College Democrats | University of Wisconsin - Madison

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Hillary wins Ohio
CNN projects that Senator Clinton will win Ohio with 58% of the vote (56% reporting). She also won Rhode Island with 59%. Senator Obama won Vermont with 60%.... and Texas is still up in the air.

**EDIT 11:54 pm** Hillary wins the Texas primary with 51% (76% reporting, called by CNN). Who knows about those odd caucuses?

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:59 PM 2 comments Post to DemWire

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

College Dems in the Badger Herald
Today's Badger Herald, amidst election results, covers the College Democrats and the hard work our volunteers have put in. Thanks again to everyone who helped out yesterday!


Arctic temperatures and ice-covered sidewalks certainly did not keep people from the polls yesterday — they came in masses, said College Democrats Chair Oliver Kiefer.

“I’m pretty sure my whole floor has come through,” said Witte Hall resident Abrianna Barca, a UW freshman and member of the College Democrats.

Barca was stationed at the Gordon Commons polling place as a poll watcher. Sitting next to the voter registration tables, Barca said she was there to make sure every student was able to vote and if one was turned away to figure out why. Her presence had nothing to do with supporting Democrats, she said.

“It is so important for students to vote because we are coming into the age where politics will really affect our lives,” she added.

The College Democrats stationed poll watchers at every ward around the city where students vote.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 7:44 AM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Live blog with election updates
Polls have just closed! I'm reporting the receipt totals from campus and near-campus wards as we get them from our volunteers stationed in the field. Early word has it that voter turnout is hovering near 14000 plus, which trumps the 13,000 of the 2006 general.

8:02. Andrew Voss: Turnout was pretty good. Not quite 2006, but I'm happy. Things look good for the fall election. [So this means that the 14000 number is false? Mixed reports from different agents in the field.... College Dems, Students for Obama, Hillary campaign]

8:03. Andy Gordon: I believe the campus turnout today is about 60% higher than the 2004 primary numbers. And I think it just shows how students are engaged and that our candidates Senators Obama and Clinton are a drastic difference from Senator McCain.

8:06. There was one girl who tried to run into the polls at 8:01 pm. She's still in there (at Memorial Library) so who knows if she got to vote or not.

8:07. Eli Lewien: 2178 is the number at the Doyle Administration Building (Ward 44). He was the last voter.

8:13. Some 8:00 numbers are in!
40 - 980
41 - 838
42 - 1367
43 - 1047
44 - 2178
45 - 1555
46 - 1327
47 - 1095
48 - 1152
60/61 - 1609
62 - 973 (exceed the 2006 general number -- Lakeshore dorms student really got out to vote!)

8:14. Ward 46 (Memorial Library): 1333 total. Obama 948, Clinton 286. 71.1% of total.

8:15. CNN exit poll: White voters make up 88% of Democratic primary. Obama wins them 53-46.

8:17. 43% of Dems will be very satisfied if Clinton is the nominee. 56% will be very satisifed if Obama is the nominee.

8:19. Ward 62 (Holt Commons). 975 total. Obama 663, Clinton 149. 68%.

8:20. Ward 45 (Gordon Commons). 1555 total. Obama 1122, Clinton 160. 72.2%

8:22. Oliver Kiefer: [finally relaxing after a hard, cold day of work].

8:23. CNN and MSNBC just called Wisconsin for Obama. 1 % reporting?

8:24. Claire Rydell: I am very impressed and immensely grateful to all my amazing volunteers. And I am so so excited for the election next fall.
Andrew Voss: I am ecstatic about the turnout, and we have amazing volunteers. Next in the fall, we will turn out at least 20,000 voters.

Voss and Rydell are the off and on-campus GOTV coordinators for the College Dems. Great work, you two!

8:26. Ward 48 (Porchlight). 1155 total. Obama 853, Clinton 173. 73.9%

8:28. Ward 47 (Memorial Union). 1095 total. Obama 788, Clinton 172. 72%.

8:29. Ward 40 (Lowell Center). 983 total. Obama 699, Clinton 172. 71.1%

8:33. Justin Rabbach, ward captain for Memorial Library: I was encouraged by the turnout. Talking with the pollworkers -- well, I got to do a lot of vouching, but the College Dems did a great job of knowing what they needed. No one had to be turned away. The student voice definitely was powerful.

8:35. Oliver Kiefer -- "quite a meeting of the campus elite" (you should see the crowd here in Memorial Library....

8:36. Doug Stewart, ward captain for Memorial Union: Students turned out overwhelmingly in the primary overall. Obama won 3/4 of the vote in my ward. I was pleased with turnout later in the day -- around lunchtime, turnout exploded. Jaci Kent and Miles Comisky were absolutely dynamite passing out candy to encourage voters to stay in line.
Claire Rydell: Doug et al were very conscious of voter turnout in the morning and knew what to do about it.

8:38. Paula Uniacke of the College Dems: I think it's encouraging to see such an enthusiastic turnout. All around campus people were excited about going to vote, even if it didn't turn out how I would have preferred.

8:40. Ward 41 (MATC). 853 total. Obama 623, Clinton 167. 73%

8:41. Ward 42 (Dayton St Firehouse). 1931 total. Obama 1026, Clinton 247. 53.1%

8:42. Gerald Cox: I think students made a really powerful statement today. How do you like that?
Eli Lewien: jeez, the cliche line....

8:43. Adam Rieves, a random student: I think the election went really well.

8:44. MSNBC has 54-44 with 11% reporting.

8:45. Paul Axel, ward captain at 48 (Porchlight): Really hectic. A lot of good student turnout. A little hard for them to understand what proof of residency was, but we worked through that.

8:46. Apparently John Edwards and Joe Biden still got votes around campus....

8:48. There are parties going on at the Stadium Bar for Hillary Clinton and the Great Dane (Madison) for the Obama campaign.

8:49. It appears that we won't have results from Ward 60/61 because no one got in to get receipts for our camp. It's unfortunate, but it gets hectic and chaotic near the end of the campaign.

