So I've decided that I am just going to go from candidate to candidate and summarize their stances on issues and what it means to me as a first time voter. It is interesting because I was interviewed over the break by friend about how much I know about current politics and the presidential election. I turns out that I don't know squat. Well, I knew a bit, but not enough to justify my lean for Obama. So, I've decided I need to know why Obama, not Clinton and why Clinton and Obama and not Guiliani or Bill Richardson or something. If I can't tell you why not, that is troubling. So I went to http://ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm which has all the major candidates and their stances on the essential issues. For the sake of this study, essential issues. The website has their stance on a lot of issues, but I guess for the sake of sanity, I will focus on what is important to me. Well, no I don't even know that. I know that education is important. Civil Rights, including immigration is important to me. International diplomacy is an important issue as well. The environment, to jump in the bandwagon. Umm also healthcare reform. Damn it, I will thow in corporate oversight too. So... here we go.
Obama is the man. I just go through the list and I find very little I disagree with.
Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Most of that I like. I am not sure about how I feel about affirmative action anymore and I really want to beleive in the way he thinks its about unity -UNITED STATE OF AMERICA, not Black or white America. Kind of tired of being left out of America. Anywho, he is very comprehensive and I like the way he doesn't like to generalize and simplfiy things. I suppose to his demise, but heck "Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007" isn't something I've hear from anyone else. More from the others in the future.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Women in Politics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/usa_politics_feminists_dc;_ylt=Agu.rozNWXxEpWJG1u9GSWnkbeRF
This was a really interesting article. It raises some really good questions about clinton and her presidential bid. Not only her, but also obama, who also will inevitably, (my guess) come to represent an underrepresented group. The aricle discusses how many of the womens' rights organizations are cautious about endorsing Clinton simply because she is a woman. Organizations like NOW point out that they want the best champion for womens' rights and if that happens to be women, that is nirvana. The bigger issue I am interested in is, when it comes down to the average voter, who, in my experience, seems to vote on passion and emotion issues like religion and personality, as opposed to good policy, will that hold true. I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that based on the most elementary of associations, that clinton will have the female vote. Haha, but this is the thing, that would mean that Obama has the black vote right? WRong. He doesn't, at least according to the poles. So does that mean people vote based on policy and not just on skin, gender or other shallow and unsubstantial characteristics? I don't know. This is really confusing. If people criticize voters for voting on their passions and not the issues, why don't Clinton and Obama make sense? Why are their, "safe bets," not safe bets? You can assume christians want a christian in the white house because that person sees life the same way or because you can assume that they share certain values. Why isn't that true of race and gender? Regardless of who you are as a person, if you were black during the reconstruction period, you'd face jim crow in the south and if you were a woman before 1920, you couldn't vote. There has to be some level or community there. Maybe I am over simplifying gender and race. I dunno, its a peculiar situation. Clinton and Obama will represent their respective groups politically even if their respective groups don't want them to or they themselves don't want to. So much of choices in democracy.
I don't mean to be apathetic, i really do hope things turn out for the best.
This was a really interesting article. It raises some really good questions about clinton and her presidential bid. Not only her, but also obama, who also will inevitably, (my guess) come to represent an underrepresented group. The aricle discusses how many of the womens' rights organizations are cautious about endorsing Clinton simply because she is a woman. Organizations like NOW point out that they want the best champion for womens' rights and if that happens to be women, that is nirvana. The bigger issue I am interested in is, when it comes down to the average voter, who, in my experience, seems to vote on passion and emotion issues like religion and personality, as opposed to good policy, will that hold true. I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that based on the most elementary of associations, that clinton will have the female vote. Haha, but this is the thing, that would mean that Obama has the black vote right? WRong. He doesn't, at least according to the poles. So does that mean people vote based on policy and not just on skin, gender or other shallow and unsubstantial characteristics? I don't know. This is really confusing. If people criticize voters for voting on their passions and not the issues, why don't Clinton and Obama make sense? Why are their, "safe bets," not safe bets? You can assume christians want a christian in the white house because that person sees life the same way or because you can assume that they share certain values. Why isn't that true of race and gender? Regardless of who you are as a person, if you were black during the reconstruction period, you'd face jim crow in the south and if you were a woman before 1920, you couldn't vote. There has to be some level or community there. Maybe I am over simplifying gender and race. I dunno, its a peculiar situation. Clinton and Obama will represent their respective groups politically even if their respective groups don't want them to or they themselves don't want to. So much of choices in democracy.
I don't mean to be apathetic, i really do hope things turn out for the best.
chapter 18
Let me just start by saying that blogging is exhausting. I don't know why. When it comes down to it, it only takes about 10-15 minutes, but it just drains me. Anyway, Chapter 18 was in all honesty, interesting. I thought it was important to include the way reporters organize themselves, even if it is poorly. Sometimes I like to put myself in a situation like that, a situation where I am a reporter chasing an investigation. I really wonder what I would do, whether I would be really organized or really messy. The biggest questions I have revolve around what really big writers have done. Another point that I thought was intersting was how NRAW, my acronym for the book, points out that you should form a hypothesis because investigative reporting is a lot like science. I see what they were getting at, but they also note that you should go in expecting to be wrong. Again, I completey understand where they are going, but where do you draw the line between making a move based on an assertion you have about the situation and going in without any preconceived notions? Hmm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)