The Plight of the Undecided

I am taking my sweet time deciding who I will be voting for February 5. No matter who wins the nomination, I will be supporting them when they are crowned.

Understand, I went to work for someone I believed would be the best president of the United States. I gave my heart and soul to the man that spoke to me, represented the best chance to make our country great again and would improve our standing in the world.

We have had 7 years of a president who told us exactly what he thought we wanted to hear. Now, we have two candidates that are doing the same exact thing except under the Democratic banner. The voters have spoken, they said they like not being told what direction we are going in. They kicked out the candidates who had detailed plans and did not bullshit you when they didn’t know something. Hillary and Obama do not do that. They impressed the voters with glorious oratorical flourishes, stating problems without ever saying how they intend to fix them.

Both will not discuss how change is about working with Congress. The reason for that is neither has any real experience with successfully playing the system. Prove to me that you are capable of bringing about REAL change through the necessary teamwork, not partisan games. Both Obama and Hillary have no record of results on this particular issue.

I look today at the current field now dwindled to two and I am once again faced with the dilemma I face last February: Who will be the best for this country? I see the two most inexperienced candidates in the forefront, each with no record of discernable results or plans.

Kucinich Drops

Only question I have: Was he ever really running? My understanding from ’04 was Kucinich was everywhere in Iowa. This time around he had one staffer on the ground and no office. He cried foul when he was locked out of debates and events but seriously he wasn’t making any effort.

I know a great many people like Kucinich and what he has to say. I will admit he added to the debate especially when he was allowed to speak on the issues. He found a great many sympathizers in the extreme left wing of the party because he said exactly what they wanted to hear.

I say this with a great deal of love because I consider myself a progressive but I also consider myself a good Democrat. Kucinich is an example of how divisive the progressive part of the party can be sometimes. I don’t want to paint everyone with the same brush here so bear that in mind as you continue on. Kucinich has been in the House for 12 years, most of them in the minority. How does he not know way things work?! I feel like most of his plans are straight out of some pipe-dream of the impossible. Single-payer healthcare overnight? Out of Iraq ASAP? Please, while we want to see all these things immediately, they are not something that can be accomplished with a wave of our magic wand (or found in a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow).

I say farewell Dennis Kucinich.

To make an impact in the '08 race.

One of the most frustrating things about being young and politically active is that no one seems to pay attention to my friends or myself. We volunteer for campaigns or get paid a whole lot less than those older than us. Most of the time, we have to beg for jobs on campaigns despite again the great amount of grunt work we do. Does it suck? Hell yes, but is there anything that can really be done?

As I sat there at the CDNY convention, speaker after speaker talked about how my generation should not be taken for granted. One person got up there and was not afraid to tell it like it is, that was candidate Dan Maffei. He basically got up and said what I know I was thinking and what campaigns everywhere think: we aren’t worthless because we don’t get out there and be active but rather we do not provide the needed numbers in the end.

Out of all the speakers, he had the best point on the issue. As a young campaign worker, one of the most painful things I had to deal was ignoring my fellow young democrats. Yes we had a facebook and myspace, we visited high schools but we knew that the effort was almost worthless. It was accepted that we could not get this demographic fully mobilized. We knew those that were going to vote already had their minds made up. It was not worth the time and effort to get 50-60 votes when we could go to a senior center and get 100-200.

Campaigns and candidates are going to put their resources and money where they will get results. While my generation may be the force behind a great deal of campaigns, we should accept in the end we are an awfully small voting block. To a point, I know campaigns take us for granted. They know that those of us that are activists can be considered “sure things.” They acknowledge the fact they have no need to work to keep us with them.

When it comes down to it, most of my generation is either undecided or apathetic. Though campaigns come out to speak at college campuses, they are rarely ever speaking about issues that effect students. They do not bother to relate to us; therefore we don’t pay attention to them. My generation has to be given a reason to look at a candidate and feel a connection to them. We have to know that they are really listening to us.

’08 is an interesting time to be involved in any race. With no evident front-runner for the presidential nomination, if someone found a way to energize the 18-34 demographic they could be golden. One of the things that allowed Howard Dean to have a certain measure of success was the fact he did not go before Rock the Vote in jeans in a horrible attempt to act cool. He showed up in a suit and tie to talk frankly to those that attended. He was real then.

Most of the ’08 first tier candidates do not give us that feeling. They are pre-packaged. They come before groups being told exactly what to say and what camera to face when they are saying it. Most of what they say has no substance. They speak in generalities and great oratorical flourishes in an attempt not to piss anyone off.

