Women Shouldn’t Be Sent To War… Who Would Be Here To Get Us Out Of It?

This past week, news headlines regarding the war in Iraq have been made by two of the more powerful identities in United Sates politics. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Democratic Representative from California Barbara Lee each made waves on getting troops out Iraq.

Lee, choosing the more conventional way, proposed a law which would “ensure that US troops would have no right maintain an open ended military presence in Iraq and that we won’t exercise control over Iraqi oil.” This legislation was passed 399-24. Lee’s soul purpose of this legislation was to get the target off the backs of American soldiers by showing the opposing Iraqi combatants that the Americans are not there to stay.

Clinton, although going about it in an alternative manner, is also on the path of making sure the Americans are not in Iraqi to stay – and everyone is notified.

Clinton recently had a bit of a back and forth with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates about the public notice of U.S. Military procedures, specifically regarding the safe removal of soldiers from Iraq. Gates, suggesting that providing information to the public about the course of action of the United States Armed Forces could possibly bolden the enemy, retorted to Clinton in what she called an “offensive and totally inappropriate” letter.

Clinton, seeking some type of information (as is the rest of the Nation) about the end of the Iraq occupation, might have approached Gates in a rather militant manner. She had pledged to introduce legislation that requires the Defense Department to prepare reports on proposals for a phased withdrawal of American troops. But militant times call for militant measures.

Both Clinton and Lee are working toward the goal of saving American lives. But no matter who wins or who loses, lives are ending over a war many see as purposeless. I commend both of these soldiers – Barbara Lee and Hilary Clinton, political combatants – in their war of ideas which is in direct relation to the war of “no idea.”

 

-Dru Harshaw, Oakland, California

Are They Really Breaking Tradition…or Not?

I don’t know about you, but I am growing tired of the discussion about the origins of the Democratic and Republican Party. I think it’s safe to say that most of America knows and accepts the fact that the Republican Party initially supported racial equality while the Democratic Party supported segregation. It’s history. And quite like the rest of historical events, both parties have evolved.

But who cares about the political party system anyway? I mean we (the voters) should be focused on the individual stances of each presidential nominee, and not their political party affiliation. In fact, if you take a look at each candidate’s voting record, you may be shocked to find that many presidential candidates are not faithful ideological members of their political party. Moreover, if you have been watching the 2008 presidential debates, you may find that a number of the candidates don’t represent your interests or concerns, and that they may not support many of the things that are most important to you.

For example, if you believe that the country is doing well under the current administration, you would likely support a Republican presidential candidate. But, if you desire domestic and or foreign policy changes, you may decide that the best way to achieve that change would be through the election of a Democratic presidential candidate.

For the first time in America’s history, two very non-traditional candidates are vying for the presidential office. Traditionally, this office has been held by affluent white men. But, for the first time since 1789, there are two viable candidates who are positioned to break with that well established tradition. Hillary Clinton, a white female, and Barack Obama, an African-American male, are seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election. This is not the first time that either a woman or an African American has run for the highest office in the country. However, this is the first time in America’s history that both a female candidate and an African-American male candidate are being taken seriously by the American people.

In contrast, the Republican Party has changed minimally since 1789. To date, all the Republican candidates are white and male.

 

-Miriam Archibong, Atlanta, Georgia

Elections 2008

Coming around the first turn of the mass opinion derby…and a horse named “We Don’t Care” has breezed into the lead…

The 2008 race for the White House has been the biggest media-based campaign since Nixon went against Kennedy. In that race, Nixon lost to the better looking Kennedy thanks to their live television debate. Even though many political commentators said Nixon’s arguments were more valid, the more aesthetically pleasing Kennedy won.

With this sort of evidence, the current race is ON! Which candidate will make themselves look and sound the best on mass media? Or better yet…which candidate will make others look worse?

I’ve been doing some internet research, and the most entertaining and edifying thing I’ve found on these 2008 elections is youtube.com itself. It is the platform of the future! A way politicians (or rather, members of their parties) can make and broadcast anything from campaign support to campaign smut from the safety of their home.

Yes, youtube.com, along with Myspace pages, will determine our next President! Many media critics will tell you the candidates have found a path to reach young people and other American citizens who don’t particularly care about elections. But I say I’d rather delete my junk email and watch gymnast blooper video reels!

 

Dru Harshaw, Oakland, California

Obama D-Punjab Memo

It’s always interesting when a politician slips up and then tries to cover his or her derriere. Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama experienced this phenomenon first hand when someone from his camp leaked a memo labeling Hillary Clinton as “D-Punjab” instead of “D-New York” – a scathing comment about campaign contributions Clinton received from companies with offices in India.

And as usual, Obama later issued a heartfelt apology and confessed having no knowledge of the memo’s existence. Surely enough, this incident is disappearing as fast as it arrived and will be nothing but a smidgen on Obama’s reputation and a mere blip in the 2008 presidential election race.

So what now?

I can understand the motive behind the “D-Punjab” memo, but why did Obama have to stoop so low? Especially after presenting himself as a politician who’s above political attacks. Obama shocked not only the Indian-American community, but the greater American population. Sure, it was only a small insult that faded away quickly, but it definitely questions the integrity of not only the Obama camp, but also of the electoral process. If the sniping and the name-calling is beginning so early, who knows what’s going to happen as we approach the primaries.

Here’s my take on the Obama camp’s rationale for releasing the memo: I know that job outsourcing is a major problem in America, and it makes sense that the Obama camp would object to this. But I can’t wrap my mind around the reason why it seemed imperative to write down on paper an attack on outsourcing with a nasty dig at India and worse, circulate it. Apparently, the memo was sent to a few newspaper reporters and was supposed to be anonymous. What? How did Senator Obama not know this was happening? He may have been busy rallying votes in Republican Iowa, but not being sufficiently informed of his own camp’s doings hurt him more. Ultimately, many pro-Obama Indian-American supporters lost faith in him after this incident.

Although I’m not old enough to vote yet, I was rooting for Obama. I don’t know if I still am. He made some pretty solid promises and shared many of the opinions of those here in the Bay Area. But this whole memo business, coupled with the MySpace debacle (look it up!) has forced me to rethink my choice in candidates.

I do give Obama props for bouncing back from the memo ordeal gracefully, but that doesn’t really excuse his behavior. I guess time will tell how America will vote, but until then, I’m sure we’ll see more political blunders and snarky remarks.

And heck, that’s what we love, right?

 

-Ankitha Bharadwaj, Oakland, California