SemiPolitico.com

Stay Tuned for Updates - Politics from a Student Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:34:00 +0000

Stay tuned for updates on the University of North Carolina Student Politics Blog, your source for foreign policy and domestic politics from a student perspective.

Indicted: Ted Stevens' Series of Tubes

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:52:00 +0000

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens' made headlines last week for an indictment over his concealing of gifts from an oil services contractor, including a garage for his vacation home, a Viking gas grill, and a trade-in for a new Land Rover. The gifts allegedly surpassed $250,000 in value, and while Senator Stevens maintains his innocence, I'm mostly interested in this as an occasion to post the now famous video of his understanding of the Internet: "It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes."

Stevens is likely competent at many things, but the Internet is not one of them. In a move reminiscent of FEMA's anointment of Mike Brown, whose experience consisted of being the Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, Stevens spoke to his fellow senators regarding the Net Neutrality bill. Other gems from the speech include:

an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.

And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Below, you can view his original speech as well as the more entertaining music video remix:

Original Speech:

Music Video Remix:

by Ryan Kane on August 9, 2008 7:53 PM

The Big Oil and Energy Policy Confusion (08 Edition) - by Barack Obama and John McCain

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:02:00 +0000

Over the past month, Barack Obama and John McCain have been trading attacks on energy policy, and, just like the earth, these seem to be heating up. In a new advertisement released on Monday, the Obama Camp is claiming that McCain, just like President Bush, is in the pocket of big oil.

Not sitting back and taking these charges lightly, John McCain's campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds fired back with a defensive attack on Obama, "Barack Obama's latest negative attack ad shows his celebrity is matched only by his hypocrisy. Also not mentioned is the $400,000 from big oil contributors that Barack Obama has already pocketed in this election".

Chipping in his two cents, Mitt Romney-a speculative VP pick for McCain and acting surrogate- claimed that Obama's recent ad is "dishonest". In the same interview Romney claimed that employees of these corporations contribute to the candidates, and the corporations are not allowed to give money directly to either McCain or Obama. According to Romney, both candidates have received money from these employees during this election.

To further complicate matters, Obama and McCain have hinted towards their accordance with the "senatorial compromise" that calls for off-shore drilling in certain states and a focus on higher renewable energy quotas. However, Obama, as part of his plan, has claimed that the government take some of the windfall profits away from the oil companies and give a rebate to consumers.

So, let's try to make this a bit clearer. The Obama camp claims that John McCain is in the pockets of big oil, the McCain camp says the same about Obama, Mitt Romney claims that in certain ways neither and both are in big oil's pockets, Obama and McCain agree to a compromise to give oil companies more profits by off shore drilling, but only with some of these profits going back to consumers according to Sen. Obama. For some reason, I don't think that helped.

The worst thing about this confusion over who-wants-what and who-does-what with respect to energy takes the most important issue of the day and makes it into a political football. Even more distressing is the fact that we don't know who will (or can) take that football and eventually score the touchdown that will make energy cheaper, clean, and domestic- what Americans from both political parties-and everything in between- want.

In order to do his part in clarifying this mess over energy policy-along with taking a few jabs at Sen. McCain-, Barack Obama spoke on the issue in Lansing, Michigan (full speech transcript here). This speech, coupled with the Obama advertisement released today, makes it obvious that energy is going to play a big part in the remainder of the election. What is not so obvious is if the candidates will refrain from using the issue in such a way that doesn't confuse the public and dilute the facts to the point of no return, in order to carry out their main agenda- getting votes. If this is the "new kind of politics" that each candidate has been so adamantly advocating since they have declared their candidacy, give me back the old kind. This kind doesn't seem that different in substance, and is a whole hell-of-a-lot more confusing.

John McCain's Energy Policy
Barack Obama's Energy Policy

(Images from WashingtonIndependent.com and VPHill of flickr)

by John D'Alessandro on August 4, 2008 2:20 PM

August 4, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:33:00 +0000

Over the Weekend...

One of the most notable critics of the Soviet government and 1970 Nobel Prize winner in Literature Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn died on Sunday at age 89.

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has called for the voters of Michigan and Florida's Democratic Primaries to be heard.

Israeli officials have allegedly denied ill Palestinians medical treatment in order to receive information.

World

Al-Qaeda has confirmed the death of a chemical and biological weapons specialist in Pakistan.

Mexico City is holding a Global Aids forum, with former President Bill Clinton attending on Tuesday.

The New York Times reports on how rising fuel prices is affecting global supply chains.

Health and life insurance companies are now at liberty to use a health "credit report" in evaluating whether or not to cover customers.

According to a report released to NPR, government officials were still weeks away from indicting Dr. Bruce Ivans in connection to the 2001 Anthrax cases.

On the Campaign Trail...

John McCain and Barack Obama have made statements on the recently proposed compromised in the Senate to allow off-shore drilling in certain states.

Barack Obama has officially agreed to at least three debates with John McCain in the lead up to November's election.

(Image from BBC.com )

by John D'Alessandro on August 4, 2008 6:33 AM

Why the Olympics Don't Need China

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:45:00 +0000

Editors Note: This is a guest contribution submitted by Connor Kane on August 3, 2008. This view does not necessarily represent SemiPolitico

A nation with an infamously poor human rights record, China is hardly the ambassador of liberty and good will the International Olympics Committee (IOC) claims the Olympics represent. Upon awarding the Games to Beijing in 2001, the IOC assured us it knew what it was doing and that discussions concerning China's human rights policies were soon to take place. And yet, in the last seven years little discussion-- let alone improvement-- has taken place.

The IOC seems to be convinced that the Olympics will (and have) served as a stimulus for change. It maintains that bringing attention to the situation, through the extensive media coverage synonymous with the Olympics, will necessitate change on the part of the host country. Rather than promote dramatic change, however, it promotes extensive cover ups of human rights abuses; rather than instigate political reform, it incites further oppression political reformers and dissidents; rather than bring light to a dire situation, it helps legitimize an abusive government.

In preparation for the games, China has taken a leaf out of repressive Nazi Germany's Olympic handbook. Beijing officials are allegedly removing street beggars as well as over a million migrant workers brought to the city to help with its $40 billion transformation-- apparently these aristocratic figureheads can't bear to have their city burdened by the people who made its Olympic effort possible. Furthermore, shops selling pirated DVDs have been shut down, city dwellers' ability to drive is dictated by their license plate numbers, and more than 50 well-known political dissenters have been incarcerated as pre-Olympics provisions.

The IOC has a history of choosing disreputable and unfavorable hosts for the Olympic Games, often in an attempt to keep the worldwide Olympic "family" intact:

"Trapped by its grandiose goal of embracing the entire “human family” at whatever cost, the IOC has repeatedly caved in and awarded the games to police states bent on staging spectacular festivals that serve only to reinforce their own authority. Of course, the most notorious example is the 1936 Berlin Games, which were promoted by a network of Nazi agents working both inside and outside the IOC."

