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