10 posts from 2006

Officially jumping into the upcoming 2008 circus is 2004 veteran John Edwards, as of yesterday, though most people knew around Nov. 3rd, '04 that he'd be back.

My immediate reaction is, how can Edwards win out over a field of candidates like Clinton, Obama, and Biden, when he couldn't even beat out John Kerry? Especially considering he'll probably be facing Kerry again.

This, I believe, is his answer, taken from Yahoo news, regarding his new campaign site:

"This campaign is about changing America," the Web site read, listing five priorities that fit neatly with Edwards' message of economic equality. Among them: "Providing universal health care for all Americans," "Rebuilding America's middle class and eliminating poverty," and "Creating tax fairness by rewarding work, not just wealth."

He's smarter this time around. He knows what mood the country's in, and he knows that connecting to that mood is half the race. He will surely position himself as the anti-Hillary, but I suspect she's quite capable of crushing him like a bug.

I like Edwards, I do, and I'd love to have Elizabeth as first lady, but something is just missing. I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's the 2004 issue - I simply do not want 2008 to be about 2004. It's the same reason why I can't support Kerry again, and God knows I still believe he'd make a great president. The truth remains, America needs a fresh start, and that's what Barak Obama represents to me.

That's also why choosing Hillary would be a grave mistake by the Dems. Almost anybody is preferable to her, baggage-wise.

One thing is for sure: the new crops of candidates from both sides of the aisle are shaping up to be quite interesting, and there's a good chance that 2008 will actually be about issues that matter. Based on what I've seen, I think Edwards will further enhance that possibility, and if he proves himself capable, he may have a good shot at the White House. Only time will tell.

I'm not sure what to write about Christmas. I have many thoughts, but I'm not sure which ones belong here. I think I'll just throw caution to the wind and put it all together as best I can.

I spent Christmas with my mother, my sister, and my almost 2 year old niece. I'm lucky to have a family who loves me and makes me happy, but I can't help but feel sorry for myself when I compare this Christmas to the ones I used to have when my father was still here. It's been 4 years since he died, but it only sinks in so much. He was someone I can't even begin to describe. All I can say is that I couldn't have asked for more, and I know how lucky that makes me. But it makes it that much harder to let go and cherish what I still have. All I ask of those reading this is to not take anyone you love for granted, not even for a minute, because all it takes is a minute.

The universe has a way of filling voids, though. My niece Kylie, one of ten nieces & nephews but the only one geographically close, is a truly amazing source of joy in my life. She & my sister & mother all live together, and watching her grow is like nothing I've seen before. She has the biggest, brightest eyes of anyone I've seen before, and the most precious smile. If not for her, I can't imagine what life would be. I'm prilviledged to play a role in her life.

I saw yesterday that more Americans died in Iraq - on Christmas Eve. Tragedy strikes at the worst times far too often for far too many people. I pray for everyone here at home and all over the globe, that they are blessed with peace this day & every day.

Peace is a luxury in this world, so for those lucky enough to experience today, please cherish it.

Merry Christmas.

I wasn't always the moderate liberal I am today. When I was 14, I was a Fox News junkie, addicted to "The O' Reilly Factor", though thinking back, I'm not sure why. He was my main political go-to mind, not to mention nearly sole source of news.

I've never been big on network news. Maybe it's too broad, too neutral, too afraid to step on the wrong toes. I only watch the NBC Nightly News for it's handsome anchor, after all.

After coming to terms with O"Reilly's obnoxiousness, I turned to Keith Olberman on MSNBC. I still watch him regularly, and I admire his fearlessness. But he is as biased as they come, and I can't call him my sole source of news without jumping in the same boat as those Limbaugh dittoheads, God bless them.

You can't go wrong with the BBC, in my opinion. Conservatives love to bash the BBC as antiAmerican, but I don't see it.

But all news is biased because all people are biased. Fairness is relative, though not impossible.

The fairest news I've seen anywhere is not really news at all. If you ask me, look no further than Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Before you write me off as some young idiot, allow me to make my case. These men are comedians, comedians on basic cable. They are under no pressure to appear conservative, liberal, or even fair, and it is because of that that they can be honest.

When your every word is subject to political review & attacks, and your editors are losing it trying not to earn the dreaded "liberal bias" label, overanalyzation and underreporting is bound to happen. The media has been scrutinized ad nauseum, making it the political equal of an insecure little girl trying to please everyone, which we all know is impossible.