8:50. A Hillary supporter walking by is still upbeat.

8:51. Oliver, jokingly: Has Hawaii started caucusing yet?

8:52: People here (crowd of 12 +/- ) are packing up, putting away their phone chargers and laptop chargers. Everyone looks exhausted, regardless of the outcome.

8:54. No Brett Favre write-in at Memorial Library, but there was one for Ralph Nader.

8:56. People here have just put Terminator stickers on their laptops and phones. I don't get it.

8:57. The poll workers left about 20 minutes ago and got a rousing round of applause from the west corridor at Memorial Library. The City had trouble finding poll workers up until last Friday, but luckily they came through.

8:58. 43 and 44 are still processing absentee ballots.

9:00. Around 7:40, Bucky Badger came by the College Dems tent, asking (well, miming) about his polling location. Luckily we were able to help him and get him a ride to vote. Bucky VOTES!

9:01. Ward 43 is going to be another half-hour.

9:02. Commenter Matt says I'm wrong about 2006 turnout. I believe you, Matt. My mistake.

9:05. If you have election stories from today, share them here! I've heard that the Isthmus liveblog has been capturing my updates throughout the day. Welcome Isthmus readers!

9:09. If you have pictures from the fun that is Election Day/ Library Mall, send them to our webmaster at scott.resnick@wiscollegedems.org.

9:10. If you want to get involved with the College Democrats (Obama or Hillary or Edwards or whomever you supported), we're folding both organizations back in to make sure that a DEMOCRAT is elected in November. Contact Oliver Kiefer at oliver.kiefer@wiscollegedems.org for more information.

9:13. Homework, anyone? Thanks to everyone who missed class and gave up their time to work on the election in some capacity today. We really can't do any of this without volunteers.

9:16. An appearance from David Lapidus: How did it go? It was fun. What can I really say, I didn't vote. I already voted in Illinois.

9:17. Unity Party on Friday. Details tba.

9:20. I think we're bothering quite a few people studying for midterms here in Memorial Library.

9:21. Word is that the Obama camp paid some people $50 to canvass all day (early am until close). Hey, if you have the money...

9:22. Lapidus asked what are my thoughts. Oh man...

9:23. My thoughts: I haven't taken off my coat since about 11 am this morning. My red hat and AFSCME green scarf makes me look like Christmas, fitting since Election Day is my favorite holiday.

9:24. Andrew Voss: I can't wait until people stop blogging about WI primary things...

9:31. I'm packing up here. It's been fun. Despite the 8 degree (-5 with windchill) weather. There are a few campus wards that we don't yet have results from, but the Madison City Clerk will be reporting them throughout the night. And I'm sure Wispolitics will have something. We're making history, Madison. This has been a haphazard blog and probably not coherent, as my fingers are finally thawed and my mind is still trying to recover from the adrenaline crash. This was my first presidential primary that I got to vote in, and it was an empowering feeling. I can't wait until November!


11:59. Ward 43 (Madison Public Library). 1176 total. Obama 748, Clinton 308. 63.6%
Yes, people are still awake and working. It never ends, does it?

12:19. I forgot to mention a big scare we had around 7 pm. A volunteer reported that Ward 44 (Doyle Administration Building) was out of ballots. After the confusion settled, it turned out that they were running low on registration forms (which were replenished with the supply from Gordon Commons). However, running out of ballots could have been an issue. A common mistake that voters made was voting in both the Republican and the Democratic primary (eg. casting a vote for Hillary and also filling in the line for McCain). That automatically makes the ballot worthless, and it uses up another ballot to correct the mistake. So, yes, if enough people had made the mistakes, there definitely could have been a shortage of ballots at polling locations with much greater-than-expected turnout.

7:23 am. I know it's not really "news" anymore, but here they are:
Ward 44 (Doyle Administration Building). 2248 total. Obama 1669, Clinton 371. 74.2%
Ward 60/61 (First Congregational Church). 1780 total (?). Obama 1224, Clinton 358.
Thanks to Andy Gordon for these final numbers. Obama won every ward in Dane County.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 8:17 PM 8 comments Post to DemWire

Hear ye, Hear ye, the Polls of this Election are Now CLOSED
Polls have just closed! I'm reporting the receipt totals from campus and near-campus wards as we get them from our volunteers stationed in the field. Check out the liveblog (9:25 pm, update)

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 8:00 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

The Primary Electorate of Wisconsin
While most polls are showing Obama has a fairly decent lead in today's primary (though not always statistically significant) Wisconsin's demographics should actually make this state prime Clinton territory. I wouldn't be surprised if pundits bring this up when analyzing the results in "Wesconsin" tonight, especially in the context of Obama doing so much better than expected among Latinos and women in the primaries last Tuesday.

Here's some facts the Associated Press highlighted from the 2004 Wisconsin Democratic primary exit poll that you may not have been aware of:

-Nine out of 10 Democratic primary voters were white, far above the national average of six in 10
-More than half made less than $50,000 a year, above the national average of 40%. Nationally, Clinton has had a 23 point advantage over Obama among white voters in that category
-Half of Democrats lacked a college degree, and 9 in 10 of them were white
-Wisconsin Democrats were somewhat older than the national average
-Only 13% of primary voters consider themselves "very liberal," and this group has so far given Obama huge leads, versus the national average of 19%.

The only thing that should, a priori, favor Obama is the fact that 48% of voters in the 2004 primary were male, while the national average has been about 43%. It remains to be seen how different the electorate could be this year. My guess is, more Republicans and Independents voting in the primary and for Obama since McCain basically has the nomination sown up, and many of them don't want to see Hillary become president. Hopefully we will also see record youth turnout. I haven't seen data but anecdotally I certainly feel a sort of energy around this election, don't you? Even my apolitical friends are talking about it.

A random cautionary side note: While most early polling shows Obama is more competitive in most swing states than Clinton, Obama actually does far worse in a poll of Florida released today than Clinton, losing by 16 points versus 6. The key finding is that Obama only gets 53% of the votes of Democrats while nearly a third defect to that moderate maverick hell-raiser McCain.