Besides Nazi Germany, the Committee has also awarded the games to a one party, politically oppressive Mexico in 1968, the Soviet Union in 1980 (only after it threatened to withdraw from any Olympic activity upon losing a bid for the '76 games), and the '88 games to South Korea in 1981-- hardly a year after dictator Chun Doo-hwan launched a massacre of the city of Kwangju, where civil demonstrations were taking place against the newly instated military government. Now, the 2008 Olympics have been rewarded to a Chinese government whose oppression of Tibetans and repression of political agitators is well known, and whose inaction surrounding the nation's immense wealth gap has left inland China behind while eastern China surges ahead to the center of the world economic stage.

And while great strides have been taken away from Mao Zedong's communist China, the country is far from free or democratic. Some recent government action has reflected China’s looming communist spectre: “The Coming Collapse of China”, a doomsday book about China’s great economic rise and fall, is banned on the mainland. The government in power does not want its people to doubt the stability or strength of the nation’s economy, and rather than injecting economic confidence by salvaging the 900 million facing economic hardship, it simply attempts to keep the rest of the population blind to the epidemic of poverty.

To suggest that these Olympics will catalyze change in China's oppressive system is to hope for the very best; as history has shown us, the incessant international media attention tends to incite governments to cover up scandal and controversy, rather than change or move away from it. Let’s hope that China proves history wrong-- it certainly hasn't so far.

(Images from Ibiblio.com, Xinhuanet.com)

by Connor Kane on August 3, 2008 10:45 AM

T. Boone Pickens' Natural Gas Push

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:03:00 +0000

Much as with America's policy on Cuba, our energy policy has been hit hard by special interests. As Cubans are to Florida politics, Big Farming is to U.S. "alternative" energy programs. Farming interests have tried to sucker America into the idea that corn-based ethanol is the ticket out, keeping willfully ignorant of the fact that corn has an energy yield of just 125%, while sugar cane provides up to 8 times that. Taking into account the billions of dollars available for corn ethanol production in the U.S., ethanol is not an energy program - it's a farm program.

Given these subsidies, it makes sense to question energy plans from those who have a financial stake in the matter. With this in mind, I saw with skepticism a natural gas proposal backed by T. Boone Pickens, a man with a name only a true Texas oil billionaire could get away with. T. Boone Pickens owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp, which is the sole sponsor behind Proposition 10 in California, a bill that would add state funding for a number of "clean energy" initiatives. Clean Energy Fuels Corp runs natural gas fueling stations, and the natural gas industry would be one of the main benefactors of this energy bill.

The proposition is shady, and smacks of the same kind of pork benefits that are sneaked to farmers under the guise of more reasonable purposes. For instance, it's named "The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act," quite similar in name to the defeated "California Clean Alternative Energy Act" of 2006. The difference is that the 2006 proposition would have been funded by taxes on oil companies and on oil extraction, while the current bill will be funded with taxpayer dollars.

Using compressed natural gas as an alternative energy source is by no means a bad thing; certainly, any and all alternative energy sources should be explored and used in conjunction to reduce the country's energy problems. But when big money influences like Pickens or like the farm lobby use their pull to greatly emphasize natural gas or corn ethanol for financial gain, they often do so at the expense of more promising technologies such as advanced hybrid technology and sugar cane ethanol.

My hope is that energy research and innovation, now on overdrive due to high gas prices, will blaze a clean path to energy independence. There are a number of clean energy ideas that just seem loony - using termites to make energy, for one - but putting money towards research is better than the protectionist subsidizing of American industry under the banner of energy independence.

(Image from Profile.com )

by Ryan Kane on August 1, 2008 10:03 AM

August 1, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 10:46:00 +0000

World

According to U.S. government officials, Pakinstanis aided an attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in early July.

The U.N. Security council has renewed the mandate allowing forces to stay in the Darfur region of Sudan for at least one more year.

The U.S. GDP grew at 1.9% over the past quarter, mainly due to the one time economic stimulus bump.

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens pleaded not guilty to 7 counts of lying on Senate disclosure forms.

On the Campaign Trail...

The leaders of an online campaign to push for an Obama/Clinton ticket have finally conceded.

The McCain camp claimed that Barack Obama used the "race card in reference to John McCain's new advertisement

In Iowa on Thursday Barack Obama revealed his true feelings on John McCain's energy plan.

(Image from The Washington Post)

by John D'Alessandro on August 1, 2008 6:47 AM

July 31, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:44:00 +0000

World

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that he will resign in September.

After taking over two former military buildings, ex-Haitian soldiers surrendered to the government on Wednesday after a day long standoff.

U.S. Immigration officials will give fugitive-aliens incentives to surrender in certain cities throughout August, CNN reports.

In an unreleased report, Defense Secretary Robert Gates claims that winning in Iraq and Afghanistan will not end the "long war" against terror, and claims that the U.S. should ally with Russia and China in fighting terror.

On the Campaign Trail...

John McCain released a new advertisement that likened Barack Obama's celebrity status to that of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. The New York Times reports on this new-old way of attacking the Democrats

The Obama Campaign is looking to take advantage of disgruntled members of the G.O.P.

(Image from the BBC)

by John D'Alessandro on July 31, 2008 6:43 AM

Obama's Vice President- The Case for Tim Kaine

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:32:00 +0000

As all the talk around the Obama Campaign has been about Virginia Governor Tim Kaine for VP, SemiPolitico has decided to take a general look at the pros and cons of the possible Obama-Kaine ticket. Of course, no official word has come out of the Obama Camp, and the AP has reported that Tim Kaine is "mum" on the issue, so we can't really be sure. All we know is that there are some ups and downs to choosing Tim Kaine as the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate (your welcome for the obvious statement).

One of the biggest criticisms of Barack Obama is his inexperience, and a lot of this has to do with the fact that he is a senator (in his third year). For a number of reasons, the American public has not been so keen on choosing senators as Presidents. In fact, only two senators in history have ever moved directly from the Capitol building to the White House, Warren G. Harding in 1921 and JFK in 1961 (neither man finished their first term in office). The last Senator to be elected president was Richard M. Nixon in 1969, but this was after serving only 3 years in the Senate, and then 8 years as VP. When it comes to senators, we don't like to put them in the White House unless they have had other practical experience such as a governorship or holding the office of VP (Truman, LBJ, Nixon).

Obviously, with John McCain and Barack Obama the "presumptive" nominees (Hillary is still alive in hearts and minds), we will be forced to add a third name to the list of senators who made the direct move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., but that doesn't mean the public will be comfortable doing so without some reassurance. In this context comes Virginia Governor Tim Kaine. Although Kaine has only held the position for almost 3 years, that title may do a lot to ease talks (or mostly feelings) of Obama's inexperience in running a country. Even though Kaine is inexperienced himself, three years of being governor, four as Lt. Governor, and two as a mayor of a state capital (Richmond) is a lot more experience to a lot more people than three years as a U.S. Senator (of which one and a half have been spent campaigning), seven as a state senator, and three as a community organizer. Although, it isn't clear that a lot of the country would use this manner of thinking, so the opportunity cost of picking Kaine over someone such as Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, or Kathleen Sebelius could be high.

