As President Bush walked into the Capitol Rotunda last night, he knew he was about to face a very skeptical audience. Outside of Capitol Hill, the president knew that the American people have realized the ensuing chaos in the nation of Iraq, and have come to question our continued involvement.

In the sixty-five applause breaks during his speech, very few were during the reaffirmation of our Iraq commitment. No one rose to the idea of a civilian corps, and no one rose to his planned escalation.

Perhaps this is because the legislators knew that today they planned on passing bipartisan legislation opposing his new war strategy, or because they knew that Iraq has grown ever more unpopular, and this president ever more irrelevant.

Here we are, 5 years after the 9/11 attacks, an unpopular nation with an unpopular president. After all we’ve been through as a nation to get to this point, I pose the question: How did it happen?

These are images of the world reaction after the 9/11 attacks. A new BBC poll taken in 15 countries, found that nearly 70% of the world has a negative view of the United States. Five years ago however, the world stood in solidarity.

Five years after September 11th, we confuse the War in Iraq with the War on Terrorism. Repeatedly, this administration has mixed the two in the implementation of policy, knowing full well the 9/11 Commission reported otherwise. Iraq was not connected to Al-Quada, Saddam Hussein did not conspire to sell weapons of mass destruction to rouge states, and Iraq was not a breeding ground for international terrorist training camps.

We have paid dearly for this administration’s wrongs (in billions of dollars, and thousands of lives). So I find it only fitting that this is a just end to this horrible president, that his legacy be tarnished and bruised- and that his lack of strategy resonate as an example for the rest of history. Proving his failures: after the 9/11 tragedy his approval rating was 84%; last night it was around 30%.

Yet the trust of the American people is not the only thing he’s thrown away. In the face of a national tragedy he had the world behind the United States. The images above show people from all over the globe showing condolence to the U.S., and angered at the idea of international terrorism. Evil is universally understood, and on that day the world saw evil- and stood proud behind the forces of (what was perceived as) good.

Yet today I think to myself… what happened?

To the right is a diagram of international attitudes towards the United States conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). International opinions of the U.S. were highest after 9/11, but the BBC reports that Iraq has severely dogged down our approval rating around the world. They elaborate on their findings:

The war in Iraq: an average of 73% of respondents disapproved (57% in the US). Disapproval was strongest in Argentina and France, while people in Nigeria, Kenya and the Philippines were more likely to approve.
Detainees in Guantanamo: 67% disapproved (50% in the US). Backing for America on this issue was highest in Nigeria, where 49% approved.
Israeli-Hezbollah war: Washington’s role met with approval from respondents in Nigeria and Philippines, but on average 65% disapproved across the 25 countries (50% in the US).
Iran’s nuclear programme: again, support for US actions appeared strongest in Kenya (62%), Nigeria (53%) and the Philippines (52%). But, overall 60% of respondents disapproved (50% in the US).
Global warming: more than 80% of respondents in Argentina, France and Germany disapproved compared to 56% overall (54% in the US). But the White House had 50% or more support among those polled in Nigeria, Kenya, the Philippines and South Korea.
North Korea’s nuclear programme: opposition to US policy was strongest among respondents in Argentina and Brazil. On average across the 25 countries 54% disapproved (43% in the US).

The world agrees- international terrorism is a problem, but the U.S’ involvement in Iraq has diminished any action from being taken, and left Europe in question.

On the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks against the US, Europeans agree with Americans that terrorism inspired by Muslim fundamentalism is a big threat to their lives. That new fear, combined with alarm at the conflicts on Europe’s doorstep in the Middle East and serious European doubts about US global leadership, means Europe as a whole is marking the anniversary in a mood of pessimism and uncertainty. That is reflected in the statements of European leaders on the anniversary. The government of Finland, which now holds the presidency of the 25-nation European Union, condemned all forms of terrorism, saying that “no cause, no grievance, can justify” any terrorist acts. BBC

European nations find it difficult to disassociate the War on Terrorism from the Civil War in Iraq. As the BBC reports, Europeans agree, terrorism is a major world issue- but given strong anti-American sentiments, many governments are unsure of how to properly execute anti-terrorist strategies.

Ultimately, the election in 2008 will introduce a new age of global diplomacy. A new leader will be elected to bring a new image before the global community, and the management of anti-terrorism strategies will be strengthened with new leadership. In the meantime, let’s reflect on how much we’ve lost; watch the video clip below remembering 9/11- and try to recall the generous world response to America’s tragedy. I remember, and I’m still humbled by it. Yet what angers me is the alienation of our allies, the misrepresentation of facts when invading a foreign nation, and the continued instigation of world terrorism by our presence in Iraq. Remember these things, and know that they are the reason for Bush’s solemn demeanor last night. I would be solemn too, had I failed so miserably as president.

