For Careful Consideration: McCain as CINC?

Considering the question "Who will be the better Commander in Chief, McCain or Obama?" it seems many voters make the quick conclusion that McCain is the obvious choice.

After all, McCain served in the military and Obama didn't. While Obama was in still in short pants, traveling the world and earning a Harvard degree in constitutional law, McCain was a naval pilot in Vietnam; he survived being shot down and then spent six years as a prisoner of war.

However, voters should carefully ponder McCain's unique war experience and imagine how such an experience might affect McCain's decisions as Commander in Chief.

Before serving as President, Eisenhower served as a Four Star General in on-the-ground combat in WWII. With this experience behind him, Eisenhower's presidency was devoted to peace and cautioning, halting any increase America's militarism.

McCain, on the other hand, actually saw little on-the-ground combat. As a naval pilot, you could say McCain engaged the enemy "at a distance" -- in other words, he dropped napalm on Vietnamese villages. And ultimately, his primary war experience was being tortured by the enemy.

America has never had a President with POW experiences like McCain's. Might have McCain's particular war experiences instilled him with negative prejudices toward enemy combatants?

Though Obama has zero military experience, some could say he has a more Eisenhower-like background than McCain. Both Obama and Eisenhower had humble beginnings, while McCain was born into privilege and went to prep school. Both Obama and Eisenhower traveled extensively, both were well known for having a deep respect for other cultures and for civil rights. President Eisenhower was an enthusiastic supporter of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. On the other hand, McCain jokes about bombing Iran and has a virtually non-existent civil rights record.

Also unfortunate: many will be voting for McCain purely because they pity him. For many, it doesn't matter that McCain may push the U.S. further into end times, what matters is that he was a prisoner of war for six years, and for enduring all that he endured, he deserves to be President.

I'm encouraging voters to not consider McCain the de facto obvious choice for Commander in Chief. Might it be possible that Obama is the appropriate Commander in Chief at this particular time in our history?

JCC’s Self-Defeating Hiring Habits: “Oh, How Will We Ever Stop the Brain Drain of Upstate NY?”

I recently discovered that an English teacher at Jefferson Community College recently jumped ship – within a year after being hired by the English Department.

And get this -- this is the SECOND YEAR IN A ROW that an English teacher at JCC jumped ship within a year of being hired.

These two professors had one distinct characteristic in common: they were both hired from out of state.

The professor that abandoned JCC in 07 was from California, and professor that recently abandoned JCC was from Texas. Could they both not handle the North Country winters? Were they both unaccustomed to dealing with a large number of military students? Were they both not inspired by this area’s distinct beauty and no-nonsense people?

Just within my small circle of friends and family, I know four individuals - all four were born and raised in Northern NY, all four earned multiple graduate degrees from prestigious Northern NY universities - and all four at one time interviewed for a teaching position at JCC, yet all four were denied the position. ALL FOUR.

And yet, still smarting from their hire from California going AWOL the year before, the supposedly “capable, competent” English Department hiring committee chooses to give a job to an eccentric from Texas. And then, after the Texas professor finishes his final spring class, he ungraciously doesn’t appear on the JCC campus again.

JCC hiring committees have had so many chances to hire talented, overqualified local professionals – yet they keeping thinking it wiser to import professionals from distant lands.

And then their decisions ultimately result in a huge waste of time and money for the school.

Why? Do they need to fill a quota of out-of-state professionals? Are they implementing the wrong hiring strategies, and stuck in a cycle of self-defeating hiring habits?

Not only is JCC worsening upstate NY’s “brain drain” problem - with our talented scholars having to look out of state for jobs – but homegrown talent might possibly reverse JCC’s lagging student enrollment. It might be inspiring to know that your professor grew up in the same small town as you. Also, a homegrown instructor could easily bring North Country references into their instruction, effortlessly connecting a North Country student's everyday life to the lessons.

But first, the JCC hiring committees need to break free from their self-defeating hiring practices.

