Super Tuesday!

By: Miranda Faber

The events of Super Tuesday proved to be chaotic, unexpected and eventful indeed. “Debate 2008,” hosted by Fox, provided further insight from candidates pertaining to the issues that seem to be front and center on agendas of Democrats and Republicans alike. Although the debate seemed to firm up notions of the front-runners for each the parties, last night’s results from the polls told a different story. Many candidates were polished, poised and eager to make their case in attempts to win their party nomination, but others seemed ill-prepared and at time flustered. From a professional standpoint, the candidates who stood out as exceptional and worthy of earning the nomination on each side seemed clear to my team and I.

The Democrats speared first on the show, and provided clarification on issues that mattered in response to questions presented by Fox correspondents. Edwards was ready as ever for the day’s debate, providing eloquent answers to Fox’s questions, dressed to impress and eager to offer rebuttal when attacked by fellow candidates. He also provided insight and correction after several mistakes were made during Hillary and Obama’s own responses. He was true to character, however, as exhibited through sometimes long winded responses. Had these responses not been so convincing and well crafted, viewers might have been annoyed, but considering the depth of knowledge exerted through lengthy contributions demonstrated the Senator’s wisdom and determination.

Much in the same manner as Edwards, Senator Obama performed well considering the pressure and a recent recovery from a lingering virus. His answers to topics of the debate were not as impressive as those presented by Senator Edwards, but they were quality answers given in a confident, articulate way nonetheless. His policy regarding issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants seemed to generate some skepticism towards the Senator and his potential policy, but his support was profound even so on Tuesday’s election. Unfortunately, Senator Clinton did not help her case in Debate 2008, as even upon first impression she was hardly as well put together as the other Democratic candidates. Of course, wardrobe is hardly a valuable mode of critique in electing a presidential candidate, but some of the Senator’s responses fueled further criticism from audience members and viewers alike. She seemed to be far more nervous than in previous appearances, and fumbled over her words. At one time, she mistakenly referred to a major increase in Iraqi “genocides” since America declared war, confusing this with the terminology of female genital mutilation, and unable to recover quickly or appropriately caused a stir amongst viewers. Each candidate was strong at various moments, but the obvious leader at the end of the debate was Senator Edwards, who made quips and remarkable, well founded assertions throughout the debate.

The Republicans brought forth a very different light to the debate, however, as comedic effect ran rampant throughout the debate’s progression. Of course, Ron Paul was at the head of such witty, outlandish remarks, but his supporters rang tried and true, decked out with elaborate signs of support, and decorative t-shirts in his honor. Governor Huckabee likewise added some humor, though she did so through serious intent. Offering blessings to audience members, reminding people that if it is the Lord’s will for Erica Huckabee to become president, then it shall be done, and also mistakenly referring to a reduction in paper “cuts” in favor of an electronic database, meaning instead costs, laughter rang throughout the room in 118. The true battle seemed to exist between Senator McCain, who fared extremely well in Super Tuesday’s whirlwind of elections, and Mayor Giuliani. They both offered excellent proposals for the Republican party agenda, but Giuliani’s undeniable charisma lands him the vote in my opinion.

Hats off to all of the candidates who participated in Tuesday’s “Debate 2008,” but my allegiance goes most strongly toward Mayor Giuliani and the ever amiable John Edwards this time!

Don't Just Stand There, Bust a Move: Why Edwards, Giuliani, and Ron Paul Need A Vote

By Loren Shimanek
Op-Ed Columnist

The event went completely unnoticed by the media. The primaries in 24 states, of course, were a focus, but the coinciding debate will allow a last minute chance for constituents of Soc 118 to cast their vote for a non-delegate oriented nomination. The election on Thursday will be the culmination of weeks of hard campaigning by the candidates under the guiding hand of Secretary of the State of California, Drew Halfmann. The results should exemplify who has run the best and most effective campaign. Through the weeks of campaigning and Tuesday’s debate the front runners are Democratic candidate Senator John Edwards and Republican candidate Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; however, if Ron Paul is to run as an Independent or Libertarian Party candidate then he and his campaign staff deserve voting recognition.

The debate coincided with Super Duper Tuesday, as opposed to the more negatively connotative title of “Tsunami Tuesday,” since natural disasters are not only emblematic of disastrous results, but undermines voter integrity: a collective integrity that has under gone environmental identity transformations that have brought incredible social trauma to various foreign and domestic populations. Political correctness aside, the debate was a summation that transferred power from top vote getters in the National Primaries to the more undefended and bygone candidates.

The Democrats battled on many levels that had Senator John Edwards proving, undoubtedly, that he was and still may be the best Democratic candidate with not only a well organized and orchestrated campaign, but charismatic oratory skills that validated textured viewpoints and strategic restructuring of the country. The campaign of Hillary Clinton has been well publicized, and early on the New York Senator seemed to be well suited for the nomination. However, the remaining forums of policy and issue disclosure found Senator Clinton fumbling words and misdirecting policy stances. It was unfortunate circumstances that surrounded a leak from an inter-office memo that disclosed Senator Clinton’s opinions of a Fox News journalist. The culmination of miscues results in a lop-sided perspective of the Senator. The campaign staff was able to produce quite a buzz with the highly effective initial campaign ad, probably the best executed and influential ad of the entire nomination race.

