McCain wrong about MLK holiday

Senator John McCain said he was wrong in opposing the Martin Luther King federal holiday during his first term in Congress in a speech Friday.

“I was wrong, and eventually realized that in time. [It was] time to give full support, full support for a state holiday in my home state of Arizona,” he said. “I’d remind you that we can all be a little late sometimes in doing the right thing.”

McCain voted against a bill proposing Martin Luther King Day in 1983. Most House Republicans – Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich included – voted for the bill, though all three Arizona representatives opposed it. The holiday eventually was celebrated for the first time in 1986, but only 27 states and Washington, D.C., recognized it.

McCain claims ignorance as the reason for his vote against the King holiday.

“I was in prison when they announced over the loudspeaker in my cell, I was living by myself, that Dr. Martin Luther King had been assassinated,” McCain said in January. “They always told us the very bad news, but somehow avoided telling us minor events such as landing a man on the moon. I didn’t find that out until a couple years after the event itself. I didn’t know Dr. King.”

McCain may have deserved a grace period to catch up on current events after being locked up in Vietnamese prison for more than five years. But King’s legacy didn’t die with him, and the fight for the holiday was visible. McCain’s excuse is flimsy at best. in light of the events in the fight:

• McCain was released from Vietnamese prison following the war in 1973.
• Representative John Conyers (D-Mich) introduced legislation to create the holiday shortly after King’s assassination in 1968 and re-submitted it to every Congressional session until it was passed.
• Illinois passed a bill creating a state holiday for King in 1971. Other states followed.
• According to The King Center, Corretta Scott King, MLK’s widow, launched a campaign to create the holiday. Between 1968 and 1984 she met with legislators and testified before Congress several times. In 1979 that collected 300,000 signatures on a petition presented to Congress supporting the holiday.
• Stevie Wonder recorded the song “Happy Birthday” in 1980 to urge passage of the bill.
• McCain voted against the federal holiday in 1983.

The reason McCain showed up for the vote at all is elusive. No votes are common in Congress when casting a particular vote could place legislators in a tough spot. Voting without knowledge of King’s achievements cast a racist light on McCain.

The argument that this vote proves McCain’s racist tendencies is not an especially strong one. But McCain’s ignorance excuse isn’t exactly believable, either.

McCain had an easy out if he had said he didn’t support the King holiday because of King’s strong opposition to the war in Vietnam late in his life. But he didn’t.

Something is missing here.

-Allen Hines

Keep Talking Back

Keep Talking Back I had an amazing revelation the other day.  I can do all the research I want and read all the statistics and charts and tables that I want but I get the best information from simply talking.   It is when I’m talking with friends or classmates whose views are different than mine that I am most aware of where I stand on certain issues.  It is while conversing with others that we discover most about ourselves.  I find myself forced to disagree and defend that position.   For example, about a week or so ago I was eating dinner with a friend.  We started talking about the election and she said that she was going to end up supporting McCain because Huckabee is no longer in the race.  Politely, I asked her why.  She said that he (McCain) is pro-life and so is she.  That’s an issue she cares deeply about.  I asked her where she stood on the death penalty and she said that she supported it.  Almost instantly, she realized the inconsistency.  By talking, we each were able to realize what is really important in this election.   Maybe it is the debate coach in me but it seems more important during this election season to talk, debate, challenge, converse, and question.  We should be challenging and questioning ourselves as much as we are others.  It is by doing this that we might be able to really discover who we support and what it is that we really stand for.  That is the best tool we have going in to the election in November; our own ideas that just need to be realized.   Keep researching and reading but also, keep talking.  Argue even!  Take a position and stand by it.  If it changes, great!  Let it.  The election is more than convenient labels or neat boxes that people fit in to.  It is about doing what we think is right for the next phase of American life.  Your most powerful tool is your voice.  Use it well. Jessica Schecter  

And then there were none

 Candidates of interest for libertarians were far and few between at the beginning of the presidential primary – now there are none. I asked the president of the College Libertarians who he was thinking about voting for. He said he was going to do one of two things: abstain from voting in the general election altogether or vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. Realistically whoever the Libertarian Party nominates at the convention in May has no possibility of winning and any vote cast to the candidate falls under the category of ‘disgruntled voter.’ Not even a pretty redhead has a chance against beating the party machinery of the ‘good ole boys’ (ahem, or girl).