I would think a straw poll among progressive and young democrats would show the same thing: no one really like the self-anointed nominee. Here are the results of the DFA pulse poll from March 23:

Barack Obama 28.1%
John Edwards 24.6%
Other 12.4%
Dennis Kucinich 10.3%
Hillary Clinton 8.7%
Bill Richardson 7.6%
Undecided 4.9%
Joseph Biden 1.9%
Christopher Dodd 0.5%
Mike Gravel 0.3%

The DailyKos Poll from March 16:

dKos Reader Poll. 2/15. 20,264 respondents (as of 3.16.07 9:22 p.m. PT)

2007 2006 2005
Mar Feb Jan Dec Jul May Mar Jan Nov Sep Aug

Edwards 38 26 35 28 15 8 7 8 12 10 7
Obama 26 25 28 28
Other 9 8 * * 3 6 3 6 2 3 4
Richardson 8 6 5 4 2 1 2 3 5 3 4
No F'ing Clue 8 6 * * 3 4 6 6 6 6 9
H. Clinton 3 4 4 5 2 2 2 3 6 8 9
Kucinich 2 4
Biden 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Dodd 0 0 0 0 0 0
Gravel 0 0 0 0

-- not running --

Bayh - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Clark - 14 17 26 17 15 15 22 26 34 35
Daschle - - - - 0 1 0
Feingold - - - - 38 44 48 30 19 19 16
Kerry - - 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 1
Vilsack - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warner - - - - 10 10 11 12 14 4 3


I would have to say that the Kos Poll might be much more in line with what the younger group of Democrats feel. Somehow progressives and younger activists feel a connection to these candidates. Each of these groups are also very quick to try and keep this connection alive.

When all is said and done, the best way to reach the 18-34 demographic is retail politics. Candidates that keep their word will have the logical following they deserve. My generation is frustrated with the fact most of these candidates talk an amazing game but do not deliver. Our generation is next, we want leaders that are going to walk the walk and talk the talk. Is anyone in the ’08 field ready?

Tale of Two Visits

This past week high-profile American politicians paid a visit to the other two members of the “axis of evil”. On the one hand, the White House seemed happy to allow for one trip and were irritated by the other. It is very interesting to note the very different reactions that the White House and the media seemed to have to the Nancy Pelosi- lead delegation to Syria and that of Gov. Bill Richardson to North Korea

Granted, North Korea cannot be called the risk that Syria is at this moment. Yes, they have nuclear weapons but no accurate way to aim them. They also cannot be traced to Americans losing their lives in any of the current armed conflicts. The main reason for this of course is that, they do not have the resources to even think about causing any trouble.

Syria on the other hand, they are a very different story. They allow insurgents to cross their border in Iraq and support terrorist groups like Hamas. They do not recognize Israel among their very many sins. They look as though they will not cooperate with the West and as they have support of their neighbors, really have no need to.

So that brings me back to these two trips. Nancy Pelosi was well within her right to visit the Prime Minister of Syria. The media has been making a big deal about what seems like her overstepping her bounds as Speaker of the House. It has been a long political tradition that the Executive and the Senate are the ones that make Foreign Policy. If Henry Reid went I am sure the backlash would not have been as bad, but she went with a mostly Democratic delegation. She acted as though she was there to initiate diplomatic relations. She did so without a State Department rep or someone from Senate foreign relations.

What has been ignored is that she was not the first one from the House side to make the trip. Rep. Darrel Issa also went with a group of Republican members. His visit was quieter and no one seemed to pay that much attention. The idea though is that he went and he talked with both Israeli and Syrian leaders. No one questioned what he was doing there. Most likely because he was “towing the line” unlike Pelosi who is well known to harbor different ideals than her right honorable friends and the man in the white house.

Gov. Richardson’s visit on the other hand represents a long standing relationship he has had within the diplomatic community. He is able to go on these trips despite his party affliation because they trust him. They know he has towed the line before for both Republican and Democratic presidents, he will continue to do that here. And again, North Korea in the grand scheme of things is no where near as dangerous as Syria at this moment in time.

The media and White House are currently saying that he has no intention to negotiate anything beyond the return of remains but that fails to explain the other news that is coming out of the nuclear talks. Why is it that Richardson goes over there and all the sudden things seem to be going America’s way? I guess it must be true that the bad guys really do like Richardson (Daily Show 03/28). Not to be a conspiracy theorist but he has a relationship with these people, they still come to him for advice (DNC winter meeting). It would then seem logical that the Bush administration would turn to him to help them as he has been successful in the past.