We do have to worry about the possibility that Democrats in Florida and Michigan will feel disenfranchised if Obama gets the nomination. My guess is they'll get over it and fall in line, but the best thing would be for us to take this as an screaming impetus for primary reform, as the phenomenon of states leap-frogging each other to be first has been a disaster this election cycle. Ironically, many of those states that did move back their primaries would have gotten more attention if they had kept the dates as they were since the Democratic race has turned out to be so competitive.


-

Labels: , , ,

posted by Ryan Greenfield at 11:10 AM 1 comments Post to DemWire

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Is this a hint?
Madison.com reports:

Chelsea Clinton's appearance, meanwhile, was a prelude to at least two more events focused on campus voters, including an appearance by Sen. Clinton herself on Monday and an event featuring former President Bill Clinton Thursday.

Has anyone else heard anything about a possible Hillary event on Monday? I know that she will be in Milwaukee this weekend for DPW Founders' Day/fundraising. It would only make sense to come to Madison at least once before the election.

As for the events themselves, where is the Bill Clinton event going to be? Two days to plan a large rally doesn't seem like enough time.

Oh the anticipation...

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 1:41 PM 2 comments Post to DemWire

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Bill Clinton is coming to Madison on Thursday!
This just in, from the Wisconsin State Journal.

Former President Bill Clinton will campaign in Madison on Thursday for his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, the campaign announced today.
No further details were available.
Bill Clinton will also campaign in Milwaukee and La Crosse.
Hillary Clinton of New York hasn't announced a visit to Madison, but her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, told a crowd at UW-Madison this week that her mother would be in Madison prior to Wisconsin's Feb. 19 primary.
Hillary Clinton's primary opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, is due to appear at a rally at Madison's Kohl Center at 8 p.m. tonight.

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 3:52 PM 4 comments Post to DemWire

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Chelsea Clinton coming to campus!
Chelsea Clinton will be at the Memorial Union Main Lounge tomorrow (2/11) at 3:45 pm.

More details to come.

**Edit 9:35 pm. Time changed to 3:30 pm. As the CB reports, it will be a meet-and-greet with students and professors.**

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 5:22 PM 4 comments Post to DemWire

Yes, sexism still exists.

Yes, sexism still exists.

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?


Gloria Steinem posed this question in her New York Times column of January 8. I think it is pretty obvious what the intro was designed to do. It challenges us, the readers, to self-reflect and admit that gender does play a significant role in how we perceive a person, much less a candidate for President of the United States of America.

Yes, sexism still exists.

It's easier to be subtly (and outwardly) sexist than it is to be racist. It's not like Senator Hillary Clinton is the first woman to deal with this issue - women before her and women beyond her have suffered just the same, as Bob Herbert points out in his NYT column of January 15. But gender is more poignant in this case because she is running for the most powerful office in the country. And she could win. However, it is ingrained in the fabric of our society that it is acceptable (or at least not taboo) to be sexist. Meanwhile, racist comments are immediately met with passionate outcries and calls for apologies. Where is this vocal outcry for misogyny?

Yes, sexism still exists.

Before you lash out at me, I'm not pretending that racism does not still exist or that it is still not a problem. However, what I am saying is that the gender barrier is not viewed as as serious a roadblock as the race barrier.

Gloria Steinem put it well:

But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.

What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.

Yes, sexism still exists.

Take MSNBC correspondent David Shuster, for example. He asked last week, "Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Pimped out? So campaigning for someone is now called "pimped out?" Yes, I get it, she's making calls to superdelegates. But my question is, if Oprah Winfrey - or Michelle Obama - were to make calls to superdelegates on behalf of Senator Obama, would Shuster dare say that Oprah was "being pimped out?" And no one is saying Bill Clinton is getting "pimped out" (though he arguably is).

Yes, sexism still exists.

Chris Matthews. Oh Chris Matthews. On Morning Joe January 9.
Let's not forget -- and I'll be brutal -- the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around. That's how she got to be senator from New York. We keep forgetting it. She didn't win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, "My God, this woman stood up under humiliation," right? That's what happened.

Yes, sexism still exists.

Now, I like MSNBC, and I generally enjoy the commentary of Keith Olbermann and the Obama-loving Chris Matthews et al. But MSNBC is not the only station or news outlet and David Shuster and Chris Matthews are not the only journalists or voices to use these kinds of comments that demean gender during this race.

Today's Boston Herald points out the differences in photographs that news sources use when they depict Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.
News organizations often publish photos of Hillary Clinton...that make her look crazy, while pictures of Barack Obama...portray him as cool and reflective.
...
Typically, Hillary looks like a crazy person, her mouth agape, her eyes as bug-eyed as the runaway bride’s. Meanwhile, Barack Obama typically looks cool, calm, collected - or, better yet, pensive and reflective.
The piece continues to highlight some of the many examples of sexism when it comes to Senator Hillary Clinton.

Yes, sexism still exists.

John Kerry choked up on the Senate floor on January 24, 2007, when he announced that he would not run for President in 2008. There was some commentary about it when it happened, but no one dared suggest that the emotion was manufactured. Or that it meant that he was anything less of a strong leader than he was before. Yet we all know what happened to Senator Clinton when she showed her emotions. Castigated. Lampooned. She was too much of a woman, a weak woman, they said. Stone-cold and heartless when she doesn't show emotion. And weak when she does.

Yes, sexism still exists.

Nicholas Kristoff offers his view in his column today in the NYT.
In monarchies, women who rose to the top dealt mostly with a narrow elite, so they could prove themselves and get on with governing. But in democracies in the television age, female leaders also have to navigate public prejudices — and these make democratic politics far more challenging for a woman than for a man.

...
“It’s an uphill struggle, to be judged both a good woman and a good leader,” said Rosabeth Moss Kanter, a Harvard Business School professor who is an expert on women in leadership. Professor Kanter added that a pioneer in a man’s world, like Hillary Rodham Clinton, also faces scrutiny on many more dimensions than a man — witness the public debate about Mrs. Clinton’s allegedly “thick ankles,” or the headlines last year about cleavage.
Yes, sexism still exists.