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton announced today that she’s forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee. On a quaint living room couch, Clinton revealed her intentions to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008 stated that, “[while I] can’t visit everyone’s living room, I can try. […] Let the conversation begin; I have a feeling it’s going to be very interesting.”

Clinton joins a crowded field of Democratic contenders, knowing full well that recent Fox News’ Opinion Dynamics, and CNN polls of likely Democratic voters put Clinton just ahead of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Clinton’s announcement was anticipated, and according to CNN, the reaction in New Hampshire was dismal.

The Saturday morning announcement surely made a political splash- appearing just four days after the Obama announcement (attempting to shift the constant media focus off Obama), and just one day before the Sunday talk shows.

The first New Hampshire debates will be hosted by CNN April 4-5th of this year.

Early Smear?

Just as Clinton’s announcement was made public, another story had developed out of the blogosphere; Clinton’s hired hands have begun researching fundamentalist Islamic ties in Barack Obama’s past. Unnamed sources in Clinton’s camp, who consider Obama their “most formidable opponent” have reported off the record to the conservative media outlet Insight:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.[…] The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama’s years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Insight, “Hillary’s Team has Questions about Obama’s Muslim Background.” 17 Jan. 2007

I’m fairly skeptical of this report’s validity namely because it’s coming from a right wing media outlet, however because there is a very real chance that his Islamic ties may haunt his presidential aspirations, the issue needs to be addressed.

Firstly, if Clinton’s campaign has released this information than for decency’s sake they need to publicly claim responsibility for it. If her campaign is attempting to play on the unjustified assumption that an Islamic education equates to terrorist training, than it would be a tragic kickoff to her campaign for president.

Secondly, I’m glad this is being addressed early amongst major media enterprises. The sooner Obama can clear this alleged bombshell, the quicker he can pour water over it and continue; better now than in the October before the November election. This does not however, mean that I expect Bill O’Reilly’s & Rush Limbaugh to let it down soon. Right-wingers will always criticize him and other Democrats, but fortunately their criticism will only be echoed around conservative circles.

Lastly and as previously stated, I personally don’t see the validity of this claim. On top of being reported by an unreliable source, it simply cannot be true. Obama did address this “issue” in his book the Audacity of Hope, stating that he was educated in an Indonesian Madrassa for two years, but his mother gave him a secular upbringing more concerned with his learning of multiplication tables and ABC’s than any particular god. I suppose it’s easy to assume that just because one attends a Muslim school, they must be a terrorist or a modern day Manchurian candidate.

Thus we are left with two options- you decide which you believe regarding this report. Either,

1. The report is true. Clinton’s campaign leaked this information to a right-wing media outlet to discredit Obama early in the game and offset his presidential aspirations and raise questions to his past before his presidential decision.
2. The report is false. It’s the illogical nostalgia of the right wing media to automatically assume that just because Islam had an influence on one’s upbringing, it automatically denotes terrorist extremism.

Either way, someone out there is conspiring against Obama- be it Clinton’s staff or right wingers- and Obama will just have to learn from this: Welcome to Presidential Politics.

U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton announced today that she’s forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee. On a quaint living room couch, Clinton revealed her intentions to seek the Democratic nomination in 2008 stated that, “[while I] can’t visit everyone’s living room, I can try. […] Let the conversation begin; I have a feeling it’s going to be very interesting.”

Clinton joins a crowded field of Democratic contenders, knowing full well that recent Fox News’ Opinion Dynamics, and CNN polls of likely Democratic voters put Clinton just ahead of Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary. Clinton’s announcement was anticipated, and according to CNN, the reaction in New Hampshire was dismal.

The Saturday morning announcement surely made a political splash- appearing just four days after the Obama announcement (attempting to shift the constant media focus off Obama), and just one day before the Sunday talk shows.

The first New Hampshire debates will be hosted by CNN April 4-5th of this year.

Early Smear?