Most importantly, if we can’t trust these teacher committees to recognize talent in their hiring pool, how can we trust them to recognize talent in our students?

The Obama Network?

Talking to a friend the other day, she claimed that MSNBC was the "Obama network." I asked her, "Why do you think that?" She said, "Because every time Obama has even the smallest victory, they have a huge write-up about it." I thought about this. "Are you suggesting Obama owns a piece of MSNBC?"

In the age of Fox News, Americans have become jaded into believing that all networks have a certain bias because they're owned by billionaires who insist that news have a certain bias. Conservatives often feel threatened when their point of view isn't the norm. Therefore, arch-Conservative billionaire Rupert Murdoch, feeling threatened by what he perceives as left-leaning Ted Turner's CNN, creates Fox News to produce news that's not more objective, but more right-leaning. It's disappointing how Murdoch chooses to engage in network combat, going on the offensive against all perceived enemies of the right, instead of attempting to win over viewers with a more objective news.

But what's more disappointing is how the ratings for Fox News soared. Murdoch is, of course, all about making money, and he knew that the majority of people are not guided by their better angels. Many Americans are drawn to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter not because they present objective truth, but because people are drawn to sensationalistic hate. So don't blame Murdoch, blame American consumers.

Many Democrats believe that, to be a good Democrat means to be anti-corporation. But corporations don't acquire power in a vacuum. Corporations gain power through consumers. The right often make the joke about the environmentalists who attend a rally to protest drilling for oil in Alaska...but how did they get to the rally? By filling the tank of their Volkswagen van. Anti-corporation Democrats should recognize the truth in that joke.

Anti-corporation Democrats also need to recognize the truth that not all corporations are inherently bad. If a multinational corporation produces renewable energy, and it's proven that the corporation's portfolio consists totally of non-polluting clean energy, should we treat this corporation with the same animosity as the corporation that deals exclusively in burning fossil fuels?

It's better to be precise about what you rage against.

So as for MSNBC being the Obama network? It's not because Obama owns a piece of MSNBC. It's not because MSNBC loves Obama more than Hillary. It's more likely because there are more Obama fans in the American viewership than Hillary fans. Though many Americans are drawn towards hate, many more are drawn towards hope. Recognize that truth.

ANOTHER NOTE
The Hillary camp has been loudly complaining about the Obama camp "spending so much money" in their campaign. Well, in order to spend that much, Obama first had to make that much in donations. So basically, the Hillary camp is trying to put a negative spin on Obama's impressive fundraising ability. And it's been proven again and again that most of Obama's money comes from under $200 donations from Average Joe Americans.

Driving a Wedge between Voters and Candidate, While Ignoring the Issue

It's no secret the Hillary Clinton campaign has been showing signs of desperation. It has become clear that members of the Clinton campaign follow Obama everywhere he goes, with the mission of trying to nab him in a public speaking gaffe.

This week, the Clinton camp tried to make a huge story out of this Barack Obama statement: "It's not surprising, then, [the working class] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Hillary immediately held a press conferences chastising Barack, calling him an "elitist" and saying "People don't need a president who looks down on them...They need a president who stands up for them." She simply took Barack's words and twisted them against him. She gripes about "cling" being a demeaning word, and that the working-class are "optimistic" not "frustrated."

So this is what has become of our democratic process: when a politician speaks frankly and candidly, saying what many of us deep down recognize as bearing some truth, other politicians chastise him for the candidness. Heaven forbid, we hear some frankness from a politician, instead of watered down, sugar-coated, poll-approved, game-show-host platitudes.

And as much as the Hillary would like Barack's statement to be comparable to her "sniper-fire" gaffe, it's apples and oranges. Hillary was manipulating voters, trying to beef-up her national security credentials, and she repeated the Bosnian "sniper-fire" story several times.

With Obama's statement, he was simply trying to articulate the suffocation of powerlessness that the working class endure; and the directions the working class commonly go, attempting to puncture that suffocation.

