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.

The Hillary Saga: Is All Hell About to Break Loose?

By Miranda Faber, Editor

Though for a considerable amount of time I personally backed the Soc 118
Clinton campaign, I am displeased to announce that I am no longer publicly endorsing the woman I once hoped would lead our great nation. At the start of the campaign several weeks ago, I firmly believed that Senator Clinton was poised, polished, and prepared to bring great change to America. Her policy plans had me convinced that she would serve the people of America well, with ambitious goals and decisive plans regarding health care, an exit strategy from Iraq and boosting the suffering economy. However, upon recent events, opinions regarding the former First Lady seem to be ever changing within the walls of 118.

At last week’s press conference, the Senator seemed unclear and unsure of the issues at hand, answering our own Loren Shimanek’s question about her alleged “mistake” of originally supporting the Iraqi war and then stumbling over her words regarding whether it was indeed a mistake on her part to lend approval or not.

Hillary went on to make the very bold claim that “the people who play video games don’t vote,” clearly upsetting some reporters and audience members. This seemed an incredibly foolish move on her part, considering her opponent, Barack Obama, is clearly popular with young voters. By chance did she consider that an overwhelming amount of her supporters at her husband’s recent speech at UC Davis indeed indulge in playing video games once in a while? Apparently not. This was not a wise opinion to publicize on the Senator’s part, as Super Tuesday is now only days away and Hillary has made racially offensive comments, as well as activity based opinions that will likely deter supporters towards Obama.

Not long after making this rather presumptuous comment, Hillary responded to one reporter’s question regarding President Bush, which she answered rather candidly, claiming” He’s trying to leave the presidency in a state where he wont’ be shot on the street.” I wasn’t aware that there was any implication the current President was reported to be an assassination victim upon leaving office, but the Senator seemed unabashed when speculating upon this possibility.

To top off Hillary’s recently poor track record, she and her campaign team have failed to actively participate and rally for support in 118. I have personally made efforts on two occasions to interview Senator Clinton, and was unable to locate the candidate or her campaign team, as it appeared they had left meetings in a hasty fashion. Likewise, she and her team members have failed to make attempts to gather press coverage, at least from our organization and visibly other media outlets as well, while opponents have constantly sought interviews, coverage and support. To make matters worse still, according to an inside source Hillary has personally “bashed members of the press”, detailing her disgust over inappropriate dress and the unnecessary use of professional attire, when in fact she did not know of miscommunications causing the stir and confusion amongst a reporter prepared to go on air.

Hats off and good luck to Hillary in the upcoming week, because it certainly looks like she might well need it.

Erica Huckabee: Boldly Going Where No Baptist Minister, Woman Governor Has Gone Before

By: Loren Shimanek

Last night on the UC Davis campus Erica Huckabee gave a sermon and prayer to the few thousand attendees either in opposition or support of the once social conservative who has taken a unique stand; trying to align Christian idealists with liberal minded Democrats. The synthesis came full circle when, what we are calling the "other" woman in the race for the Presidential nomination extended what many believe is an open invitation for all United States voters to put down their religious content and agree that "change"needs to be the primary focus.

Erica Huckabee's plea comes at a time when Mayor Giuliani has dropped out the race and a loss in Florida circumstantially illuminates the dwindling campaign funds. The convergence of grass roots support and a self-prescribed ethical transformation, that has the entire voting population talking, is what Erica Huckabee is hoping will usher in a California primary win. The big story is the metamorphosis that Erica Huckabee has undergone since deciding to run for the Republican nomination. To most liberals the once governor of Arkansas was a Bible thumping bigot and extreme fundamentalist looking to eradicate progressive moral endeavors. But the transformation has captured not only the imaginations of the liberal voting population, but Christian conservatives that see the first female Governor of Arkansas as a political Messiah.