And why should this discussion be limited to this presidential race?

"Nappy-headed hos," anyone? I doubt that Don Imus would have said "Nappy-headed bros."

"A Girl's Got the Gavel! But What's She Wearing?"
No man - be it Dennis Hastert or Dick Cheney - gets scrutinized on his wardrobe as much as Speaker Nancy Pelosi does.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Yes, sexism still exists.

Racism still exists. Sexism still exists. Will this Presidential race change any of that?

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:09 AM 10 comments Post to DemWire

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Breaking: John Edwards to drop out
MSNBC reports:

DENVER - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters'sympathies but never diverted his campaign, The Associated Press has learned.

I guess we could have seen it coming. This leaves a lot of Wisconsinites and Democrats in general without their favorite candidate -- who will Edwards supporters back now? Is Edwards a potential VP candidate? Who will shape the issues?

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 8:18 AM 10 comments Post to DemWire

Saturday, January 19, 2008

The candidates on the imminent recession
Krugman had a comprehensive piece in Monday's New York Times about the candidates and what they are actually saying about the economy and what they propose doing to help it:

Take, for example, John McCain’s admission that economics isn’t his thing. “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he says. “I’ve got Greenspan’s book.”

...

Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani wants us to go for broke, literally: his answer to the economy’s short-run problems is a huge permanent tax cut, which he claims would pay for itself. It wouldn’t.

About Mike Huckabee — well, what can you say about a candidate who talks populist while proposing to raise taxes on the middle class and cut them for the rich?

...

But Mr. Romney, who really needs to take chances at this point, apparently can’t break the habit of telling Republicans only what he thinks they want to hear. He’s still offering nothing but standard-issue G.O.P. pablum about low taxes and a pro-business environment.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

...

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

...



So if I go by McCain's example, I can go out and read Greenspan's book and then I'm suddenly qualified to run the country? Sweet.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:43 PM 8 comments Post to DemWire

Monday, January 07, 2008

Truthiness in campaigns
Truthiness becomes truth when enough people hear and believe it.

The New York Times has an "investigative" piece on the facts behind some of the rhetoric of the campaign:

Mike Huckabee, thee Republican former governor of Arkansas, said he had “lowered taxes.” While he did lower some taxes as governor, he raised others — with the net effect that tax increases outweighed tax cuts by some $500 million, as he seemed to acknowledge when pressed by Mr. Romney.

...

In the Republican debate on Saturday, Mr. Romney made a claim against Mr. McCain during a heated back-and-forth on immigration, saying: “I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty.” But Mr. Romney has run television and Internet commercials and has sent mailings describing Mr. McCain’s immigration proposal as just that: amnesty.

He said in a television interview Sunday morning that he had not seen the advertisements. “I was simply incorrect,” Mr. Romney said on “This Week with George Stephanopolous on ABC.


It reminds me of the 04 debates when Dick Cheney said he had never met Edwards until they met that day on the debate stage, though they had sat next to each other at some breakfast and other times before that.

It's so easy to say whatever you want or whatever you can in a debate and not have to back it up until the next day. By then the majority of the audience that heard the initial statement isn't listening anymore, and it's just the pundits and journalists left to make it a big deal. However, the Saturday debate format, with more of a conversational style, allowed for at least some rebuttal instead of one turn - final answer in a traditional debate format.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:55 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Saturday, January 05, 2008

New Hampshire ABC/Facebook debates
It's Saturday night in Holmen, Wisconsin.... to keep me entertained I just watched the double-header Republican and Democrat New Hampshire debates. What it all boiled down to: Big Bad Government vs. Change and Secure the Borders the Muslims are Coming! vs. Secure the American Dream.

My picks for the winners -
Republicans: Gov. Mitt Romney. Although largely by power of elimination and some votes from Wyoming. Romney came across as the nice guy getting needled by Sen. McCain and the rest on the flip-flopping charge that really didn't seem to stick tonight (to the average viewer). Plus, after his showing in Iowa, Gov. Huckabee didn't impress as was necessary to court New Hampshire voters. He had the chance to show that he was electable beyond Iowa, and he blew it by not defining his positions more and just sitting quietly as a spectator. Mayor Giuliani... well, to borrow from Sen. Biden, his sentences contained a subject, a verb, and 9/11... the Islamic terrorist threat...and 9/11 again...radical Islamic jihad...and (in case you missed it) 9/11. And Ron Paul, although sounding quite intelligible and refraining from mentioning home schooling (though I was waiting for it when he said education and schools), was treated as a joke by the other 5 candidates on the stage.

Democrats: Gov. Bill Richardson. His eloquence and his reiteration that he is a Governor with executive experience stood out tonight amidst the three-way catfight. He rose above the fray and gained a lot of publicity and was able to clearly make his case. Senator Clinton gained points in toughness, and Senators Obama and Edwards apparently gained a friendship. If for no other reason, Richardson won because he was able to reach thousands of voters that may not have otherwise heard of him or heard about his policies. Senators Obama, Edwards, and Clinton already had that exposure, and a lot of voters already have their conceptions about them. But Richardson I think had the chance tonight - and took full advantage of it - to introduce himself to a larger crowd. The question as always is Will it convert into votes on Tuesday?