Then here comes Stewart & Colbert, sparring no one from their humorous scorn, leaving no scumbag unbashed, Dem or GOP. They don't like Bush, but they also see the Dems as the oft-inept poor souls that they are. Perhaps most importantly, they help a divided nation heal by laughing at the absurdity of it all.

And sometimes, laughter can serve as a most effective tool for uniting opposite sides. Maybe we all can't agree on the war, gay marriage, healthcare, etc. , but we can all get behind a good laugh.

And these men's influence is real. Colbert showed up the President of the United States on his own turf when he entered this unforgettable quote into American history at the White House Correspondents Dinner : "President Bush is my kind of guy ; he believes the same thing on Thursday that he believed on Tuesday, no matter what happened on Wednesday."

Tom Brokaw couldn't have said it better.

The way American culture is these days, the death penalty is rarely presented in a debatable light. I think most people accept it at face value, and on face value, it doesn't seem so bad. After all, why should we care if a murderer dies? Why should we feel any mercy towards society's worst dirtbags?

But those are the wrong questions. As an opponent of the death penalty, it's not about mercy for me. It's about justice and humanity.

When somebody kills an innocent human being, what would society's most effective and profound response be; electrocuting the kiiler to death, or refusing to be his equal and letting him live until God sees fit? Saying no, unlike you, we value life enough not to take it. Unlike you, we respect that living & dying are not judgments that we are authorized to make when a viable alternative - life in prison - is available.

That to me - the collective statement that we are better than that - is almost poetically profound to me.

And it puzzles me to no end how Christian activists manage to justify being pro-death penalty. As a Christian, I don't recall God making an exception to "do not kill". The Bible makes very clear that life is God's and only God's to take. It's one of the gutsiest of hypocrisies. How can one be both pro-life and pro-death penalty? It is intellectually dishonest, a result of the knee-jerk culture of American politics.

I propose a debate where all evaluate their positions on this issue. It's too important not to.

It's been a bad year for the Republicans, and I don't feel bad for them. But they have some tough decisions to make if they want to hold on to the White House in 2008.

#1 : Who will the Republican candidate for president be?

The field is wide open, but the last poll I saw had Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich as the most viable names. Rudy is far too moderate and reasonable to satisfy the GOP's fundamentalist base, and his personal history wouldn't make them happy either. Mitt Romney is in line with their issues, but he is a Mormon, which could very possibly scare off much of the base. Newt Gingrich, who ranked lowest in the poll, would bring alot of new and interesting ideas to the table, but also a goldmine of baggage that even an amatuer could exploit with success. John McCain, whom I greatly admire, has been courting parts of the base he previously alienated, apparantly successfully, but there is still a lot of distrust on both their parts. The GOP's best bet may be someone who doesn't seem to be interested in running : Condi Rice.

#2 : What are their main issues?

Clearly, the gay-marriage-guns-abortion stategy is no longer working. People want to hear about things that truly matter to them, like a new Iraq strategy, raising the minimum wage, fixing Social Security without abolishing it, reining in healthcare, ending DC corruption, etc. . If they want to win, they will stop listening to consultants and start listening to the people. Yes, I dare to dream.

#3 : Who are they?

Are they true small-government conservatives, or are they ambitious neo-conservatives? Are they constitutionalists or do they follow the whims of what seems right at the moment? Do they value privacy or the government's desire to invade it?

All of these issues they must sort out if they are to remain relevant. It's time for soul-searching and a renewed commitment to a healthy , innovative, and idea-driven debate. As a liberal and a believer in a two-party system supported by an honest debate, I'm pulling for them.

Okay, so I bombed on the whole Person of the Year thing - it's definately not the first time I botched a prediction. I was sure that John Kerry was going to defeat Bush, and on a wave of cynicism, I was sure that the GOP would win this year's midterms. Wrong and wrong. I was also sure that Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe were going to live happily ever after, and we all know how that turned out.

That said, I like TIME's idea of "you" being person of the year, because after all, we bloggers deserve that title. Especially those of us who have been blogging for four days (me!) .

It is definately undeniable that the Internet has changed politics as we know it. Without it, George Allen could be on the fasttrack to the White House right now, and for that I say, thank you, Internet.

 In two hours, TIME magazine will announce its pick for Person of the Year.

My pick,which I'm confident will take the title, is Speaker of the House-elect Nancy Pelosi.