It's hard to say that the fact of Tim Kaine being from Virginia isn't one of the main reasons the Obama Campaign has decided to focus on him as of recently. If you take a look at money spent in the south, Obama has been running uncontested commercials for a month in states such as Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. Most of the talks surrounding these ads have been speculative on their intentions, the question being if they are being run to legitimately compete in these states or only to force the McCain campaign to spend resources in places that are notoriously left untouched by presidential elections. If Obama were to pick Kaine (even though Kaine has an approval rating of 56%), it would be hard to argue that Virginia would not lean Obama (it is a virtual tie right now), and that states such as North Carolina, Indiana, and Missouri would not be up for grabs.

A Kaine VP selection also fits in with Obama's campaign message from the beginning, which is the notion of change. Recently, the Obama camp has stated that they would like to choose a Washington "outsider" for VP. Kaine is exactly that, being that he is a governor and has never served in a Washington post, which is compounded by the fact that he is a "new guy" as well. But, this notion is much related to the experience factor of both men, and there is, of course, a trade off. Being an outsider means no Washington experience, a concept that has hurt Obama so far, in both the primaries and what have been the first months of the general election campaign. Kaine can be viewed as a good outsider, somone not jaded and compromised by the inside wheelin' and dealin' that goes on in our nation's capital. On the other hand, he could be an outsider in respect to the knowledge of the ways to get things done, an argument that Hillary Clinton used to her advantage in the 100 years primary.

When taking a look at Tim Kaine the politician, rather than what Tim Kaine would mean for electoral votes, there are some important considerations that are probably being scrutinized over at Obama HQ as we speak. In fact, Barack Obama has stated that the most important consideration in choosing a VP candidate will be a "shared vision", compatibility, and most importantly someone who can "help [Obama] govern". In the 2005 VA gubernatorial election, Kaine's opponent Jerry W. Kilgore criticized Kaine's stance on the death penalty and used this to play on the general notion of being "super-liberal". However, Kaine's views on a couple "litmus test" items don't really prove this to be the case. Due to faith based (Kaine is a devout Catholic) reasons, Tim Kaine is a staunch opponent to abortion. Also in the 2005 election, Kaine claimed the 2nd amendment to

"strongly support the Second Amendment. As the next Governor of Virginia, he will not propose any new gun laws. Instead Tim Kaine will guarantee strict enforcement of our existing criminal laws. He will also expand the use of such enforcement strategies as Project Exile that target criminals who use guns rather than law-abiding gun owners."

These two stances don't scream super-liberal, or even liberal at all in the many eyes, but the issue that Kilgore was most likely referring to was Kaine's stance on the death penalty. From the 2005 campaign website, Kaine stated that he was an opponent of the death penalty "until it is far". In his time as governor, eight people have been executed on death row. During this same time, however, Kaine has passed legislation to ban the electric chair as a medium of execution.

With Obama's alleged recent "shifts" to the center (FISA, Iraq), it may hurt more than help to have an anti-abortion VP who promotes the 2nd amendment. In the effort to obtain voters who were Clinton supporters, an anti-abortion VP may not go over so well with the many women Obama is courting (politically).

However, Kaine could prove to be valuable to another key group of voters that Obama had trouble with during the primary, which is the Hispanic vote. In a year long break from Harvard Law, Tim Kaine was a Jesuit missionary in Honduras, during which he became fluent in Spanish. Being a catholic and fluent in Spanish could court Hispanic voters in the mega-important state of Florida, as well as many other places in the country with a large Hispanic voter base. According to recent polls, Obama is already doing well with Hispanics, and Kaine's addition will not hurt this trend.

Whoever the Democratic VP candidate is, there will no doubt be some trade offs between the candidates. Whichever issue(s) the Obama camp decides is(are) most important (red state appeal, outsider/insider, voting groups, liberal/more moderate, etc) will have to be balanced out in some way. Because of how quickly the focus of an election can change and shifts in issues can happen, it seems that the Obama (and McCain) camp will have to wait a little bit longer to decide who and what they are after. But, if recent talks have any merit, Tim Kaine is definitely on Barack's (extremely) short list.

(Images from Truthout.org and Puente-Latino.com )

by John D'Alessandro Updated on July 31, 2008 12:36 PM

July 30, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:39:00 +0000

World

Scientists in the United Kingdom have discovered a new drug that "may halt the progression of an early stage of Alzheimer's"

Officials have blamed China, India, and the U.S. in ending the WTO talks of Geneva in failure.

A report released on Tuesday by the C.I.A. links Pakistani spies with militant groups responsible for violence in the border region with Afghanistan.

Senator Ted Stevens (R. Alaska) was indicted on charges of failing to report gifts and income.

President Bush promised a group of 5 chinese dissidents that he will "carry the message of freedom" while attending the Olympics in Beijing.

Congress has "laid ground" for 2009, according to TIME.

On the Campaign Trail...

Some in the GOP are worried that John McCain's recent negative attacks against Barack Obama could end up hurting McCain.

On Tuesday, Barack Obama met with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in order to discuss risks and troubles of the U.S. economy.

(Image from Dailymail.co.uk)

by John D'Alessandro on July 30, 2008 6:41 AM

Cuba and the United States- Who Controls Policy?

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:36:00 +0000

(Thanks to all you stumbleuponers for visiting!! If you like the site, please give us a thumbs up! Don't forget to e-mail us your articles and/or leave your comments. We want to hear from YOU!- John)

Since its release in August 2007, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has heated up the debate over U.S. Foreign Policy in the middle east. To start off, I must say that I have yet to read the book, and I am not sure if I will, but that does not mean I am a stranger to the argument. According to the authors, the thesis of the book is that

"the Lobby", which is the "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction" promotes "crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians" and also "hostility towards Syria and Iran" and is a primary cause for the United States to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state [Israel]; and that U.S. Middle East policy has been driven primarily by domestic politics, especially the "Israel Lobby".

While this may be one well researched and noted explanation for U.S. Policy in the Middle East, Walter Russel Mead of Foreign Affairs notes that there is a huge factor that this thesis ignores.

In the United States, a pro-Israel foreign policy does not represent the triumph of a small lobby over the public will. It represents the power of public opinion to shape foreign policy in the face of concerns by foreign policy professionals. Like the war on drugs and the fence along the Mexican border, support for Israel is a U.S. foreign policy that makes some experts and specialists uneasy but commands broad public support. This does not mean that an "Israel lobby" does not exist or does not help shape U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Could the notion of widespread public support triumphing over policy officials manifest its powerful head in other areas of U.S. Foreign Policy? The answer to this question is simple: ¡Sí se puede!