My summary of the Republican debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes):
  • America is the greatest country in the world. Our military is the strongest in the world. Islamo-fascism will kill us all. America! Fuck yeah! God Bless the USA.
    (I could stop here, and that would have effectively summarized the whole Republican debate...)
  • Ron Paul is there! I feel sorry for Rep. Kucinich that he wasn't invited to the Democratic debate but this newcomer and fellow renegade got himself invited to the Republican debate. I guess winning the MySpace primary really did mean something for Paul.
  • The question of "running on or running away from" Bush foreign policy.
    • Rumsfeld gets a beating from all sides (Huckabee: don't let the politicians make the decisions).
    • Radical Islam, Islamic jihad, and Islamo-fascism are buzzwords that are meant to strike fear (and hatred) in the hearts of the voters - and after repeating them enough like the candidates did tonight, the message does get through
    • Giuliani: the Patriot Act and electronic surveillance is "very, very good" AND we should increase the size of the military immediately (smell that? ah the draft cards are burning)
    • Some embrace the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. Romney defends him, and McCain gives him credit for his oh-so-great leadership.
    • McCain: "America is not safe, America is safer."
    • Ron Paul: They "don't attack us because we're free and prosperous" but because we invade their country. I was surprised that the other candidates laughed at this and so vehemently opposed this reasoning.
    • Fred Thompson: "We should only go in where we should and where we are able to." Uhhhh thanks for that brilliant insight. You really cleared up things for me.
    • Huckabee (the candidate that has openly distanced himself from President Bush): He supports the President but his [Bush's] policy has problems. Then, Gov. Huckabee, do you support him because golly gee he's a nice guy?
    • Huckabee: "I'm not running for George Bush's third term."
    • Romney and Huckabee try to one up each other on the history lesson about Sayyid Qatb by pulling random dates out of their heads. Ok, so you're smarter than the current President. Congratulations.
  • Asked about the constancy of their principles:
    • McCain: I am a veteran.
    • Romney: Family values. America is great. At the "heart of our strength is the family." Moms and dads (but don't even think about two mommies or two daddies!).
    • Giuliani: Ronald Reagan. I laid out my 12 commitments. End illegal immigration. Appoint strict constructionist judges.
    • [Charlie Gibson, the moderater, goes around and points out how each of them has waffled on issues...except Paul who just switched parties]
    • Giuliani: But wait! Ronald Reagan!
    • Huckabee: "...the simple answer for me is all the way back to the document that gave us birth. And it goes like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That we are created equal." Really, Mike? Is that how the Declaration goes? Maybe you haven't distanced yourself from our current President enough...
    • Thompson tries to one-up Huckabee with a lesson on the 9th and 10th Amendments. Really, guys, if you invested in our public schools a bit we wouldn't need you teaching us civics on TV.
  • Healthcare - why can't we afford insurance for everybody?
    • Private insurance is good, socialized medicine is bad.
    • McCain: "problem isn't quality - it's inflation."
    • Romney stands by his Massachusetts plan.
    • Paul: don't print any more money!
    • Thompson: never going to achieve total coverage
    • Romney likes mandates...but only his kind
    • Giuliani: Health Savings Accounts
    • McCain attacks Big Pharma (and wants reimportation of drugs from Canada)
    • Romney defends Big Pharma
  • Illegal immigration
    • We like legals, we swear we do.
    • McCain: "God's children" and we need biometric documents to keep track of everyone
    • How many times can you mention that you are painting this as a national security issue?
    • Romney: id card of some sort
    • Giuliani: Build a fence, build a technological fence. Tamperproof ID card. We "can't throw out 12 million people" so focus on those who have committed crimes.
    • Y'all have to read and write and speak English good now, ya hear?
    • Romney: get in line -- outside the country
    • Giuliani: Ronald Reagan!
    • Thompson defines amnesty as being rewarded for your illegal behavior in any way and advocates "enforcement by attrition."
    • Huckabee: The "government didn't escort them over the border in the first place, so the government doesn't have to take them back."
    • Paul: The tamperproof ID opens the door for a national ID card - bad idea.
  • What don't you like about Barack Obama?
    • Change is good, and Obama is an inspiring figure (they all agree on that).
    • Romney: Washington is broken. I've lived the change.
    • Thompson: He's adopted the position of every major liberal interest group (painting Obama as extreme left-wing).
    • McCain: Dealing with radical Islamic extremists requires "a lot of knowledge, a lot of experience, and a lot of background."
    • Giuliani: Obama wants a "precipitous withdrawal in Iraq."
    • Huckabee: Welllll, the 2nd Amendment, sanctity of life, same-sex marriage
    • Paul: Young people like us. But I don't like his welfare state. And c'mon, Obama's not going to talk about getting rid of the income tax. But I will! Free markets!
  • Gas prices are high. Duh.
    • Paul: Gold standard would have fixed everything.
    • McCain: Alternative energy good, greenhouse gas bad.
    • Thompson: Cleaner coal and tap into the oil reserves in the US (aka ANWR).
    • Giuliani: We need to think about "energy independence on the scale of putting a man on the moon."
    • Huckabee: It is possible to achieve energy independence in 10 years.
    • Romney: No, it's not. But it's possible to be "on track" to get there. This is our "highest domestic economic priority."