Just as Clinton’s announcement was made public, another story had developed out of the blogosphere; Clinton’s hired hands have begun researching fundamentalist Islamic ties in Barack Obama’s past. Unnamed sources in Clinton’s camp, who consider Obama their “most formidable opponent” have reported off the record to the conservative media outlet Insight:

Are the American people ready for an elected president who was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage? This is the question Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s camp is asking about Sen. Barack Obama. An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.[…] The sources said the background check concerned Mr. Obama’s years in Jakarta. In Indonesia, the young Obama was enrolled in a Madrassa and was raised and educated as a Muslim. Although Indonesia is regarded as a moderate Muslim state, the U.S. intelligence community has determined that today most of these schools are financed by the Saudi Arabian government and they teach a Wahhabi doctrine that denies the rights of non-Muslims.
Insight, “Hillary’s Team has Questions about Obama’s Muslim Background.” 17 Jan. 2007

I’m fairly skeptical of this report’s validity namely because it’s coming from a right wing media outlet, however because there is a very real chance that his Islamic ties may haunt his presidential aspirations, the issue needs to be addressed.

Firstly, if Clinton’s campaign has released this information than for decency’s sake they need to publicly claim responsibility for it. If her campaign is attempting to play on the unjustified assumption that an Islamic education equates to terrorist training, than it would be a tragic kickoff to her campaign for president.

Secondly, I’m glad this is being addressed early amongst major media enterprises. The sooner Obama can clear this alleged bombshell, the quicker he can pour water over it and continue; better now than in the October before the November election. This does not however, mean that I expect Bill O’Reilly’s & Rush Limbaugh to let it down soon. Right-wingers will always criticize him and other Democrats, but fortunately their criticism will only be echoed around conservative circles.

Lastly and as previously stated, I personally don’t see the validity of this claim. On top of being reported by an unreliable source, it simply cannot be true. Obama did address this “issue” in his book the Audacity of Hope, stating that he was educated in an Indonesian Madrassa for two years, but his mother gave him a secular upbringing more concerned with his learning of multiplication tables and ABC’s than any particular god. I suppose it’s easy to assume that just because one attends a Muslim school, they must be a terrorist or a modern day Manchurian candidate.

Thus we are left with two options- you decide which you believe regarding this report. Either,

1. The report is true. Clinton’s campaign leaked this information to a right-wing media outlet to discredit Obama early in the game and offset his presidential aspirations and raise questions to his past before his presidential decision.
2. The report is false. It’s the illogical nostalgia of the right wing media to automatically assume that just because Islam had an influence on one’s upbringing, it automatically denotes terrorist extremism.

Either way, someone out there is conspiring against Obama- be it Clinton’s staff or right wingers- and Obama will just have to learn from this: Welcome to Presidential Politics.

Of course, there is another story to be told, by the millions of Americans who are going about their business every day. They are on the job or looking for work, starting businesses, helping their kids with their homework, and struggling with high gas bills, insufficient health insurance, and a pension that some bankruptcy court somewhere has rendered unenforceable. They are by turns hopeful and frightened about the future. Their lives are full of contradictions and ambiguities. And because politics seem to speak so little to what they are going through- because they understand that politics today is a business and not a mission, and what passes for debate is little more than spectacle, they turn inward, away from the noise and rage and endless chatter. A government that represents these Americans- that truly serves these Americans- will require a different kind of politics.

Obama, Barack. Audacity of Hope: New York: Random House, 2006.

Last Tuesday a new candidate emerged among the field of Democratic presidential hopefuls. In a style reminiscent of John F. Kennedy, Barack Obama echoed a message of humility, while maintaining a discrete reverence for our democratic system and American values.

Obama is widely considered by those in the media and the blogosphere as a viable contender against Hillary Clinton’s political machine. Though he only announced the formation of a Presidential Exploratory Committee, many outside observers (and several campaign insiders) have reported that Obama will announce his intention to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States before a crowd in Chicago on February 10th.

Some speculate that Obama’s popularity grew from his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Since, he has been a Senate Superstar whose inspired the curiosity of millions, and earned a reputation as a bipartisan, centrist leader who truly is committed to serving the American public.

This blogger has no intention of refuting this image- as I believe- this reputation is justifiably earned. .

Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, represents a genuine character that’s faithfully committed to fighting for the American working class, preserving our environment and protecting our civil liberties. Obama’s career has been founded in such things; after graduating from Columbia University with a B.A. in International Relations, Obama moved to the south side of Chicago to work as a community organizer. A couple years later, Obama moved back out east to earn his J.D. at Harvard Law School, becoming the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review- only to return to Chicago to initiate a voter registration project.