Erica Hucakbee in an exclusive interview with the New York Times stated, "I find that most people change depending on what is more convenient at the time, but I want to set an example for the people of this nation to stick to their faith, whatever that may mean to them." Consolidating this personal change with a relativistic scope Gov. Huckabee enthusiastically revealed that she can "respect an honest atheist more than a two-faced Christian." The unfortunate tale thus far has been the gradual climb into theconsciousness of voters as only one state has awarded Erica Huckabee a decisive win.

"Some people believe that my win in Iowa was a fluke" was a response given to the Times before the Florida primary which saw the furtherance of Senator John McCain's position for the Republican nomination. However, Erica Huckabee says, "in the South Carolina primary, Senator McCain and I stressed different aspects of our platform" with "the Christian vote swayed by Senator McCain’s experience, both in the military and political spheres." While the Christian vote may be swayed the question many progressives, feminists and secular political enthusiasts must face is whether Hilary is the only woman candidate worth voting for. The media has failed to focus on the fact that there are two women running in the primaries, one in each party.

Erica Huckabee doesn't seemed bothered by the lack of attention which has allowed her to focus on issues outside of socially constructed notions of gender such as the health care of Americans, the war in Iraq, and the economy. The once Arkansas Governor says, "honestly, the media attention given to Hillary Clinton’s campaign hasn’t affected my campaign much." Huckabee does "agree with her[Clinton] that being the first woman president would be incredibly historical." Consequently, the fact that Erica is a woman and Hilary is a woman shouldn't be the sole reason why people cast their vote. As the first female Governor of Arkansas the recognition by a primarily Christian state may correlate that “the Right” is ready for a woman in office.

Governor Huckabee believes the Christian population is ready for a woman inoffice, but she doesn't "think one’s gender should dictate one’selectability, nor does it say anything about that person’s ability to govern." Erica Huckabee's distinction as the first woman governor of Arkansas and as a Baptist minister, as fluently performed last night in Davis, shows that her unique position can create "change" that both Christians and secular liberals may find appealing.

Huckabee is quick to point out that the transformation of ideals and gender do play a significant role in the California Primaries. Huckabee states, "considering the nation’s cry for positive change, my moderate conservatism and my being a woman are strong points for my campaign...especially in California." The multi-faceted identity may be a hinging factor in the states psyche, but in "real," daily struggle the economy is the hot button issue the entire nation is pondering.

Erica Huckabee plans to tackle the economy in what may seem as an unorthodox policy change for a Republican by emphasizing savings and taxing consumption. Huckabee's plan "through the Fair Tax, people will onlybe taxed for consuming new items rather than for their productivity" which will "allow people to not only save money on taxes, but it would make many goods much more affordable, thus raising the buying power of the dollar." The drastic ideological shift in consumer taxation comes at a time when the Bush administration has successfully pushed through an economic stimulus plan through Congress that will encourage consumption, not savings, to get the economy up to speed. This tactic has received much criticism as the deeper issues of our economy need to be structurally fixed, not bandaged haphazardly.

Governor Huckabee may be the candidate to structurally ease future economic problems, but the fundamental policy shift in economy loses ground to proposed ethical male volence arising out of accusations that the once Governor of Arknsas said people with AIDS should be isolated. The governor doesn't fully refute the comment, but acknowledges that she was misinformed about the truth of AIDs and the processes of the epidemic. Erica Huckabee admits, "I was ignorant...about AIDS," but "by educating myself on this issue, I have come to realize that I was wrong and retract my prior statement." The life lesson that Erica Huckabee was dutifully mature to recognize the people are different regardless of moral disposition and perception. Partly, this realization encouraged the physical and issue oriented transformation Huckabee nows stands to benefit from, but the once ill-informed candidate states, "not knowing the truth is harmful not only to others, but one’s self" and "I want to put the“candid” back in candidate."