Since 1959, the year of The Revolution, the U.S. has had no official diplomatic or economic relations with Cuba. Sitting 90 miles off the coast of Miami, Cuba is extremely close to the United States, and this short distance has made Miami home to the largest base of Cuban immigrants. These immigrants tend to be viciously anti-Fidel, which is the logical reason this group left their homeland in the first place.Furthermore, to the same extent this group has culturally enriched Miami, Florida, and the rest of the United States of America, they (on the whole) have produced an extreme impact in the realm of foreign policy.

With Florida being an all important swing state, as evidenced by the 2000 election, politicians must cater to the important voting block of Cuban-Americans, who mostly support a continuation of the current policy towards Cuba (but this is changing, more in a minute). Losing Florida may mean losing the White House, and losing the Cuban-American vote may mean losing Florida.

Admittedly, the notion of U.S. Policy towards Cuba is not an exact match with Mead’s description of U.S. policy in the Middle East. In fact, they don’t even share the same basic grounds of widespread popular support, as polls show that the majority of Americans would like to see the embargo lifted on Cuba. But, it does share a common theme, which is the “hijacking” of foreign policy by the public due to political considerations.

In reference to Barack Obama and John McCain, it doesn’t seem that there will be a much different course taken starting January 20, 2009. Obama has repeatedly stated his policy towards Cuba, which is unrestricted travel and remittances, holding talks with the leader of the country (Raul Castro presently) without “preconditions” but with “preparation”, and no lifting of the embargo until the country is “open to democratic change” and has taken the first steps in doing so. On the surface, it may seem to a casual observer that John McCain offers a different approach, and in certain aspects he does, such as his disagreement in the case of remittances, travel, and with holding talks between leadership. However, both candidates agree with the basic principles of continuing an embargo that has lasted almost half of a century.

The fact that the embargo has not worked as the U.S. envisioned is obvious, demonstrated by Fidel Castro’s long stint as president (January 1, 1959 – February 24, 2008). In fact, many claim that it has worked at the Castro regime’s advantage in many ways, such as allowing the regime to blame the U.S. for problems such as food supply, giving them a common enemy, not providing the Cuban people in technology that would have most definitely opened up mediums for dissent and widespread sharing of ideas, and the splitting families due to travel restrictions. (This list is not all inclusive, but I assume you get the point).

On the bright side of this “hijacking” lies the new generation of Cuban-Americans, who increasingly support a lift of the embargo. With this group shifting in this direction, it seems as though future candidates for president may not have to cater to the Cuban-American voters, and finally be free these restraints. Time will tell if the new generation’s views trickle into the Cuban-American Lobby, which does play a significant and obvious role in the process.

Unfortunately both Senator McCain and Barack Obama are tied to the outcome of Florida in a significant way, which inhibits their ability to escape political pandering. Would either of the two agree with a lifting of the embargo if Florida were a solid red or blue state, or if the election were to be landslide nationally? We do not and will not know the answer to that, but we do know that by taking a look at U.S. policy towards the Middle East and Cuba, we can tell that foreign policy isn’t only controlled by the wonks in Washington and the lobbyists who control those wonks.

(Images from Aeroflight.co.uk and SCPR.org)

by John D'Alessandro on July 29, 2008 1:36 PM

July 29, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:32:00 +0000

World

Radovan Karadzik is back in the headlines as his pending extradition has caused an ultra-nationalist party to hold a "pontentially violent rally"

Although violence has decreased and Fidel Castro has called for the FARC to ceaze military operations, cocaine production is continuing to "sustain war".

Disagreements between the U.S. and China and India over protectionism have put the WTO talks in Geneva in a "very tense" stage, the BBC reports.

A report on Monday proved that aides to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales based their hirings on politics.

Reports surfaced on Tuesday that either Barack Obama or John McCain will inherit a budget deficit of $482 billion.

President Bush approved the execution of an U.S. soldier, the first approval of its kind in over 50 years.

On the Campaign Trail...

Virgina Governor Tim Kaine is in "serious talks" with Barack Obama about joining the Democratic ticket as VP.

The McCain campaign has shed a bit of light on their philosophy of choosing a VP candidate.

Adam Nagourney of The New York Times asks why Barack Obama is not doing better in the polls in his column "Where's the Bounce?".

(Image from The Associate Press)

by John D'Alessandro on July 29, 2008 6:31 AM

Political Cartoon Round-Up: McCain vs Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:04:00 +0000

This week in political parody: remarks on McCain's technology credentials, a challenge to the Obama New Yorker cover from Vanity Fair, and commentary on Obama's level of experience and his premature coronation by the media.

McCain gets a hard time for his lack of technology skills. Granted, he's old. But my even my Grandma is web-savvy now, so a candidate for President of the United States should have at least a passing familiarity with what Google is. In McCain's defense, apparently Bill Clinton never picked up on email either, sending a total of 2 during his time in office:

One [of those emails] may not actually qualify for electronic communication because it was a test to see if the commander in chief knew how to push the button on an e-mail...Former Ohio Sen. John Glenn has the distinction of being the first American to orbit the Earth and the only person to receive an e-mail written by Clinton when he was in office.

Vanity Fair pays homage to The New Yorker's Obama cover with an (online-only) cover depicting an exaggerated John and Cindy McCain. First off, this idea was already implemented to much greater effect by satirist David Horsey. But I just don't think this image has the same kind of impact the Obama cover did, with the main problem being that the stereotypes they have to work with here are simply much less taboo.

Referring to JFK's Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech, this cartoon plays on the concern that many voters have regarding Obama's political (and life) experience. Obama, who was received by a crowd of 200,000 in Germany, served for a relatively short time in the Illinois State Senate and in the US Senate. But some say his best experience has come over the course of this campaign.

We've covered the media's infatuation with Barack Obama here at SemiPolitico before, but this image captures the general sentiment perfectly: anything the man does seems to be considered worthy of coverage, and Obama coverage is truly at the point of oversaturation (check out this parody of the softball coverage of Obama from The Onion). Is this a result of Obama's rock star politics or a function of supposed liberal bias in the media? This study indicates that the widely-assumed "liberal media bias" in favor of Obama is not what it appears to be.

(Images from FakePosters.com, Vanity Fair, and About.com )

by Ryan Kane on July 28, 2008 10:04 AM

July 28, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:51:00 +0000

SemiPolitico.com would like to thank everyone on all of the social networking sites for helping to get the word out over the past couple of weeks. A big thanks to "aileenjc" on StumbleUpon for "discovering" us, as well as "Isadore" for writing us a great review. Also, thanks to all you who have been active in commenting, such as S.C. Denney, "Lowly Reader", Jeff Garzik, and of course, Anonymous (all of you). Thanks a lot, we really appreciate it.

Over the Weekend...

President Raul Castro of Cuba claimed that "Cubans must be prepared for the consequences of the current global economic crisis"

Two bombs exploded in Istanbul on Sunday afternoon killing at least 16 people. The New York Times reports that "there were no immediate claims of responsibility, although Kurdish separatist militants were initially suspected".

John McCain and Barack Obama exchanged attacks on foreign policy, Obama's alleged "shortchanging" of injured troops in Iraq, as well as McCain's accusation of Obama being willing to "lose a war to win an election".

