical style of a candidate based on their charisma, personality, and likeability.
Senator Barack Obama has been endorsed by members of former President John F. Kennedy’s family, including his daughter and his brother. J.F.K. was well-known and well-liked for his personality. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline even said that there was not another president that embodied that same charisma as her late father until Barack Obama. He has a general likeability, a down to earth personality, and a charismatic tone. Obama is seen as a change agent for the U.S., and it is probably safe to assume that everyone agrees that a change for this country is definitely what is needed.
Hillary Clinton has not been endorsed by such individuals because of her “style,” but rather her ability to be a good leader. The Kennedy family is not united on the endorsement front. Bobby Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and their sister Kerry all support Hillary Clinton. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend released a statement saying, “While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results.” Clinton has sometimes been seen as a closed person, a figurative stone wall. While Obama is earning his Kennedy endorsement for his charisma, Clinton is earning hers for her hard work and ability to get things done the right way.
Let’s all remember that it is only February, and I don’t want to be presumptuous and announce a winner just yet. Barack Obama has charisma and a great personality. He relates to people and is an inspiration to many. Hillary Clinton embodies leadership and the hard work and dedication that is needed to turn the United States of America right side up. Does their style really matter when it comes down to who will be elected? I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Amanda Cawley '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Both Obama and Clinton stand on similar platforms. Both support pulling out of the war in Iraq, both want better health care, both agree that change is needed for the U.S. But even if both said the same words, one may come off as a better candidate than the other. Why?
The answer is style. I am not referring to who looks better in blue, or who wore a better collared shirt to a debate, but rather the personal rhetorical style of a candidate based on their charisma, personality, and likeability.
Senator Barack Obama has been endorsed by members of former President John F. Kennedy’s family, including his daughter and his brother. J.F.K. was well-known and well-liked for his personality. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline even said that there was not another president that embodied that same charisma as her late father until Barack Obama. He has a general likeability, a down to earth personality, and a charismatic tone. Obama is seen as a change agent for the U.S., and it is probably safe to assume that everyone agrees that a change for this country is definitely what is needed.
Hillary Clinton has not been endorsed by such individuals because of her “style,” but rather her ability to be a good leader. The Kennedy family is not united on the endorsement front. Bobby Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and their sister Kerry all support Hillary Clinton. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend released a statement saying, “While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results.” Clinton has sometimes been seen as a closed person, a figurative stone wall. While Obama is earning his Kennedy endorsement for his charisma, Clinton is earning hers for her hard work and ability to get things done the right way.
Let’s all remember that it is only February, and I don’t want to be presumptuous and announce a winner just yet. Barack Obama has charisma and a great personality. He relates to people and is an inspiration to many. Hillary Clinton embodies leadership and the hard work and dedication that is needed to turn the United States of America right side up. Does their style really matter when it comes down to who will be elected? I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Amanda Cawley '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
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
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
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
Dana Lehman "08"
Wilkes University Student
Communications Studies Major
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)