Other libertarians have approached me and asked what I was going to do. To be honest, I have not decided yet. I will not abstain from voting but in no way will I cast a vote in favor of keeping the two party regime in power so I have two choices. First, I might write in Ron Paul to add to the disgruntled voter and show my continued support for his ideals. This might be considered a ‘wasted vote’ but the larger goal of getting the libertarian message (peace, fiscal conservatism, small government, liberty) to the people is more important than voting for inexperience, big government or more-of-the-same.

My second choice is to vote for whoever the Libertarian Party nominates which will show support for the party as well as the ideals. This is quite possibly the more rational choice of the two (and if Christine Smith gets the nod I might vote for her just because she is a smoking hot redhead). Mike Gravel, however, may punch a hole in the rationality as he appears to be ready to pursue the nomination after recently joining the party. While Gravel may be a decent guy, he still has no chance at winning the presidency and I just don’t appreciate him considering to run after just joining.

Of the three candidates it seems the only one gaining any libertarian support is Obama because of his stance on the Iraq War and creating more transparency within congress. Voting for Obama because of two issues is the like putting a Band-Aid on a wound from a shotgun blast. While it appears to be true that he has a classically liberal stance on some issues he is just as much of a statist as Clinton and believes government to be a force of good instead of a necessary evil.

Regardless of who gets the nod it looks like we are all in for another four years of big government and more spending.

-Ted Hamilton

Who’s your candidate?

Many Web sites have quizzes to pick your candidate for the 2008 presidential election. I think it is funny that this election has developed quizzes to help people decide. I am more curious to know if people actually use the results to decide which candidate to vote for.  

It seems like many people are using everything besides their own thought process to vote for a presidential hopeful this election, so why not an online quiz? Even super delegates are changing who they are voting for because of how their district is voting and some other ridiculous reasons.  

It is kind of off the subject, but I thought super delegates where developed to choose which candidate they feel can represent the U.S. better based on their experience and professional opinion. Now super delegates are changing their vote to resemble the average public. Isn’t that defeating the whole purpose of a super delegate? 

Anyways, back to the quizzes. Yes, the quizzes are entertaining and they can make people aware of the important issues of the election, but really what is the point of them? Another fun way to get Americans involved in the election. I really don’t think so. I believe these quizzes are doing what I hope they wouldn’t be doing; making peoples decisions for 2008.

I guess it shouldn’t matter though, if everyday American’s take a candidate quiz and then votes for whoever is their best candidate. At least whoever takes the quiz does have to answer questions to come to the conclusion of the best candidate.  

Please visit these two quiz sites I have found to see which candidate is best for you. Leave a comment and let me know whether or not your quiz candidate matches your actual candidate pick! 

For the record I am a Hillary Clinton supporter so I decided to take the quizzes to see which candidate I should be voting for. Luckily, I guess, the results came back as Hillary being my candidate. 

 Select a Candidate 2008 

Candidate Matchmaker

 -Liz Laubscher

Primary race is not hurting the party

 As I was perusing Drudge Report, as I do several times throughout any given day, one story caught my eye.  The headline on Drudge read: “Dodd Calls on Party Leaders to Bring Race to an End.”  The post was on Time.com and was an interview with a woman named Linda from the National Journal.The overall theme of the interview was how the Democratic Party suffers if the primary race goes on for another five months.  He goes on to call leaders of the party to put an end to race in the next few weeks and unite behind one candidate.  In his words, “we cannot go five more months with the kind of daily sniping that’s going on and have a candidate emerge in that convention.” 

I’ve only been around for 26 years, so I’ve only participated in the past two presidential elections, but I don’t remember being nearly as excited about those two as I am about this one.  As an American politics almost-degree-holder, this primary race is just what I could hope for.  This is the democratic process in action!  It’s better than Aaron Sorkin-penned television!  Regardless of the drama of it all, in my opinion, there is the responsibility of the DNC to let this play out without any intervention.  It seems that Barack Obama will be the nominee when everything is said and done, but maybe not. 

As long as there is still a mathematical chance for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination, why should she drop out?  Why should the DNC interfere?  Several states have chosen her as the nominee.  Why take away the voters’ choice prematurely?  Hillary Clinton is not a stupid woman.  I believe, possibly naively, that once she sees no hope, she will drop out, but until then, there is no reason that the race should end.

No, this primary is not what is hurting the Democratic Party; it will continue to be the political party of choice for millions of Americans, regardless of how long the nomination process continues or regardless of who the nominee eventually is.  Anyone concerned about an ailing Democratic Party should turn not to the primary race but to charges of perjury and links to prostitution rings facing some state and local officials.  That is what is degrading the party.