Boiled down what do we have: Inexperianced Oppositional Congressional leader seemingly with a Vendetta against the current Administration vs. a Presidential Candiate visiting old friends. This is an interesting dichotomy between the two situations. What effect if any does this have on 2008, especially if it comes out that Richardson is the one responsible for brokering a deal? Richardson is the unsung hero in all of this if that is true. Though Pelosi is drawing heat for her visit, I feel some good might come out of the dialogue. This is also the chance to give her some more experience in being a statesperson, something that should come in handy as she deals with what seems to be a foreign ideology every time she has to deal with the White House.

Complaining about the Election Part I

In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the 2008 election cycle has already begun. With it comes all the backstabbing evil that most of the candidates at least publicly say they want to avoid. I take the first of what will be many quibbles between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaign teams. I am taking about the money raised for Obama by former Clinton fundraiser David Geffen. Instead of turning it into an argument about issues, both teams opted to get dirty instead.

I believe a good reason exists for why the 2008 election campaign has already begun. I know it has been said by many people much more famous and learned than I: people want change and they are focusing on the future in an effort to forget the present. With President Bush’s numbers in the toilet, people are more willing to look past his failed policies in favor of something hopeful.

The 2008 cycle thus far is a unique one. We have the first shot for a woman and an African American to win the White House. While the focus has been on these two contenders, the direction they are sending the campaigns has already been a bad turn. In the last cycle, I feel the Democratic Party made a sort of promise to us the voter to make this cycle different. Instead of the inferred promise of a dialogue about issues, campaigns are discussing and dissing fundraisers.

As a former campaign worker whose main focus was actually fundraising, I know the importance of those who are willing to part with their dollars to fund candidates. However, that does not mean that I fell in love with the practice in fact I came away with a certain dirty feeling about it. I came away from my experience with the feeling that the “golden rule of politics” needs to be amended if not abolished all together. I would honestly like to see fundraising in general fall to the State and National parties. This would streamline the money process while allowing candidates and campaigns to focus on the issues rather than money. That is my ideal campaign world. One where the issues are louder than money. Where the dialogue is open and honest about what is affecting the common person and each candidate is offering real solutions. If the campaigns are getting attention this early, it’s for a reason.
I would like to see those from my own party taking advantage of the fact that this is probably going to be one of the few times that they can talk freely about issues that are most pressing to them. Instead, we have politics as usual. When campaigns have control of the news cycle, they are choosing to not focus on issues but rather piety rivalries. Democrats: ’08 is for fighting Republicans, not each other. The politics of destruction needs to stop and quickly. We have a rare chance for so many firsts in this cycle, lets unite to enable them to occur without petty party infighting about who is giving money to whom and when. Let each candidate’s voice be heard for what they have to say and what they can offer the American people.

Star Trek and Foreign Policy

Author’s Note: To understand me to a point is to understand some of my interest areas. Among my research topics in college was analyzing Star Trek for cultural references. The following is a fragment from my senior thesis on how the series changed based upon the time period. As one will notice, it does not follow thesis of the paper therefore was canned.

To bring Star Trek’s ethics into modern times, there is the issue of foreign policy. America has become a country that is very involved in country building. It has become a practice to replace an unhelpful power with one who might be offer more friendly relations to the United States. This is where the Prime Directive might provide some guidance to those that write Foreign Policy and influence the way mainstream America should think about looking the way we view countries that seem alien in comparison to our democracy.

The Prime Directive says the following:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation. (Gray)

In short, the directive basically says that no officer should interfere with the development of another culture. This causes some friction in the Star Trek world as it probably would this one if it were consistently applied. Even the captains of the Enterprise see different meanings in those worlds and the Federation itself has amended it. In most cases, the directive has come to mean that members of the federation may not impart knowledge of advanced technology or interfere in the affairs of an alien culture unless prompted by some situation that affects the wellbeing of the Federation. The directive is rescinded in cases where the said species has accomplished warp drive capabilities.

A line of comparison can be drawn in the way America approaches foreign policy. If a country is not democratic and has nuclear capabilities, they are handled differently than another country that might be democratic and has nuclear weapons. There is also the issue of if a country has a resource the United States needs or wants, ex oil. The result is that America provides a certain amount of coercion to make countries do and think, as it would prefer them to.

An argument may be made that is this sometimes a wrong approach. What Americans seem to forget is that our democracy was no forged overnight, it developed over hundreds of years. What became the “American democracy” was created by a group of men who came together and decided that this particular system of government would suit the new nation the best. The founding fathers experimented with the Articles of Confederation before coming to the conclusion that a three branch system with executive, bicameral legislature and court system would come to serve the United States according to its unique needs.