World

The Indian city of Ahmedabad suffered through a "wave" of terrorist bombings on Sunday, killing at least 49 people.

Officials claim that African-UN peace keepers are failing to do their job of protecting civilians in Darfur.

A church shooting in Knoxville, TN on Sunday killed 2 people and wounded 7 when a shooter opened fire during service.

A Virginia law recently passed requires "jail officials to notify federal authorities of all foreign-born inmates regardless of their immigration status.

On the Campaign Trail...

The Washington Post reports on possible obstacles the Obama campaign may run into when trying to register black voters.

Black radio may be the foil to a right-wing dominated area, according to The New York Times.

(Image from the BBC)

by John D'Alessandro on July 28, 2008 6:51 AM

Obama and McCain Quarrel Over (Not) Visiting Troops

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:45:00 +0000

The big political news from the campaign trail this weekend is the accusation from John McCain that Barack Obama did not visit injured troops during his trip to Germany this past week. As the McCain campaign put in a new attack advertisement, “seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow [Barack Obama] to bring cameras. John McCain is always there for our troops. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn't be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes”. It looks as though things are getting ugly.

The media has certainly focused on Mr. Obama this past week as he embarked on a five country visit which included stops in Iraq and Afghanistan before speaking in front of 200,000 people in Berlin. During this time, Mr. McCain has struggled to get media attention (although he did manage to mostly avoid this bit of unwanted attention) and has commonly been juxtaposed in the media riding in a golf cart with images of Obama meeting world leaders. One of the ways McCain has tried to shift the nation’s focus is by blatantly calling out Barack Obama on issues such as Obama’s view on last year’s troop surge in Iraq, the notion that he would “lose a war to win in election”, the presumptuous nature of his world tour, and now, the troop visit that never was.

In order to fight back against the claims of the McCain campaign over the troop visit, Senator Obama stated that:

“[the visit] was scheduled, we intended to go and we got wind that there was some concern that this might be perceived as political; because we were using campaign resources. And at that point, the last thing I wanted to do is to in anyway distract the terrific work that’s being done in terms of treating our troops, by getting it fouled up by a bunch of politics”.

The Obama camp also noted the unreported visits to wounded soldiers in the early part of his trip while in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, in a response to the above statement, the McCain campaign noted that:

The most solemn duty of a commander in chief is to fulfill his responsibility to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. Barack Obama had scheduled a visit with wounded American troops who have served with honor and distinction in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but he broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next.

Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders in Germany and Washington. For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.

At this point, it seems as though both sides will spin this issue until the truth becomes absolutely unrecognizable to the general public, a point at which we may have already reached.

However, this doesn’t mean we will not continue to hear statements such as the above attack from McCain, or Obama’s frequent defense claiming Mr. McCain to be going back on his word and beginning to run a negative campaign. As the summer drags on and this issue gets heated, it may signal the beginning of the end of the “new” kind of politics.

by John D'Alessandro on July 27, 2008 10:48 AM

Barack Obama Takes Campaign to Europe- To Sway American Voters

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:14:00 +0000

From the outside looking in, it seems as if Europe would be wise to throw out the Lisbon Treaty and put Barack Obama in charge of the European Union. The speech he gave in front of 200,000 people in Berlin Yesterday does little harm to this notion. Of course, we have yet to see Barack in Dublin (and we won’t on this trip), but it looks as though at least Germany, France, and England would be landslide victories for Obama.

However, on a closer look at the issues, Europeans may be surprised to see that the Illinois Senator wouldn’t be so quick to put on a pair of aviators or to eat dinner at 9 P.M. every night, if he were elected president. In her New York Times article today, Sarah Lyall points out some key issues that distances Barack Obama from European leaders:

[F]oreign editor of Le Figaro, a French newspaper, [said] after the [Berlin] speech, ‘on climate issues, the economy and world politics there are still questions. There will be a difference, but very quickly Obama will be faced with concrete questions, like Afghanistan.’...

Europeans are wary about Mr. Obama’s call for more European money for defense and more soldiers for the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. They worry that he will not alter what they see as President Bush’s unbending bias in favor of Israel. Even on Iran, where so far Washington and the main European countries have cooperated in their effort to prevent Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, Mr. Obama refuses to rule out a military option — a position that, as Le Monde said “is judged unproductive by most Europeans.”

Questions like these seem to be irrelevant after an almost stump speech in Berlin, charged with a lot of notions of "tearing down walls" but avoiding real concrete issues. This is no fault of Obama however, as no one is expected to spout out policy and positions on a group of non-electorates. More importantly, Obama’s speech was seen by many as “never about winning over Europeans ... It was about impressing American voters.”

It’s obvious to everyone that Europeans cannot vote in the U.S. election, but that doesn’t mean their opinions do not matter. Of course, Obama has used his time in Europe to gain credibility in one of his weakest areas, foreign policy. Nonetheless, according to Jasan Farago of the Guardian, Obama has also used mass European popular support to “reassure [American] voters that the change Obama seeks to incarnate has teeth”. It seems as though an Obama presidency really could bring a change (that is believable) in US-European relations, part of the recapturing of the American image abroad that has plundered during the Bush Administration.

While mass European support for Obama, in a time in which any support abroad for the U.S. is not too common, does not seem like it could bring much harm to his standing with the voters back in the U.S.A, Ross Douthat of The Atlantic tends to disagree:

[P]hoto ops are one thing, Beatlemania-style rallies are quite another - and having your candidate appear in front of tens of thousands of adoring European fans when your campaign's biggest problem, as John Judis puts it today, is that "Obama remains the 'mysterious stranger' rather than the 'American Adam' to too many voters who are put off rather than attracted by his race and exotic background" strikes me as the height of political folly.

[The speech in Berlin] could do some minor damage, and it certainly won't help him. (If he's counting on the expat vote to put him over the top, then he's in more trouble than anyone thinks.) Is it too late to call the whole thing off?

However, it is clear that domestic issues (such as the economy and national security) and the war in Iraq will dominate the minds of the electorate, and strengthening the U.S.-European relationship will not be too important in the minds most voters. If this trip does in fact hurt Obama’s standing with some of the more Euro-phobic voters, these may not be the group that the Obama Campaign was planning to get support from in the first place.

After returning from his- as Stephen Colbert puts it- “elitist summer abroad”, Obama will have to put his nose back to the grinding stone in order to keep his 3% lead over John McCain. In the U.S.A, Barack will have to get back to policy rather than rhetoric, and will no longer be in such a friendly environment. On the other hand, he may get a welcomed break from being followed by every major news anchor in the U.S., which can’t be a very pleasant group of traveling companions. Even if the press coverage is mostly positive, who would honestly want to be followed around by Katie Couric?