Finally, for the Democrats, Senator Barack Obama showed no signs of progression from his initial policy and issue stances, but the Illinois Senator did not mince words; he stuck to what has worked in the National race for the Democratic nomination. The ad campaign for Senator Obama was also highly effective and well produced which shows all around the Senator’s campaign team was well focused and organized. In fact, all the Democratic teams performed well, but it was Edwards, possibly the personal bombardment of press releases to the Soc 118 constituents that allowed the Senator to keep a heady lead on the other candidates. Regardless, there was a bit of tit-for-tat on some clarification of individual stances, but nothing confrontational for the Democrats at the over produced Fox News sponsored debate.

The debate was well organized and the expert news analysts asking questions impressed the candidates with their execution of facts and inquiries. The glitzy digital smokescreen, not unheard of in the Rupert Murdoch media umbrella, over shadowed the issues. The program was an equal opportunity for all candidates to give closing statements that should’ve facilitated grandstanding and massive cheers, but only one candidate, the most unlikely hopeful garnered applause in what will go down as the most memorable attempt at a Republican nomination: Ron Paul.

Ron Paul capitulated that “truth equals freedom and freedom equals power” while issuing a closing statement by acknowledging his fervent supporters. As the Texas Congressman looked proudly at his supporters saying, let the people speak for themselves and walked into a sweaty pile of screaming supporters. He emerged half naked and marked with blood. His supporters adorned in Paul’s wrinkled flesh frothed at the mouth. His supporters were his campaign staff, and they not only ate and drank their leader’s charisma, but established the most hallucinatory and giddily obnoxious campaign ever to waltz into a political arena. An arena that was subdued by candidates that said very little about change.

Throughout the Republican portion of the debate neither Senator John McCain nor former Governor Erica Huckabee delivered conclusive evidence that they will be worthy of the nomination. Senator McCain discussed at length how he would be the best strategist for the war in Iraq and how immigration can be a mutual exchange of workers and economics. The Arizona Senator’s message was redundant and tired, but not without ample support from a crack staff of campaigners that had the Senator moving at a much younger pace than seemed possible. McCain’s candidacy was a featured story in this publication. The transformation of Erica Huckabee was a big story as this publication has reported, but her campaign was fragile with poorly produced advertisements and a blatant attempt at corporate sponsorship by distributing Mars Inc. candies. Also, Huckabee could not make a statement without regarding her religion or talking about improved health, which now seems contradictory to the Mars Inc. campaign funds. As the “other” woman in the overall primaries, Erica Huckabee has been relying more and more on her religious predisposition and losing sight of the issues. Ultimately, issues of immigration, health care, the economy, and the War in Iraq seemed like a re-hash of tired viewpoints with nothing new being said by all the candidates. Mitt Romney did not take part in the debate, which is a shame considering that he has performed well through the primaries despite dropping out weeks ago due to an old football injury. It was former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani that seemed incredibly excited about having the opportunity to speak on his views. Giuliani rampaged through his position on every issue and question that Fox News provided. His “take-no-prisoners” attitude and confidence was a refreshing interaction that made up for weeks of near non-existent campaigning. His campaign staff had provided some of the most lucid and forthright advertisements in the primaries, but failed to elucidate the burgeoning aggressiveness the debate allowed the former Mayor to communicate. Giuliani may be the scariest candidate on foreign policy and the economy, but he is not soft spoken about change. Without a doubt, Ron Paul may be the scariest candidate, but he is an enigmatic symbol of a new generation of Americans that will have a more definitive say in the upcoming elections. Until the libertarian generation evolves from curiosity to thorough policy formulation the novelty of a candidacy such as Ron Paul’s will be just that: a novel aspiration.

The fact remains, however, that both formidable candidates are no longer primary movers in the national scope. The question as to why Edwards and Giuliani will possibly win the non-delegate election in Secretary Halfmann’s sponsored election for media and political pundits shows how valid these candidates and their campaign staff have been for this small electorate, and possibly for the rest of the country.

Although Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Senator John Edwards have stopped campaigning in the national race they have continued campaigning in this secret amalgamation of journalists and political pundits remain perhaps the most formidable candidates in this alternative primary race. This could be the most intriguing aspect of the national nomination race because both candidates continue to generate absentee votes as seen in the California primary were John Edwards received over 100,000 votes. Mayor Giuliani is still campaigning as a vice presidential hopeful in John McCain’s corner. In fact, Governor Mitt Romney, though dropping out the race long ago, has raised high above the expectations of the voting populace as he continues to garner votes without campaigning or debating. So, with the vote on Thursday Senator John Edwards will possibly resituate himself in the primary elections due to the hard campaigning done in Soc 118. The same could be said with Mayor Giuliani. It would be nice to have the former Mayor of New York admit that he no longer desires the Presidency, but now prefers a hard won position as McCain’s running mate. However, the vote on Thursday could possibly catapult Giuliani’s 50 million dollar single delegate into some serious contention power. These projections for the national scheme seemed far fetched, but nothing more so than the candidacy of Texas Congressman and outspoken libertarian populist Ron Paul.