My summary of the Democratic debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes) (Apologies for incompleteness...I got so caught up in listening I forgot to take notes sometimes):
  • Nuclear terrorism/Osama bin Laden/national security
    • Obama: We should go into western Pakistan without the agreement of the Pakistani government if necessary. Al Qaeda is stronger now than it has been at any point since 2001.
    • Edwards: Go get Osama. We need to deal with nuclear nonproliferation in the long term. Musharraf is a radical, and we need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
    • Richardson: Diplomacy comes first in any foreign policy situation. We would ask Musharraf to step aside using "leverage" and a "high-level envoy." We act when we have real and actionable intelligence and the leader aka Musharraf is incapable.
    • Clinton: We need more NATO troops training the Afghan army. We have to be careful not to inflame the Pakistan/India conflict. Musharraf must share the security responsibility of the nukes. This is the "forgotten front line of the war on terrorism."
  • What if a nuclear weapon hits a US city?
    • Edwards: Find out who's responsible and go after them. And stop them. But we must be strong and calm.
    • Obama: This is our most significant foreign policy issue. We must rebuild the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
    • Clinton: "There is no safe haven" for "state-less terrorists."
    • Richardson: "Transnational challenges requires international cooperation."
  • Concept of change.
    • Clinton: We're all advocating for change.
    • Edwards: Obama and I are "powerful voices for change." The "forces of status quo" are attacking us.
    • Clinton: "Making change is not about what you believe; it's about results." "I'm running on 35 years of change."
    • Richardson: I've been in "hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this." "Is experience kinda a leper?"
    • Edwards: We have to "fight for the future of the middle class." Costco and AT&T are good corporations.
    • Obama: The "American Dream is slipping away."
  • Has the surge in Iraq worked?
    • Clinton: It was designed to create time for the Iraqi government to fix itself, but there has been "no political action. They're not willing to do what they need to do."
    • Richardson: There is "no military solution." There is "only a political solution."
    • Obama: "Two years later, we're back where we started two years ago." We must be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
    • Edwards: The President must consult the uniformed advisors.
    • Richardson: As Governor, I'm sick of flying flags at half-mast.
  • Likeability.
    • Clinton: "Well that hurts my feelings." [being called not really likeable]
    • Obama: "You're likeable enough.
  • Responding to Republican attack on Obama.
    • Obama: I was watching football. But seriously, they'd do that to any Democrat.
  • Is relative youth a detriment?
    • Richardson. I'm the only one who has balanced a budget. I've lowered taxes, improved education, insured 12 million children. I'm the only one who has negotiated with foreign governments. "Both parties have been failures in dealing with energy policy." We need American people to sacrifice a bit. I'm glad Al Gore stayed out of the race. JFK JFK JFK!
    • Edwards: I'm the son of a millworker. I don't take money from lobbyists or special interest PACs. I'll fight for the middle class. I'm the son of a millworker. Health insurance companies killed Natalie Sarkisyan. I'm the son of a millworker. Where is their voice in this democracy?
    • Obama: Bet on the American people. They're ready for change. I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals from Congress... but there's something about standing up and sitting down that confuses you, Charlie Gibson.
    • Clinton: "Reality break." I'm going to be the buzzkill for this session of warm-fuzzies and talk about how "words are not action" even though they are "beautifully presented and passionately felt." We need to "translate talk into action and feeling into reality."
    • Clinton follows the footsteps of Gerald Cox and his favorite word tendentious and pulls out "excoriated" to describe what Edwards and Obama did to the special interests.
    • Clinton: Bill Clinton rocked. "Change is hard, but change is possible."
    • Edwards: "Entrenched interests are literally stealing our children's future."
    • Obama: America is hungry, "hungry for something different." "Yes we can."
    • Richardson: "You guys and the President get nothing done" and the burden is on us Governors. I'm sick of Washington bickering - we need bipartisanship.
    • Edwards: It is the responsibility of the President to unite. I'm going to "fight FOR the American people" because "I have been in the trenches."
  • Global warming and the carbon tax.
    • Richardson: Carbon tax is a bad idea because it is not a mandate. Cap-and-trade is the way to go.
    • Obama. Cap-and-trade, I agree. We must shield the consumer from the cost, though. Change your lightbulbs and insulate your homes, everybody!
    • Clinton: The economy is slipping towards a recession. The energy issue will jumpstart economic efficiency.
  • The fate of the Bush tax cuts
    • Clinton: The middle class will get the "tax relief they deserve." Don't cut the taxes on the wealthy.
    • Edwards: We have to help the homeless veterans and help people find jobs. The "trade and tax policy is bleeding American jobs." I would know - I'm the son of a millworker.
    • Obama: We must close tax loopholes and offer specific tax relief immediately. It's a change.
    • Richardson: We need a balanced budget and line item veto authority for the President. And I want to talk about education! We must improve schools, pay our teachers better, end NCLB, emphasize the arts, and fund science and math education.
  • What do you wish you hadn't said in the debates so far? What would you take back if you could?
    • Clinton: We're all great candidates, and the Democrats are in such contrast to the Republicans.
    • Richardson: "I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court justice was, and I said, dead or alive? ...I should have stuck to the alive because I then said, "Whizzer" White, because I idolize John F. Kennedy and I figured if he appointed "Whizzer" White, this was a great Supreme Court justice. Well then I find out that "Whizzer" White was against Roe versus Wade, against civil rights. You know, so that's -- that wasn't a good one."
    • Edwards: "I made the horrendous mistake of teasing Hillary about her jacket. And I want her to know I think you look terrific tonight."
    • Obama: "Here's an area where I agree with Hillary." We need to be "ending the politics of fear."

All four of the Democratic candidates would do a great job as President. We're lucky we have such a great field... but I guess unlucky in that we have to pick just one. But, if tonight's debates were any indication, that one Democrat will be able to crush any of those six Republicans in November.

Labels: , ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:55 PM 10 comments Post to DemWire

Governor Doyle endorses Obama
The Wisconsin State Journal solves the mystery.

"He is a person who has shown he can build coalitions and he can inspire people and he can bring more people into the political process, and I feel very strongly he can govern like he can campaign," Doyle said...

"They [Gus and Gabe Doyle] helped me understand how a younger person sees the world," Doyle said. "When a younger person looks at Barack they see the country moving into the future."



It certainly seems like Obama receives a lot of strength from young voters. He did win the MySpace primary (him and Ron Paul...), and there was a record turnout of young voters in Iowa, contributing to his win. People like Gov. Doyle recognize the power of the college-age vote (it's about damn time).

However, this young-voter revolution (finally being taken seriously by the media etc.) may disappoint a lot of people. When women first got the right to vote in the early 20th century, it was partly because the legislators thought that women voted in a bloc. Today, with increased pushes for 17-year-olds to have the right to vote in a primary if they will be 18 by the general election, and with college activists always being touted by the media as this great phenomenon (oh my gosh, look at these kids -- they actually care! whodathunk?), and looking at Obama's poll numbers, some may be deluded into believing that young people vote in a bloc.

I'd hope no candidate or reporter or donor really believes that, but who knows?

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 3:03 PM 3 comments Post to DemWire

Wisconsin Endorsements
This afternoon Senator Obama's campaign will receive a 'major Wisconsin endorsement' from a political figure. My guess is Senator Russ Feingold, who has said that he won't make early endorsements.

But what about the other Wisconsin "elite?" This is the list I could come up with -- please add to i!