(Images from The BBC and TruthWinsOut.org)

by John D'Alessandro on July 25, 2008 11:36 AM

Book Review: Crossing Over - A Mexican Family on the Migrant Trail

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:00 +0000

In the outskirts of the Mexican village of Cherán, author Ruben Martinez is sitting next to his interviewee, Wense, who has broken down crying. “My family is poorer than you can imagine,” he says. He admits that after seven months of interviewing, the reason he still has not allowed the author to meet his family is because he is ashamed of their poverty, ashamed that “my family lives west of the highway where the poorest of our poor live.” The sheer extent of this poverty has turned into the basic driving force behind the constant northward flow of migrants. The return of migrants who have had success in America further fuels this desire to head north.

Crossing Over is Ruben Martinez’s account of his experiences in Cherán, an impoverished town in the south of Mexico. The book starts with the story of three brothers who die in a border crossing incident. This event frames the rest of the discussion well; the fact that these deaths do little to deter further migration from their hometown shows the lengths to which people will go to escape poverty.

There’s no work to be found in Cherán these days. A small town like this has just a few well-paying professions: there’s only one doctor there, and when Martinez arrives he’s the sole journalist in the area. The rest of the population must scrounge for a niche in an over-saturated market. There’s at least one general store per block, often more. A fleet of a dozen taxis sit mostly idle in the town square. For any real opportunity at acquiring wealth, the sole recourse for the uneducated poor of Cherán is to make their way to the United States, where there is a seemingly limitless demand for low-wage labor. Even minimum wage in America can translate to wealth in rural Mexico; most of the well-off in Cherán get to that level by picking tobacco in North Carolina or packing meat in Illinois.

It’s noteworthy and surprising that few of these migrants give serious thought to staying permanently up north. Most leave with the intention of accumulating enough wealth to come back to their villages and live a comfortable life in their hometown. On their return home, there is an instant economic and social divide between the migrants and people like Wense who have never left Cherán. They buy a large house, get hot and cold water and satellite TV, and generally make those who have not migrated feel inferior.

American popular culture has arrived in full force in Cherán. Martinez notes over and over again the infiltration of American goods and styles into even this rural backwater, most commonly seen in the clothes worn by the young men in the area. The ultimate mark of “cool” here is the proud display of the logo of an American sports team—the Chicago Bulls are especially popular in Cherán given the extensive migratory flow to that area. American brands such as Nike and Adidas are ubiquitous in the town, and forgeries of such brands make up a large part of Cherán’s black market. In fact, as in many migrant towns in Mexico, basketball has come to surpass soccer as the town sport. Kids start pick-up games on the court instead of scrimmages on the fields, pretending to be Michael Jordan instead of Pele. The fact that the rest of Mexico is still overwhelmingly oriented towards soccer shows that this is an old-fashioned direct migratory connection to America, not just a result of globalization,

Martinez tells of impoverished families who buy satellite TV to watch CNN and MTV. They can’t afford it, but they make sacrifices to keep up with American culture. Kids spend more than their parents make in a week to buy a large nylon jacket with the logo of their favorite NBA team. Still, American culture doesn’t make it down to rural Mexico completely intact. Villagers are happy to buy Chevys and Buicks, but they make them their own by plastering on images of the Virgin of Guadalupe and murals of Mexico.

Martinez notes some negative changes on the Mexican side of the cultural exchange, such an erosion of the concept of family, while suggesting that America has responded to the influx of Mexican and Central American immigrants with its famous melting pot-style adaptation. Mexican food and music have been prevalent throughout the country for years now. American states that border Mexico are saturated with Mexican culture; border cities are dominated by it. As Martinez’s reporting makes evident, the responses of the Mexican and American governments to the cultural and economic challenges presented by these immigrants will define the future of not only those villages like Cherán, but of both countries as a whole.

Crossing Over at Amazon

(Image From Myerscenter.org and azcentral.com)

by Ryan Kane on July 25, 2008 at 10:02 AM

July 25, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:56:00 +0000

World

Diplomacy may prevail in the ongoing feud between Thailand and Cambodia, The Wall Street Journal reports

Ecuador has passed a draft constitution much to the liking of President Rafael Correa.

The American Embassy in Baghdad has expanded the program which allows Iraqi employees of the U.S. government to obtain visas and ultimately citizenship

An oil spill in the Mississippi near New Orleans Thursday was one of the worst in almost a decade

A study finds that there is no achievement gap between girls and boys in reference to math scores.

On the Campaign Trail...

Barack Obama gave a speech (click here for the full video) in front of 200,000 people in Berlin yesterday. Here is Michael Tomasky of the Guardian on why he thinks the speech wasn't Obama's best.

John McCain said on Thursday that he would rather give a speech in Berlin as president, not presidential nominee.

(Image from ElPais.com)

by John D'Alessandro on July 25, 2008 6:56 AM

Why the Media Chooses Obama Over McCain- and Why They Shouldn't

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:23:00 +0000

It has become evident over the past week, as Barack Obama has been on his five country tour, that John McCain is not the media's center of attention. Of course, this isn't a new development, as Hillary Clinton complained about being overshadowed by Barack Obama as well. Although its clear that McCain is overshadowed, it's not so clear why, which is why I have made a list of the five biggest reasons why McCain is overlooked, and also five reasons why he shouldn't be.

5 Reasons Why John McCain is Overshadowed by the Media-

5. It’s John McCain’s Fault:

One of the main reasons why Barack Obama went to Iraq- which has caused John McCain to feel overshadowed- was due to John McCain’s challenge to do so. Of Course, McCain wanted it to be a joint event, but Obama said that he didn’t want the trip to be political posturing.

To add to that, McCain isn’t the best speaker in the world, and he doesn’t captivate audiences of 70,000 while on the campaign trail. This may not be important in the big picture, as presidents don’t need to be great speakers to be effective leaders, but it does seem to be hurting his exposure.

4. John McCain is a Republican, the Party of “Still-President” George W. Bush.

We have gone through 7 years of President Bush, and as recent polls show, he’s not too popular. Democrats have picked up seats in both the house and senate over the past 2 election cycles, and there is a feeling that a lot of people believe this one is wrapped up, too. Basically, Republicans aren’t the new-hip-stylish thing right now, and no one really thinks they will be in November either (which may or may not lose them votes). John McCain is already feeling the adverse effects of this

3. The Democratic Primary Marathon

This one made a case for the number two spot, but the second reason is just too important to be number three. From February to June, all we heard 24/7 from every news outlet imaginable was Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The primaries affected McCain adversely on a lot of different levels. The first of which did so by adding to the excitement over the Democratic Party. The second of which is by registering a whole lot of new democrats in the primary states (every state). The third of which is by allowing the media to legitimately overshadow John McCain during all of these months. None of these have boded well for John McCain

2. He’s Old, He’s a Male, and He’s White…

In the oval office, we have had 43 old white guys serving 55 consecutive terms. John McCain would be number 44 and 56, respectively. Needless to say, a McCain presidency wouldn’t be (on the surface) a huge change from anything we have seen since 1792, which doesn't really help to much to create excitement and get viewers.