I have long admired Mrs. Pelosi's work in the House of Representitives, and it was a joy to see her lead her party to victory in November. She joins the ranks of women such as Sandra Day O'Connor, Madeline Albright, Condi Rice, and of course, the first woman on a national party ticket, Geraldine Ferraro.

Of course, the true test of Mrs. Pelosi's leadership comes in January, when it's time for Congress to clean up the mess of the last 12 years of Republican majorities. It's time to raise the minimum wage, make a real effort to fix the broken healhcare and Social Security systems, develop a strategy for Iraq, and make poverty history.

That's what I want my government to do. That's what I hope Nancy Pelosi will do. Let's see her earn her title. I've got faith in her.

I got bit by the Bono bug last year, around the G8 Summit in July. Prior to watching Bono & Bob Geldof rally world leaders to make poverty history, I was your typical political junkie- fixated on swiftboats, Ann Coulter (God help her),and all the other outrages of the month. By the ripe old age of 15, I had already trained my brain to view the world through shades of liberal vs. conservative, instead of right vs. wrong, which can happen very easily if you're not careful.

It took an issue as simple as the right to live for me to see that no matter how simple and black and white an issue is, the world is a gray and tragic place. For half the money the world spends on killing each other, it could allow millions to live. And I'm not stupid - I know we have to defend ourselves first & foremost, but I think we get so caught up in defending ourselves against the darkness of the world that we forget the potential for good that we as an international community possess.

The truth is - and everyone knows this deep down - if infants in New York were dying of eradicated diseases every day, and people were dying of diseases that could be controlled with one pill a day, and elderly grandmothers were having to take care of their orphaned grandchildren with the single dollar a day they broke their backs to earn, something very substantial would be done without objection. Yet if the same occurs in a sub-Saharan village in Africa, it's acceptable to pretend it doesn't exist.

This isn't a liberal or conservative issue - it's an issue vital to our status as a human race, nothing less. It's true, Americans are a generous people, but private charity isn't nearly enough. Besides, as Bono says, this isn't about charity - it's about justice.

Whenever political analysts discuss Barak Obama's presidential prospects,they always rave about his idealism,fresh appeal,and his honesty,but then they brush him aside as too young and inexperienced to face Hillary Clinton.

But I counter that his lack of DC experience is exactly what we as a country need in our leadership.How is it a bad thing that he has yet to be corrupted by beltway garbage?And as for his age,I truly believe it is also a plus.History books don't paint JFK as too young to have carried out his duties.Some people are wiser at 40 than most at 80.Prospective presidents should not be judged solely by their age.And I'm sorry,but I think most people would risk a young president over a cold calculating one,which brings us to Hillary.

I seriously doubt that she's the devil some believe her to be,but I don't think she's the hero still others believe her to be.What I believe she is is a smart,message-obsessed political veteran who carries her own self-interest closest to heart.That doesn't make her a devil,it makes her a typical politician.And now is not the time for a typical politician in the White House.

We as a country are far from what we should be.We arose from 9/11 on a wave of grief-ridden arrogance that brought us to where we are now-stuck in a war we can't get out of.Now we have to get ourselves together and face up to it,but we can't do it with another stuffed suit in the Oval Office.In 2008,we should choose hope and elect Barak Obama president.

Welcome to my blog.I am 17 years old,I love politics,and I love expressing my opinions.

These are some of my opinions:Barak Obama should be our next president.Beyond terrorism,global health and poverty is the most important issue facing us as a human race.Bono is one of,if not the, most brilliant political minds in the world.The United Nations is an essential institution.George w. Bush is not a good president,but neither is he the worst.While I disagree with her policies,Condi Rice is a great inspiration to female politicos such as myself."Liberal" is not a dirty word and should be worn proudly.I do not believe in parole for violent criminals-I believe in life sentences generally for twice offenders,sometimes even for firsttimers,though of course I see things case by case.Climate change is real and is not being fully addressed.

My ambitions are:graduate college,join the Foreign Service,be appointed Ambassador of a third world country,become Secretary of State,then become President.

When I register to vote next year,I will register as a Democrat,but I won't be a typical Democrat.I try to see the world beyond our own borders as much as possible.It helps me to keep sight of what's truly important and not get bogged down on Mark Foley or other outrages of the month.I'm outraged by terror,extreme and stupid poverty,hunger,and unnecessary death by unnecessary diseases,in our nation and every other.

On a lighter note,my favorite show is 24,and David Palmer is better than most real presidents.

Here's some links.