Senator Obama:
- Rep. Gwen Moore
- Gus Doyle
- Madison Alderman Eli Judge

Senator Clinton:
- Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton
- Rep. Tammy Baldwin
- Dane County Exec Kathleen Falk

Senator Edwards:
- Joe Wineke, DPW Chair
- Mayor Dave of Madison
- Rep. Dave Obey
- fmr Gov. Tony Earl

I know I'm missing quite a few and there has to be someone other than Adam Lang endorsing Bill Richardson -- help me out!

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 8:31 AM 9 comments Post to DemWire

Saturday, December 08, 2007

"Faith in America" --> "Losing my religion"
Mitt Romney delivered a long-awaited speech on how his religion - and his faith in general - will factor into the 2008 election. Not since JFK has a candidate's religion (not the same thing as religiousness) been a significant topic of concern and consternation. In 1960, JFK addressed a congregation of Protestant ministers about his Catholicism. On Thursday, Romney spoke at President George H. W. Bush's Presidential Library about the role (or non-role?) of his Mormonism and how his "faith will inform [his] Presidency."

Mr. Romney's speech was entitled "Faith in America." Overall it was a sermon extolling the presumed value and pervasive presence of religion in America today, all the while emphasizing that, while he is Mormon, he really is a Christian above all. And he will bring his good ol' Christian morals and values to the Presidency as the savior of these United States, delivering us from the evil that is godlessness. Or at least that's what I felt he said when I listened to the speech.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish together." The speech wouldn't be complete until he mentioned freedom. I took this quote to have underlying meaning - that, if we weren't a religious society, we would no longer be free and oh those infidels would destroy America (oh the horror!). I'm not quite sure I see the jump between losing religion and destroying "freedom" and destroying societal structure. Unless, of course, you believe that it already has been ruined by the gays and unwed couples and atheists.

As expected, there was the obligatory quoting of Kennedy about being "an American running for President." Mr. Romney also emphasized that no Church "will ever exert influence on presidential decisions." Good to know... I almost believe you. The Churches I fear are the ones that go by the names like Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Tobacco... and I'm pretty sure they are exerting influence on decisions today.

"I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient tradition of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims." And I'd like to give a shoutout to my roommate from freshman year - your interpretation of Nelly really moved me. Holla to my homeboys who dig the lyricism of El Guante - you speak deep truths. And four for Glenn Coco - you go Glenn Coco! Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were in the Girl Scouts closing circle, where we say something nice about everyone in the group.

Speaking of "the group," why does Mr. Romney (and so many others) limit himself to Abrahamic religions? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions out there. Would it kill you to give a shoutout to Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Native American religions, rastafarianism, pastafarianism, etc?

"It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong." [Applause.] At this point, Mr. Romney pontificated on the meaning of separation of Church and State and stresses that he "will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'" I think that, in trying to solidify his religious cred, he leaned a bit too far the other way and denounced secularism.

"We do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." A nice line, but what about atheists and agnostics? Do we not welcome those?

"We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny" and links this to "radical Islamists" and the "coercion of minds and the shedding of blood." Religious right rhetoric. And unfairly dramatizing Islam as a religion to be feared.

Normally I'm not one to pick apart a speech phrase by phrase. However, Mitt Romney's speech on religions was hyped as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Eh...not so much. It had little of the earth-shaking effect that JFK's did, and instead it came across as just another let's-placate-the-moral-conservative-base stump speech.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 12:38 AM 3 comments Post to DemWire

Friday, November 30, 2007

Daily Cardinal cartoon
Today's Daily Cardinal opinion section prints an editorial cartoon that I wish I could link to but it is not available online. Pick up a print copy and check out page 5. Basically it is a caricature of Sen. Hillary Clinton with oven mitts on and holding out a cake, with "I have more experience than Barack" written on it. The caption reads "Since when does being someone's wife make you an expert?"

It is a degrading representation not just of Hillary but negatively stereotypes wives as just women baking cakes.

"Being someone's wife." Yes, Hillary Clinton is President Bill Clinton's wife. She was also First Lady AND is a United States Senator.

I'm not saying that Senator Barack Obama does not have experience, but I will say that Senator Clinton is more than "someone's wife."
- US Senator since 2001
- As First Lady, she was heavily involved in international relations, frequently traveling to other countries to meet with leaders - and I'm sure she discussed more than baking with Nelson Mandela...or Benazir Bhutto...or Tony Blair...or Gro Brundtland of Norway (who went on to head the World Health Organization), Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, China's Jiang Zemin, the Dalai Lama, and so on.
- Also as First Lady she had an office in the West Wing. She used this role to meet with Congresspeople. SCHIP was started in part due to her work with Senator Ted Kennedy. The First Lady met with Cabinet members, working with Attorney General Janet Reno to form the Office on Violence Against Women at the DoJ. Quoting Wikipedia (against my teachers' recommendations), "In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady."
- etc.

Since when does being someone's wife preclude any other aspect of your experience or identity?

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 2:37 PM 2 comments Post to DemWire

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

What's in a name?
As seen on "The Caucus" (NY Times political blog):

While campaigning in South Carolina yesterday, Mitt Romney attempted to speak about terrorism and how we must fight them there so we don't have to fight them here. Here's what he ended up saying:

“Actually, just look at what Osam — uh — Barack Obama, said just yesterday. Barack Obama calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. That is the central place, he said. Come join us under one banner."

It's a simple slip-up, one that many have done in the past. However, in Romney's case, it wasn't just a last name. He used the full first and last name...twice. You'd think after he finished his thoughts, he might have realized what he just said and try to correct himself.

I enjoyed Bill Burton's (of the Obama campaign) response:
"Apparently Mitt Romney can switch names just as casually as he switches positions."