-Mary K. Clause

The Hope of a Rock Star

            Barack Obama is a rock star. He may not be sporting the tightest leather pants or singing ballads about past drug addiction, but he is a rock star.  Like a rock star, he is rebellious, being a party newcomer not afraid to implement new ideas when campaigning for president.  Like a rock star, he doesn’t respect “the man,” campaigning on a platform of change and transparency. And like a rock star, the kids love him.  We haven’t seen the

 youth take interest like this since the Terminator ran for governor.  And it is the youth vote that makes Barack Obama special. 

In a country with traditionally low efficacy, Obama has started a movement, a movement that involves individuals taking control of the American political process.

            America’s newest rock star made the cover of this week’s Rolling Stone with the headline, Barack Obama: A New Hope. The article, by Tim Dickinson, revealed the approach the Obama campaign has been using and why it has been working.  In the article, Obama’s deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand said the idea is to work from a bottom-up model which calls on ordinary people, supporters, to get active and make it their own personal campaign.

  “It’s a chance for voters to be in a captive environment where we ask them to sign up and do more for Barack – to make phone calls, canvas, get out the vote. We don’t want people to just come to an event – we want them to become part of this movement.”

  The bottom-up model is the opposite of the traditional top-down model, which is the idea that the campaign is built from the “brass” of the campaign, keeping responsibility out of the hands of the typical voter. This is the same model used by the Clinton and McCain campaigns.  However, the results from Obama’s approach are astonishing.  Barack Obama has won and won big.  Even in states like Texas where Obama lost, his margin gains weeks before the election where significant. 

            For instance, on Saturday in Wyoming voter turnout jumped through the roof.  In 2004 a mere 675 democrats participated in the caucuses according to npr.org. On Saturday, over nine thousand democrats took part.  For Obama, Wyoming is a good sign.  A new generation of voters has arrived and they are passionate, not because they believe in a candidate, but because a candidate believes in them.  And that’s cool, just like a rock star.

    – Erik Urycki

The Obama files

SNL did a great little cartoon about Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Check it out here!

The second black president (and I’m not talking about Obama)

For a long time, I’ve been told that the only reason I like Barack Obama is because I’m black.

For a long time, I’ve also been told that Bill Clinton was the first “black” president.

As perplexing as this paradigm is, it’s a superlative that worries me as we rapidly approach the general election and have the possibility of electing the second black president—-Hillary.

It’s no secret that most African-Americans have heavily favored Sen. Clinton from the beginning. Afterall, her husband has been deemed the “first black president” by many blacks. Under Bill’s administration, it’s common belief that many blacks experienced great income increases as well.

So when it came to securing the coveted black vote, Hillary deployed none other than Bill to areas heavily populated by black voters to remind people of the good times they experienced during his time in office.

The sad reality is that only blacks who benefited from first Clinton Administration were affluent blacks. In 2005, Melissa Harris-Lacewell co-authored an article in the Journal of Black Studies. In this article Lacewell analyzed five national surveys from 1984 through 2000. The data shows that nearly a third of black Americans held false understandings of black economic conditions during the Clinton years.

By the time Clinton left office, many African-Americans incorrectly believed that blacks were doing better economically than whites. In the ’80s, barely 5 percent of blacks believed blacks were economically better off than whites. By 2000, nearly 30 percent of African-American respondents believed that blacks were doing better economically than whites. This belief is simply wrong.

The reference to Bill Clinton as “black” comes from his private sexual encounters made public and his “I did not inhale” confessions. These items create a superficial facade of what it means to be “black.” And, as Clinton performed “blackness,” the real black people got poorer. On the Slate.com, Lacewell says “The poorest African-Americans experienced an absolute decline in income, and they also became poorer relative to the poorest whites. The richest African-Americans saw an increase in income, but even the highest-earning blacks still considerably lagged their white counterparts.”

So now, more blacks are migrating towards the Obama side of things.

In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.

African Americans view Clinton even more positively than they see Obama, but in the time since he began his campaign, his approval rating rose significantly among blacks. In the latest poll, 70 percent of African Americans said they had a favorable impression of Obama, compared with 54 percent in December and January.

But, with so many big black names supporting Sen. Clinton, Rev. Al Sharpton questioning Obama’s blackness and his plans for the “urban agenda,” Clinton’s wins in Ohio and Texas and the momentum of Bill’s blackness, Hillary could very well be elected as the second black president of the United States.

–Sasha Kai

Hello! My Name is Hillary (Finally) Clinton

(I apologize on the display of the photos, WordPress is not a fan of simplicity. Click for bigger versions)

With heavy campaigning and a rough February, Sen. Hillary Clinton was on the ropes and it was possible that her campaign was in trouble while Sen. Barack Obama’s was moving full speed ahead.