Sometimes it may be forgotten that the countries of the Middle East are examples of what happens when the Prime Directive is not followed. Those countries were colonies under democracies such as Britain and France. It was very possible that had the conflicts between Communist Russia and America not happened, the path these countries took could have been very different. But rather than letting these countries develop their own systems of government, both America and Russia decided to step in so they could create countries in their own images. Instead of allowing the citizens to install their own leader, they were given dictators supported with technology and weaponry gifted by the United States or Russia.

Today, America finds itself fixing the errors of old but are they really? The delegations sent over to the Mideast is creating a parliamentary democracy but is that something that these people really want? One could properly argue that as ancient tribes these people should be allowed to form natural alignments that would serve their needs better. But there is the issue of oil for the West. If the government formed is not friendly to the West and serve its needs properly, this process of overthrowing it could happen all over again. It is a dangerous trend that is a forming a pattern throughout that region. It does fall to this country here and now to stop it.

Oldie but Goodie: The Cost of Security

Note: This was written in the summer of 2004 following my freshman year of college. I look back on it now and am happy with the changes we are seeing. But I offer it up in order to give insight into where some of my thoughts and feelings have evolved from:

Coming home from school the summer of my freshman year at Elmira, I noticed something really odd about my house. My liberal-Democrat registered parents had changed. The first sign should have been the Bush/Cheney sticker that adorned the car, that should have scared me but no. It wasn’t until I went to get a glass of water and I stood up to see the Bushes were staring back at me, only then did I scream. No way around it, my parents had become Republican. The very people who raised my siblings and me on the greatness of JFK had gone to the “dark side”.

In regard to politics, varying opinions have always been welcome so I asked my mom the question “Why?” She answered, “Bush has done a good job. You should support him too.” Did I miss something here or just not drink the Kool-aide? Not really sure what happened but I walked away just as any confused child would. I didn’t know what to make of this sudden change of heart.

The change in my house isn’t an isolated incident. Ideas are changing everywhere and not for good. In post 9/11 America, a right/wrong mentality has taken hold. Discussion and debate, the core values of American politics have gone to the wayside. It feels like if you disagree with the government, your opinion is invalid and will not be listened to. This government appears is able to do no wrong and when does act incorrectly; no one really seems to notice.

Anyone ever heard of a man by the name of Jeff Gannon? If you didn’t I am not surprised. His real name is James Gunkert- Jeff Gannon was his alias. Under this alias, he entered the White House pressroom and asked Bush-friendly questions. While I have no problem with conservative reporting, I do have a problem with the guy being allowed in the room. I ask how did a guy with an alias get into the briefing room. How did he get passed the FBI and Secret service checks that are one step away from a trip to the proctologist? That is what I would really like to know. But in all honesty, I doubt we, as citizens, will ever see anymore of this than a 30 second news story. I firmly believe if this were a Democratic president, we would be seeing news story after news story exposing James Gunkert as a Democratic pawn and victim. C-SPAN would be broadcasting hearing after hearing in both the House and Senate on “Gannongate”. Committee after Committee would be exposing how the Bush administration helped this “reporter” get pass both Secret Service and FBI background checks that are one step away from a visit to Gitmo. I would be willing to place money on a possible impeachment trial. The American people would know so much about everyone involved. But in this Republican majority government, I don’t see any sort of possible action being taken. I don’t think anything will ever be made of it. Bush has always seemed to receive a free pass in the media and for the American people; this situation shows no real change on that stance.

The scary thing is this feeling of “following the crowd” is spreading. A recent study released by the First Amendment center said that 1 in 3 high school students believed that the government should censor the media. 36% said that newspapers should get government approval before publishing a story. I personally think the media might be intrusive but come on. This is what the Bush machine has done to our generation. We should be the ones forcing change instead of conforming to our parents. What is happening? This trend is what Ben Franklin warned the founding fathers about, you probably heard your history teacher say it a million times: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Ben Franklin said this in warning to never give up your civil liberties in exchange for a temporary solution. The study should prove to support that the American people are continuing a dangerous trend. Who knows where we will end. I hope we don’t end up not asking the important questions that must be asked or ignoring issues because they are “too touchy”. Americans shouldn’t be scared to speak out against what we see is wrong rather we should be encouraged.


Works Cited:

Tappo, Greg. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&u=/usatoday/20050131/ts_usatoday/usstudentssaypressfreedomsgotoofar&printer=1

CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/09/white.house.reporter/

Fox News. White House Reporter Using Fake Name Quits. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147087,00.html