Screwing up someone's name, especially when that someone is a US Senator and viable candidate for President of these United States, is unacceptable. And juvenile. It conveys a message that Romney doesn't respect Sen. Obama enough to even get his name right. Yes, yes, it's a mistake, he's tired... but Presidents do get tired and there is no way any world leader would tolerate this kind of mistake if a President slipped up this badly. I can picture it now:
Pinochet --> Pinocchio
Bhutto --> Buddha
Mandela --> Mandolin
King Hussein of Jordan --> Saddam Hussein
Ehud Olmert --> Stephen Colbert
Romano Prodi --> Prada
Hu Jintao --> Hu's on First


Anyways, it's a funny story. Laugh a little. Feel free to take a jab at my game, Romney style.

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 8:16 AM 8 comments Post to DemWire

Monday, October 15, 2007

Pictures from the Obama rally
The rally was nice, I had some great company, and I had a good position. I'm a little inept when it comes to transferring many pictures at the same time to Scott to put up on the site, so I am bypassing that route and going with the only way I know...

(below) CDM's very own Bryon Eagon (also Fundraising Director for UW SFBO) warms up the crowd with a Section O for Obama cheer.














(below)
Obama '08 signs frame the standard flag backdrop. Hundreds of signs were handed out to the crowd.


(below) Senator Obama discusses his vision of hope.

(below) Senator Obama, a Bears fan, thanks all the Cheeseheads for Change in attendance.

(below) Senator Obama speaks at the Monona Terrace Convention Center as part of his Countdown to Change tour.

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 3:41 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Debating debates
Erik Opsal recently commented, jokingly, on his blog (The Hippie Perspective) that Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain don't care about black people (an allusion to Kanye West) because they skipped the debate at the HBCU (historically black college/university) Morgan State University. Although this was meant as somewhat of a joke, there is quite a bit of truth in it.

James Q replied to Erik's comment, saying
"It could just be the message they aren't going to waste their time doing 10293984884849202 debates before the race has really heated up...Taking this as meaning they don't care about black people seems just a bit off base...something I would expect Drudge to say (concerning the Democrats, though)."

I disagree with James Q. Candidates do debates in specific locations or of varying flavors when they want to target a particular demographic. For instance, YouTube debates target that elusive 18-24 crowd...you know, the one who somehow survives without a land line or reading a daily newspaper.

Sen. Edwards proved the importance of reaching out to particular crowds by appearing on an MTV.com/MySpace forum. He catered to the young/hip who care about more than boxers or briefs (read: Clinton's MTV experience back in 1992).

An interesting new development for this election cycle has been Spanish-language debates. All but one major Democratic candidate participated in a debate that translated all of their responses to Spanish, airing on Univisión. The channel planned to also have a Republican debate in Spanish airing a week later, but that was canceled due to a lack of interest: only John McCain agreed to the debate. With Latinos as the largest minority group in the US, you'd think that the Presidential candidates would want these voters to hear them out.

And now, with the major GOP candidates skipping the Morgan State debate, they've marginalized the second-largest minority group in the US. Hosted by PBS, the All-American Presidential Forums are the first in prime-time with a panel exclusively of color, and they both took place at HBCUs (the Democratic forum was at Howard University). Again, the message the absent candidates are sending is one that doesn't prioritize the minority communities and specifically the minority voters.

If the defense is that candidates have so many other debates they're doing, then why choose Reagan's Presidential Library, FOXNews (in Columbia, SC), and FOXNews (in Durham, NH)? Apparently Romney, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani would rather talk to the same people twice than talk to folks at Morgan State or on Univisión.

In contrast, the Democratic candidates continue to prove that they are the ones who can "Build the House." Howard University, South Carolina State University (another HBCU), the NAACP convention, the YouTube/Google debate simulcast on CNN en Español (yes, another Spanish-language debate), the YearlyKos convention (They get it. Bloggers matter.), the AFL-CIO Working Families Vote forum, Logo/HRC (on LGBT issues), Univisión, and so on.

If the variety of debates weren't an issue - if every debate were created equal - do you think the Democratic candidates would be spending so much time diversifying their debate schedule? When Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain did not appear at the Morgan State University debate, it wasn't a question of time or a question of how many is too many. It was a question of priorities.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:42 AM 1 comments Post to DemWire

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Papa don't preach
**edit, 8/8/07 at 5:04 am: A hat tip is in order to The Hippie Perspective, although, to my defense, I didn't read his entry before I posted this one.**

As seen on today's BBC News online, Giuliani's daughter is supporting a Democrat for President.

According to the article, 17-year-old Caroline's Facebook profile said that she is a liberal and was in the group "One Million Strong for Barack."

Although I find this quite entertaining, I'm a bit skeptical as to how much Facebook profiles really do say who you are supporting in actuality. People will join any and all groups just to get information about a campaign, put down Very Conservative when they're actually Sierra Club enthusiasts, say they are married to Bobby Kennedy, pretend they are Chancellor Wiley, etc. Even I myself am in a smattering of groups that I really shouldn't be in (except to build my APIA Caucus): College Democrats of New York, College Democrats of Tennessee, Maine College Democrats, and so on. Why? Because I can. It's the magic of Facebook; no one asks you to prove anything. You could say that the whole system is built on trust. And if a curious journalist were to rely on solely Facebook profile information for a scoop or expose', he/she could potentially be dead wrong.

I'm not saying that in this case it is not true - it probably is, and it is hilarious. However, Facebook profile information should always be taken with a grain of salt.

As should Wikipedia entries.

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 3:57 PM 4 comments Post to DemWire

9/3/06 - 9/10/06 9/10/06 - 9/17/06 9/17/06 - 9/24/06 9/24/06 - 10/1/06 10/1/06 - 10/8/06 10/8/06 - 10/15/06 10/15/06 - 10/22/06 10/22/06 - 10/29/06 10/29/06 - 11/5/06 11/5/06 - 11/12/06 11/12/06 - 11/19/06 11/19/06 - 11/26/06 11/26/06 - 12/3/06 12/3/06 - 12/10/06 12/10/06 - 12/17/06 12/17/06 - 12/24/06 12/24/06 - 12/31/06 12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08

 Subscribe in a reader   Download the blog feed Dashboard Widget


The views and opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the UW-Madison College Democrats. They are the views of their authors. Postings by individual board members to not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of the board or organization.