Obama is the only candidate who has truly devoted a career to grassroots organization helping average Americans on a community level accomplish their dreams. Instead of taking a six figure salary after graduating from Harvard Law School, the very fact that he would return to Chicago to aid destitute families is evidence of his outstanding commitment to public service and leadership. For this reason, he is a new generation of leadership and change we need in 2008.

In 2004 John Kerry and John Edwards ran a compelling campaign. Together, they combined southern hospitality with northern liberalism, and lost.

In any presidential campaign, origin plays a huge role in selecting your vice presidential nominee. If you’re running for president, you want your nominee from a different region to appeal to voters of that region- making it more likely that you’ll win in the overall Electoral College.

In 1972 McGovern’s (SD) running mate was Shriver (MD); in 1966 Carter’s (GA) running mate was Mondale (MN); in 1948 Dewey’s (KY) running mate was Warren (CA). Some of these were losing campaigns, but together they’re evidence of a popular political tactic: to broaden the scope (and appeal) of the national party’s ticket, one must select a “regionally significant” candidate.

Going back to 2004, there is no question in my mind that Edwards’ North Carolinian heritage played a role in John Kerry’s decision to put him on the ticket. Unfortunately, Kerry’s strategy failed.

In North Carolina, Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edwards 56% to 44%. For a candidate, it is embarrassing to lose your home state, especially when it once elected you U.S. Senator just six years back. Reports CNN, Edwards’ placement on the 2004 ticket only bolstered Democratic support in the state by 1.5%; a meager percentage that surely is a humiliation. Many still remember the 1984 landslide Reagan victory over Walter Mondale- where the only state voting Democratic was Mondale’s home state of Minnesota (and there he only won slightly). More recently was in 2000, when Al Gore lost the election with his home state of Tennessee; Gore has gone on record saying that was really humiliating.

Yet many pundits blame the Gore loss in Tennessee on the growing political red/blue divisions in this country. Interesting how they can so neurotically point to a conservative Tennessee culture and say, “well obviously no liberal can win there! Durr…”

No moron, one did… his name was William Jefferson Clinton and he did so with the help of the regional strategy in vice presidential candidates only four years prior. DURR….

Thus, there is one common theme here… it’s not good to lose your home state… you generally lose the election when you do. At the very least your home state should be your sanctuary (like Mondale’s campaign)- not your enemy’s stronghold.

Ultimately, the inability of Edwards to win North Carolina should really raise some questions (and eyebrows) among New Hampshire Democrats. The main reason they continue to look to him is his continuing commitment to working class families. Edwards is the son of a mill worker; he grew up in a lower middle class family; he’s spent his political career fighting for jobs and ending poverty; his son Wade died at the age of 16.

It’s the failed Kerry policy that has me concerned that the Democratic party in 2008 is going to produce another weak ticket. Kerry was a Massachusetts liberal, and Edwards a southern liberal. Edwards however, did not hold up his end and win North Carolina as Gore did for Clinton in Tennessee, as Mondale did for Carter in Minnesota, and as any successful campaign’s vice president has done for the presidential nominee in American history.

In 2008, a ticket is needed that is truly regionally significant, and if there is one thing we’ve learned from John Edwards it’s that he can’t carry the party in the south- so someone else will have to. BUT, before I just throw John Edwards to the hounds, there are two things that first must be understood:

1. 2008 is a different campaign in a different political climate. Perhaps a change of message will make Edwards more appealing. Though he didn’t have much of an effect on his home state, it’s possible that he can create a new image that would make him effective in 2008. (Even though I still think that the 2004 1.5% Democratic increase in North Carolina is a HUGE warning bell.)
2. Regional strategy is a general rule- and to every rule there are always exceptions. Politics has several exceptions, and though I’m calling it a “rule” I can’t say for certain that it’s most definitely causal. If anything, these are correlations between being from somewhere and winning that place, and though the correlation may be strong- every election is different. (Even still, Edwards is a liability given previous correlations).

I’m eager to hear Edwards in the First Presidential Debate April 5th in New Hampshire, as I am the rest of the candidates. Edwards above all the others has that sense of Southern hospitality which acts in cadence with his sincere air of humility. He’s a genuine guy who cares about working class Americans, the future of this great nation and projecting a positive image abroad. That said, he may be a political liability. As presidential campaigns are full of surprises, I suggest we see if Edwards can roll out a surprise in the coming months…

American Research Group Poll of Likely New Hampshire Democrats
January 6, 2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 27%
Barack Obama: 21%
John Edwards: 18%
John Kerry: 6%
Dennis Kucinich: 4%
Wesley Clark: 2%
Bill Richardson: 2%
Joesph Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack 1%
Undecided: 17%

In 2004 John Kerry and John Edwards ran a compelling campaign. Together, they combined southern hospitality with northern liberalism, and lost.