1. Barack Obama Mania- A Craze You Can Believe In

Of course, you can’t be overshadowed unless there is something there to cast that shadow, and in this case, that something is Barack Obama. In a lot of ways, Barack Obama would be a media darling in any election year. Many feel that he is an eloquent and charismatic speaker, and that his words evoke images of JFK and RFK in the minds of his followers. Obama is also the first African-American presidential nominee from either party- headline news any year. As a fresh face in Washington, the nation (and world) is just getting to know him, which has sparked the curiosity of many Americans. But, Senator Obama has fallen into a bit of luck as well, enjoying the benefits of being a post-Bush Democrat, as well as those from a nationally-exposing primary election. In the primaries, Obama became a Clinton slayer, another item to add to the buzz around him.

5 Reasons why John McCain shouldn’t be overlooked-

5. He is Not George W. Bush

According to the most recent Gallup Poll, 77% of the nation should be excited that this McCain is not Bush, and the other 23% (based on the assumption they are republicans) should be happy with him since he is a republican. Using this logic, everyone in the nation has a reason to like John McCain!

4. He, too, Represents Change

There is a reason John McCain has had such a successful career. McCain has a record of bi-partisanship, something that is lacking in Washington these days.

3. Is it Really About Ratings?

The media has to earn a living, just like everyone else, but is it really just about ratings? A lot of people use NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox as their main source of news, and when their main sources of news show any kind of bias (read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point in the section about the late Peter Jennings), it tends to have major consequences. In an ideal world, neutrality should not be sacrificed for profit, but hey, this is America..

2. He’s an Historic Candidate

John McCain is the oldest man to ever run for president, and would be one of the greatest war heroes the office has ever seen. He’s a bipartisan senator, which is rare in this day and age, and has gone through a tremendous amount of hardships in his life to reach this platform. In many ways, John McCain is the embodiment of the American Dream, just as Senator Obama is.

1. He’s Running for President of the United States of America

This one should speak for itself. This man has a very good shot at becoming the most powerful leader in the world. There is absolutely no reason why he should be overlooked. One of the most important things to remembers is that John McCain is an honorable American, and he deserves enough air time to allow the American people to make an educated choice for president. Even if we have to listen to him look old and not-too exciting (although Stephen Colbert has helped him out with that).

(Image from Wall Street Journal, Sun News Network, and Textually.org)

by John D'Alessandro on July 24, 2008 10:22 AM

July 24, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:51:00 +0000

World

The Wall Street Journal gives a bit of review as well as their take on what India should do to continue advancing as a global economic power d

A major earthquake shook Japan this morning injuring at least 91 people. Luckily, there is no reported threat of a tsunami.

The Bush Administration plans to allocate anti-terror funds in order to improve Afghanistan's ability to combat terror

Talks failed in the Senate yesterday on a bill that would curb oil speculation trading.

The House of Representatives passed a bill to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after President Bush claimed he would sign it

On the Campaign Trail...

Time explains "John McCain's Foreign Policy Frustration", while reports are out that claim both he and Barack Obama will choose their VPs soon.

The Boston Herald reports that Mitt Romney is at the top of McCain's list for number 2s, while the Boston Globe asks if Romney can buy the position.

Barack Obama visited Jerusalem (where Jon Stuart of The Daily Show claims Barack was born) yesterday before leaving for Germany.

(Image from stuff.co.nz)

by John D'Alessandro on July 24, 2008 6:51 AM

Obama’s Rock Star Politics: How Important is Charisma?

noreply@blogger.com (Ryan Kane) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:00:00 +0000

If there’s one thing Obama’s got going for him, it’s that make-or-break, unteachable trait of charisma. He's sparked incredible fundraising, grassroots change, and the widest adoption of political accessories since the “I Like Ike” buttons. God forbid Obama lose the general election: just like when the losing Super Bowl team dumps its pre-printed victory t-shirts on the third world, my fear is that the indigent schoolkids of Nicaragua will be suffocated by 4 million cubic tons of “Yes We Can” hoodies.

But even beyond the Barack hats, thermoses, and oven mitts, Obama has a meticulously tailored public image that is referred to in the media as a "rock star" persona. With plans to officially accept the Democratic nomination in Denver's Mile High Stadium, there may be more to this than simple hyperbole. Commenting on Obama’s upcoming trip to Europe on the return leg of his Middle East tour, Gerard Baker of The Times of London marvels:

"Just like the Beatles, Mr. Obama is a prodigiously talented revolutionary, the tribune of a rising generation, whose evident talent is only slightly compromised by an unsettling precocity. He hasn't claimed to be more popular than Jesus yet, but looking at the latest opinion polls in secular Europe, it might just be plausible."

Especially for Democrats, used to candidates from the politically clumsy Kerry and Dukakis mold, Obama has injected life into politics. His charisma and style of politics have been a major public relations drag on McCain. It’s simply become difficult for the presumptive Republican nominee, with his self-proclaimed “oldness,” to make himself heard against the freshness and buzz of the Obama camp. As measured by Google Trends, Google searches for McCain have been generally stagnant and at less than half of the searches for Obama; and while Obama has been the beneficiary of spikes based on his ups and downs in the news, McCain has flatlined.

One of the major questions of this election is whether this buzz and charismatic appeal will translate into dependable votes. Two of Obama’s stalwart demographics, young people and African-Americans, are famously unreliable come election time. And while Obama is often compared to other especially charismatic aspirants to the presidency, including such giants as Kennedy and Reagan, some signs show he’s not quite there yet. German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently objected to an Obama event at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, which was the backdrop to both the Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech by Kennedy and Reagan’s famous cry, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Granted, he hasn’t even officially received the Democratic nomination, but the exchange does show there are at least some boundaries to “Obama-mania” in Europe.

Charisma is a harder trait to tie to political success than one might imagine. For all Kennedy’s magnetism, he was elected over the less-compelling Nixon with a mere 0.1% of the popular vote. Lyndon Johnson, a born politician and incredibly successful as a Senator, failed to engage the public while in office and became overwhelmed by Vietnam.

Harvard professor and politics heavyweight Joseph Nye argues that the trait of charisma is often ascribed in hindsight, after a candidate has already been successful. Winston Churchill was not seen as charismatic in 1939, but as the Nazi threat increased, so did the public’s perception of him as charismatic. Even once established as charismatic and wildly popular, Churchill failed in his reelection bid because the voters’ needs had changed. Says Nye,

“In the end, Barack Obama's charisma is in the eyes of his followers. Voters should be aware that charisma tells them something about a candidate, but even more about themselves, the mood of the country, and their desire for change.”

Although charisma and the magnetic personal qualities of a candidate are powerful political tools, a candidate’s success ultimately depends on the whims of the voting public.

The public’s current desire for change – 77% say the country is on the wrong track – bodes well for Obama. But if elected, he would do well to avoid overestimating how far his charisma will take him in office. As persona-driven as politics can be, history shows us that public opinion can shift an incredible amount in the space of a single election cycle. If that happens, as with Churchill, Obama may find himself in a situation from which no number of “Obama 2012” t-shirts can revive him.