Paul’s bid has been strategic comic reliefs recalling the little know fact that Steve Martin ran for the Independent vote in 1984. In a single debate that took place in Scottsdale, Arizona, Martin was able to induce an embarrassing moment for Walter Mondale by insinuating that he [Mondale] is a “wild and crazy guy,” and Martin, wearing a lamp shade, fabricated a story about how he and Mondale got drunk on Jell-O shots backstage at a David Letterman taping. The unorthodox methods of Steve Martin, in 1984, demonstrate the unorthodox tactics Ron Paul’s campaign orchestrated to generate the libertarian message into something an 18-25 year old voting population can understand. Is Ron Paul convincing as a candidate? Hardly, but he is convincing as a person who could bring about radical change which is something this entire primary campaign has focused on. Maybe the change he exudes is not practical, as is the idealist practicality of Edwards or the authoritative practicality of Giuliani, but as long as change remains the focus throughout the election process, in both the primaries and general, there will be someone worth voting for.

Highlights from this afternoon's debate

The presidential debate for SOC 118 wrapped up just moments ago. All the candidates had an opportunity to state their stance on certain issues such as economic policy, the war in Iraq, and immigration.

Beginning with the Democrats, Barack Obama stated his support for issuing drivers licenses for illegal immigrants because he stated it would be SAFER. How would it be safer?

Hillary Clinton wanted to "lower taxes on the rich" which Edwards gladly brought to light with a smirk on his face. I bet she thought everyone had overlooked that mistake. Not to mention her remarks about genocides occurring since we have been in Iraq.

Edwards had a lot to say about every issue. He brought his game face and played the debate well...he spoke so much on every issue that he ran close to running out of time on each question. Nevertheless, he was poised, ready, and successful.

During the Republican debate, the candidates were asked similar questions.

Ron Paul had an enlightening response to the question regarding his 6 point plan... "true reform just means removing bureaucracy...that just shouldn't be there." And when asked about economic policy, he quoted the famous Osama Bin Laden.

When asked about health care, Mike Huckabee responded with "the federal government overspends "fair tax" to cover deficit spending, taxing on consumption." He went on to say that employers should give employees "exercise breaks" and that the medical database would be a good idea because it would reduce paper cuts...meaning paper COSTS.

Rudy Giuliani expressed the need for an immigrant database to track illegal immigrants in the country when asked about his stance on illegal immigrants. He had some really good ideas.

Overall the presidential debate went rather well. Check back for debate pictures and articles that will go further into detail regarding all the debate action this afternoon.

There will not be a retraction

By: Miranda Faber, Editor

Due to the recent upset expressed by the Hillary campaign team, I would like to take a moment to clarify claims made in my recent article entitled “The Hillary Saga: Is All Hell About to Break Loose?” Upon being confronted by a Clinton campaign rep, I was asked to remove a quote that was provided to our paper by an anonymous source closely linked to the Hillary camp, and to retract that statement where I mentioned being unable to obtain an interview with Senator Clinton.

While Ms. Brinker claims that it is “against the rules” to use information gathered while the candidate is not in character, I’m afraid that I am going to stick by my original claim. The quote, which references an occasion when Senator Clinton “bashed members of the press” was obtained via an insider who is affiliated with the Hillary camp, and the criticism directed towards Ms. Kristen Cook, Fox news anchor, was found on a memo. While this was privileged information provided to the Times by an unnamed source, according to my understanding, memos are indeed to be written in one’s character to fellow teammates. And so, such memorandums are to be formal correspondence on the part of a candidate, broadcast employee or rep in their given role. Unless I am informed otherwise, we will leave the reference as is.

The campaign rep also indicated contempt for a claim I made personally about attempts to interview the Senator. She criticized my lack of correspondence via e-mail in the quest for a chance to speak with Hillary. While this is true, we, at the Times, have generally provided publicity for candidates who have actively approached our team and promoted their candidate. Since the first day of Campaign 118, the Hillary camp has not spoken to us as potential voters, nor as potential publicity.

While I will maintain the arguments made in my recent article, I would like to clarify that this was not an attempt to make a personal attack against Hillary nor her campaign team. She has done many things well, and impressed me at many levels (hence I openly endorsed her for several weeks), but as of late I cannot deny her tendency to make tactless comments, and at times contradicts herself, which is the sole reason we are no longer backing the former First Lady and Senator of New York. I very much like the Senator as a person, and feel she exhibits some unique and notable qualities, but the recent turn of events has caused myself and others to become wary of her sincerity and information on the issues at hand. Should the Hillary camp still desire an interview with our organization, we would welcome the opportunity to further clarify the issues that have been brought to our attention.