In any presidential campaign, origin plays a huge role in selecting your vice presidential nominee. If you’re running for president, you want your nominee from a different region to appeal to voters of that region- making it more likely that you’ll win in the overall Electoral College.

In 1972 McGovern’s (SD) running mate was Shriver (MD); in 1966 Carter’s (GA) running mate was Mondale (MN); in 1948 Dewey’s (KY) running mate was Warren (CA). Some of these were losing campaigns, but together they’re evidence of a popular political tactic: to broaden the scope (and appeal) of the national party’s ticket, one must select a “regionally significant” candidate.

Going back to 2004, there is no question in my mind that Edwards’ North Carolinian heritage played a role in John Kerry’s decision to put him on the ticket. Unfortunately, Kerry’s strategy failed.

In North Carolina, Bush/Cheney beat Kerry/Edwards 56% to 44%. For a candidate, it is embarrassing to lose your home state, especially when it once elected you U.S. Senator just six years back. Reports CNN, Edwards’ placement on the 2004 ticket only bolstered Democratic support in the state by 1.5%; a meager percentage that surely is a humiliation. Many still remember the 1984 landslide Reagan victory over Walter Mondale- where the only state voting Democratic was Mondale’s home state of Minnesota (and there he only won slightly). More recently was in 2000, when Al Gore lost the election with his home state of Tennessee; Gore has gone on record saying that was really humiliating.

Yet many pundits blame the Gore loss in Tennessee on the growing political red/blue divisions in this country. Interesting how they can so neurotically point to a conservative Tennessee culture and say, “well obviously no liberal can win there! Durr…”

No moron, one did… his name was William Jefferson Clinton and he did so with the help of the regional strategy in vice presidential candidates only four years prior. DURR….

Thus, there is one common theme here… it’s not good to lose your home state… you generally lose the election when you do. At the very least your home state should be your sanctuary (like Mondale’s campaign)- not your enemy’s stronghold.

Ultimately, the inability of Edwards to win North Carolina should really raise some questions (and eyebrows) among New Hampshire Democrats. The main reason they continue to look to him is his continuing commitment to working class families. Edwards is the son of a mill worker; he grew up in a lower middle class family; he’s spent his political career fighting for jobs and ending poverty; his son Wade died at the age of 16.

It’s the failed Kerry policy that has me concerned that the Democratic party in 2008 is going to produce another weak ticket. Kerry was a Massachusetts liberal, and Edwards a southern liberal. Edwards however, did not hold up his end and win North Carolina as Gore did for Clinton in Tennessee, as Mondale did for Carter in Minnesota, and as any successful campaign’s vice president has done for the presidential nominee in American history.

In 2008, a ticket is needed that is truly regionally significant, and if there is one thing we’ve learned from John Edwards it’s that he can’t carry the party in the south- so someone else will have to. BUT, before I just throw John Edwards to the hounds, there are two things that first must be understood:

1. 2008 is a different campaign in a different political climate. Perhaps a change of message will make Edwards more appealing. Though he didn’t have much of an effect on his home state, it’s possible that he can create a new image that would make him effective in 2008. (Even though I still think that the 2004 1.5% Democratic increase in North Carolina is a HUGE warning bell.)
2. Regional strategy is a general rule- and to every rule there are always exceptions. Politics has several exceptions, and though I’m calling it a “rule” I can’t say for certain that it’s most definitely causal. If anything, these are correlations between being from somewhere and winning that place, and though the correlation may be strong- every election is different. (Even still, Edwards is a liability given previous correlations).

I’m eager to hear Edwards in the First Presidential Debate April 5th in New Hampshire, as I am the rest of the candidates. Edwards above all the others has that sense of Southern hospitality which acts in cadence with his sincere air of humility. He’s a genuine guy who cares about working class Americans, the future of this great nation and projecting a positive image abroad. That said, he may be a political liability. As presidential campaigns are full of surprises, I suggest we see if Edwards can roll out a surprise in the coming months…

American Research Group Poll of Likely New Hampshire Democrats
January 6, 2007
Hillary Rodham Clinton: 27%
Barack Obama: 21%
John Edwards: 18%
John Kerry: 6%
Dennis Kucinich: 4%
Wesley Clark: 2%
Bill Richardson: 2%
Joesph Biden, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack 1%
Undecided: 17%