All that changed last night with her winning primaries in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island. For the amount of campaigning she has been doing in those states her momentum and passion clearly made an impact on the voting public. There were some scary moments these past weeks. People were scared about the “Saturday Night Live” comment during last week’s debate, but that comment threw the press right where she wanted them all along, on Obama’s tail.

On the note of “SNL” she also made a “pop-culture-blitz,” as I like to refer to it. First, making a quite funny cameo on “SNL” she then made it on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” the night before the primary. She’s getting out there and just going.

When I was covering the debate I spoke with one of the friendly volunteers—she is a college student, a Marlboro Light smoker and “not a Hillary person” which meant she was an Obama-ite. Like many, she didn’t give me the clearest answer on the matter of why she is a fan of his, but nonetheless she has echoed the point that regardless who gets the nomination she’ll be happy. A familiar phrase I remember hearing from Super Tuesday in Buffalo.

It was all about Hillary, though, on Saturday at the Ohio Women Make History Rally. With 11 prominent women including several congresswomen, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, actress Melanie Griffith, Chelsea Clinton, former Lt. Governor of Maryland Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, among others. A crowd of more than 400 people showed up to the event, with a women to men ratio of 7-1 according to the Akron Beacon Journal. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend said, “Like all families we have fights. But Hillary Clinton is the choice of my brother Bobby, my sister Kennedy and me!” While Madeleine Albright spoke of personal experience with Hillary and how this is going to be the “Most important presidency of any of our lifetimes.”

When you have Albright on your back for foreign policy, can you really say Obama has a better background? Well sure you can, but you can’t.

Regardless of who says what all of these endorsements, campaign criss-crossing and charisma took Hillary to the level she needed. She’s showing her true colors and hitting an Obama-like stride that she has needed. She’s getting above it and doing the things she needs to get people to vote for her.

My roommate Joanna, an Obama person, didn’t vote for him yesterday and didn’t want to admit to it, but when she did she said, “I just thought of what he would be saying at his State of the Union Address in two years and it didn’t seem to fit.” Is the Obama movement losing steam? Don’t look at the man behind the curtain! Regardless, the Democrats are pumped and the Republicans have a sweet candidate, endorsed by the worst president in history. Can’t wait for the fall debates! This has been your chief political photographer for Kent State Gavin Jackson.

Free press, fair game

Knowledge is power. And people in positions of authority will use your ignorance against you. I wanted to talk to voters during today’s primary for this post. You know, find out who they’re voting for and why, talk to a few students, come to some faulty conclusion. So I went to my voting location at the United Church of Christ in Kent.

Before I went inside to vote, a girl who was sitting in the hall with a notebook and voice recorder, asked me for my thoughts on the primary. I told her I was a journalist too. She’s a journalist and visiting scholar from Bulgaria, and I’d met her in the newsroom on the night of the CSU debate. She hadn’t recognized me today.

I went inside and asked the poll workers if they would talk to me and they said no, but perhaps I could call the Portage County Board of Elections tomorrow.

After voting for Hillary Clinton, I sat down with the girl for a few minutes. Three poll workers came out and told us that we were not allowed to talk to the voters inside the building. Outside, it was freezing rain.

“We don’t like you doing this,” one woman said. She said it was illegal and that we had to be at least 100 feet outside the building. They would not let us take pictures either. My journalist confessed that she did not know American media procedures.

When I got back to the Daily Kent Stater newsroom, I called the Secretary of State’s office to find out what the rules for media access to voting locations actually are.

Brad Corso, an editorial manager for communications in the office, but not a spokesperson, told me that reporters are allowed to go inside voting locations and ask questions, but they can’t interfere by blocking the entrances. Also, he said they cannot interfere with the secrecy of the ballot, such as by looking over someone’s shoulder while that person votes.

Reporters could not be inside the voting area, but could be inside the building. He said media should ask their local Boards of Elections first. The 100 foot rule applies to assorted loiterers and campaign workers, but a federal court ruling in 2004 granted reporters from the Akron Beacon Journal access.

So the poll workers were wrong.

Glenda Enders, director of the Portage County Board of Elections, said we didn’t even have to ask their permission. She even told us we were allowed to take pictures and ask the poll workers questions. “We prefer that you do not stay inside the building,” she said.

Hmft.

Preference is not the same as law. My fellow journalist went to a different polling location. I hope she got her story. I certainly got mine.

-Kiera Manion-Fischer