It's all just a dispiriting attempt of driving a wedge between a candidate and potential voters (working-class), when there really needs to be a candid analysis of these marginalized people (working class), and the self-defeating attitudes that increase their marginalization.


So who is the demeaning elitist here?

The candidate attempting an honest discourse on the powerlessness of the working class?

Or the candidate who chastises the other candidate for attempting honest discourse on working class powerlessness, in a paternalistic gesture to steal working class votes.

Tipping Points of the Presidential Campaign: Money and Words

Every day, voters are getting bombarded with news of the presidential candidates McCain, Clinton, and Obama. I’m wondering if this is causing campaign fatigue for voters. As you recall, this presidential campaign started back in 2006.

Democratic voters seem to be past the tipping point of frustration. Obama supporters are tired of Hillary, and Hillary supporters are frustrated with Obama’s unstoppable lead.

And supporters of both are frustrated with the remaining undecided superdelegates, delegates, and voters. What are these voters waiting for? We don’t want voters to throw their hands up in surrender, and make hasty voting decisions, like voting for Hillary simply because “It's time for a woman President." But what will it take to finally tip these undecideds in the favor of one candidate?

Let me suggest two tipping points for the undecideds: money and words.

First, money speaks volumes. More important, we should study which candidate is accumulating the most from small contributions. “Small contributions” means, not special interest money, but the kind of money Average American Joe can drop into a campaign and still afford the week’s groceries.

According to TIME magazine, the candidate receiving the most $200 and under donations is Barack Obama.

Here is the small contributions collected January 2007 through February 2008:

Barack Obama 41%

Hillary Clinton 26%

John McCain 13%


In March 08, the Obama campaign received 40 million, more than twice as much as the Clinton campaign, who raised a little less than 20 million. It is reported that both McCain and Clinton accept money from lobbyists and special interests. Yet we often hear that the Clinton campaign is living “hand to mouth.” Also, it was reported that Clinton had to use her own personal funds when trying to woo Michigan and Florida into a re-do.

By measuring with money, we are clearly seeing a people’s choice between Obama and Clinton.

Do we still have undecideds out there? Ok, let’s consider the eloquence, frankness, and wit of the candidates. Personally, ever since the end of Reagan’s term, I believe America has been in desperate need of a president with eloquence and wit.

With Clinton’s recent speeches, it’s become undeniable that Hillary is clearly a candidate that will do and say what ever she feels is necessary to win. Hillary exaggerated being under "sniper fire" in Bosnia in a bid to beef up her under-whelming foreign policy experience.

But more importantly, we need to study Clinton’s pseudo-apology for this exaggeration: "If I misspoke, that was just a misstatement." This phrase sounds like something George W. Bush would say at his most eloquent, and Bill Clinton would in his least eloquent, trying to sidestep from being caught in a lie.

Also, Hillary has spent much of her campaign attacking Obama by using a Fox News approach: unfairly taking his words out of context.

And it’s been proven that Obama’s speeches can bring people together. In an MSNBC poll at the end of March 08: when asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

What do YOU think is needed to convince the undecideds to finally choose our Democratic candidate?

Clinton Tries to Keep Plan for Two Revotes Alive

I have to admit, I found Barack Obama's speech on Monday night in Philadelphia to be inspirational. Here's the video and transcript.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is looking more and more desperate. Check out this New York Times article by John Broder, entitled "Clinton Tries to Keep Plan for Two Revotes Alive"

Hillary's Superdelegate Explanation

Barack recently picked up seven more delegates.

And the Clinton campaign continues to explore ways to either change the rules of the game in the middle of the game (Having Florida and Michigan redo their primaries) or forcing delegates and superdelegates to flip-flop (Negating their vote for Barack in order to re-vote for Hillary).

In a recent article written by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper, Hillary tries to explain the delegate math, but in my opinion only makes the math a bit fuzzier.

Click here for the article.