Check out what Stephen Colbert thinks of "Barack Obama's Elitist Summer Abroad"

(Images from Photobucket and 2008central.net)

by Ryan Kane on July 23, 2008 10:00 AM

July 23, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:01:00 +0000

World

The New York Times reports that air strikes in Afghanistan have been significantly reduced due to risks associated with civilians

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in Singapore in talks of N. Korean nuclear disarmament involving the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, and the two Koreas.

Hurricane Dolly eyes the southern coast of Texas and the northern coast of Mexico, possibly impacting oil prices.

A bill that could possibly help curb speculation in oil buying passed in the senate on Tuesday.p

On the Campaign Trail...

John McCain and Hillary Clinton may have more in common than we think, at least in reference to the media and Barack Obama

Barack Obama is probably hoping that his poll numbers will be as good as his memorabilia sales

(Image from swapmeetdave.com)

by John D'Alessandro on July 23, 2008 7:01 AM

Chavez pleads for Russian Protection from the United States

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:39:00 +0000

Hugo Chavez is at it again, and this time, he’s looking for friends. While on his trip to Moscow, Chavez has called for increased economic and military ties between Russia and Venezuela, citing “protecting the sovereignty of Venezuela from the United States” as the main reason to do so. Wait a minute, what year are we in? I could have sworn this was 2008, but maybe a time-warp has sent me back into some time in between 1900 and 1980. I don’t really know, keeping up a website really makes you lose your sense of time...

Is Chavez serious? Does he really think that the United States of America- in a time in which we have gone under so much criticism and economic hardship as consequences of invading Iraq- is going to somehow threaten a the sovereignty of a country in our own hemisphere? Well, the answer to that question depends on how you look at sovereignty.

In my very humble opinion, the way that Chavez means sovereignty is synonymous with his rule. Basically, in his mind (and on paper, legitimate or not) he is the leader of the country, chosen by a majority of the people. Sovereignty, in essence, is self-rule. When Chavez says sovereignty, he means, a Hugo Chavez Administration.

Now, let’s take another look at this term, this time from the other side. Using the same definition of the word, the United States may take a different approach to sovereignty. To us, sovereignty may mean fair elections (including a real opposition!), protection for the minority in the democratic process, checks and balances in the system, and civilian control of the government. The presence of all of this may not be so clear to us in Venezuela, and this may put Chavez’ “sovereignty” in danger.

However, I don't believe Venezuela's sovereignty (in either sense) is in absolutely in jeopardy from the United States. Chavez' rhetoric is nothing but extreme, as always. The way the U.S. should deal with Venezuela and Chavez is on a strictly democratic level. Of course, we will want all of the notions of sovereignty (or democracy) to be present in the country, this will not change. But this is all we should ask (or demand) from Venezuela. I mean, who gives a damn about their economic system? I have just realized that this is indeed 2008, and the days of conflicts over economic systems should be over. As long as Chavez and Venezuela want to make money and we respect their sovereignty, they will sell us oil, which is the key to all of this. Our time as strong man in South America is over. We should practice the "New-American Realism" that Condoleezza Rice so profoundly declared in her recent essay for Foreign Affairs. Then, maybe Hugo Chavez wouldn’t be so scared of the big-bad United States, and he wouldn’t put our already fragile relationships in jeopardy, something that we may need to pay a little more attention to.

If you would like to read more about Latin America and this “New-American Realism”, check out my article, On the Back Burner: Why We Shouldn't Ignore Latin America

(Image from daylife.com)

by John D'Alessandro on July 22, 2008 6:39 PM

The Blogging Revolution and the "Traditional" Media

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:51:00 +0000

If you are reading this, then you are already party of the revolution. In The New York Times Caucus Blog, I noticed a pretty interesting statement made by Daily Kos founder Marcos Moulitsas, in which he claimed that the mainstream media as we know it should now be known as the “traditional media”. Here is Katharine Q. Seelye’s take from The Caucus:

Calling it mainstream implies that the Internet is fringe, [Moulitsas] said, when in fact liberal bloggers, at least, are “representatives of the mainstream, and the country is embracing what we’re selling.”
In addition, [Moulitsas] said, the term “mainstream” adopts the argot of the right. And, he wrote, in a gesture that may surprise his liberal followers, the term “traditional” is a less negative way to distinguish the old media from new media. He says the old media, er, the traditional media, does serve a useful purpose when it writes the “truth” and reflects reality — something he says the right can’t handle.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the ultra-liberal founder of the Kos on this one. In fact, I think he’s dead on. What purpose will the “traditional” media outlets serve as more and more people turn away from ultra-slanted Fox News and MSNBC? Will they be hurt by the big blog boom?

Another opinion on the matter comes from another big bogger, Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post. I won’t go into the details of her statements (you can check out the Caucus post on this here), but the big problem Huffington has with the traditional media is the “false neutrality”. Or, as she puts it (from The Caucus):

One of the worst things the old media do, the author [Huffington], liberal pundit and founder of HuffingtonPost.com said, is present two sides of a story as if the two sides had equal value, creating a false neutrality that often does not exist. They fall back, she said, on “the illusion of neutrality instead of ferreting out the truth.”

Much to my dismay, I’m going to have to agree with Huffington as well (which leaves me on the same side of an issue as two extremist-liberals that make Keith Olbermann look like Tucker Carlson). At least when you go onto sites like HuffingtonPost and DailyKos you know what you are getting, which is a much better alternative than someone tuning into Fox News or MSNBC and expecting to hear the “truth”.

Also, bloggers do not have to worry about making tons of money and getting tons of viewers, so (as of 2008, more to come on this in the future) issues like flag pins taking over hours of airtime become phenomena of the not-so-missed past. Another benefit is the democratization of blogging. Anyone can have their voice heard, and anyone can give their feedback or voice their disagreements. Maybe the much-needed and missed voice of reason, truth, logic and respect will be taken back by the bloggers. I know that here at SemiPolitico, this is our goal. Thanks for being a part of that goal, because it takes more than the two of us to accomplish. We appreciate you the taking time out of your day to become part of the blogging revolution.

(Image from skinnymoose.com)

by John D'Alessandro on July 22, 2008 10:05 AM

July 22, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (John) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:57:00 +0000

World

Bosnian wartime president Radovan Karadzic was arrested yesterday in Serbia.

A former driver for Osama Bin Laden pleaded not gulity to war crimes in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, the first case of its kind since WWII.

The Wall Street Journal explains why this energy crunch won't be as easy to overcome.

A "math error" caused the victims of the 2005 hurricanes Rita and Katrina to not receive supplies in early 2008.

The ACLU is suing Alabama over charges of voter disenfranchisement.

On the Campaign Trail...

The New York Times sent back John McCain's op-ed response to an essay by Barack Obama. Here is the New York Times' response.

Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had a "constructive discussion"

(Image from The BBC)

by John D'Alessandro on July 22, 2008 8:57 AM