The once first woman governor of Arkansas may be able to be candid, but will people receive the message in time to elicit a positive response on February 5th? The country must wait and see if either party will nominate a woman to run in the Presidential election, but the metamorphosisis hardly a contextualization of a Kafka analogy. Instead, the "new" Erica Huckabee is the "other" woman that deserves media attention for being boldly reluctant to let misconception and misrepresentation control this country any longer. The manifestation of Erica Huckabee as a woman is not what should be the focus of voters, but the desire to address the issues Californians see as important for the desired "change" to improve Washington.

The former Governor divulges, the now famous decree of popular sympathies and realities, that "people are beginning to stop looking to the left and the right for solutions, and are starting to look up for who’s going to uplift America, looking for who’s going to uplift them."

The Few, The Feud: TV Broadcasting Companies Battle in SOC 118

By Miranda Faber, Editor


The recent merger between NBC and CNN news networks has brought forth an interesting and difficult dynamic between the 118 broadcasting organizations. Because NBC and CNN have joined forces, the competition has become increasingly heated between the self proclaimed “America’s News Leader” and Fox, who pride themselves on “Fair and Balanced” reporting. Perhaps the most prominent reason the battle between the broadcasting companies has reached such heights stems from their longstanding alleged political biases. Fox news has notoriously been claimed to promote stories and vantage points that prefer conservative morale, while NBC has long been said to provide coverage that favors left wing political stances. Tensions arose between the two organizations after last Thursday’s in class presentation of “Meet The Press,” hosted by NBC.



My fellow staffers from the Times and I found it extremely odd following the entertaining broadcast hosted by NBC’s anchor, Fabian Gonzalez, that Kristin Cook, reporter from Fox, had not appeared on the show. What struck our attention was her prompt arrival to the set that day, dressed to impress and quite clearly expecting to participate in the day’s debates and news presentation. However, Miss Cook did not appear on the show, and instead made an informal announcement to the audience following “Meet The Press,” encouraging members of the press and campaign teams to stay up to speed via the Fox News website and reminding her audience that Fox was indeed still a viable and reliable news source, though they did not participate in the edition of “Meet The Press.”



Although viewers seemed baffled by this plea for recognition and entirely confused as to why the Fox reporter did not appear on the television show, most seemed to think little of the situation and moved on to work on individual campaign projects and reporting. This was not the case, nor the reaction, of the Fox news team who seemed deeply frustrated by their lack of participation. After speaking to Ms. Cook and Terra Rossetto, Producer and fellow Reporter from Fox, it was easy to see why. In a personal interview Thursday, I spoke to the two Fox correspondents to gain insight as to the unraveling feud between their own broadcast network and NBC. Ms. Cook explained to me that she had personally spoken with delegates from the NBC/CNN team on Tuesday, asking “what to focus on…and what to reference” in the upcoming show. She was told “We’re going to cover all sides of the spectrum” by one of the reporters, and was given no indication that she would not be included in the upcoming discussion and reporting. And so, with this information and advice, Ms. Cook came prepared to provide information on the current status of the Preliminary Election, with specific info on “Super Tuesday, which wasn’t even covered” according to Ms. Cook during our interview. She was extremely disappointed that she was unable to inform viewers of the implications of the election which will tell the outcome of more than 20 states and is only 13 days away. “I was frustrated by it all,” said Cook who continued by adding “I was very, very prepared. I had a wealth of info.” According to Cook, the anchor informed her just prior to the show airing that they were not planning on including her, and Ms. Cook was forced to sit as an audience member of the live show.



However, according to NBC anchor Fabian Gonzalez, who hosted the first 118 edition of “Meet The Press,” he felt that Ms. Cook had seemed misinformed, and that according to the tradition of “Meet The Press,” it was not typical for anyone other than print media sources to be present. Gonzalez, alongside Timothy Jue, the field producer for NBC, claimed that he felt badly for the miscommunication, and offered Ms. Cook a spot after seeing that she had put ample preparation into the upcoming show. He informed me during an interview Tuesday “I said come on, sit down, we’ll grab a chair.” He said he distinctly remembered offering this invitation as the representative from Davis Enterprise was late to appear and had failed to respond via e-mail regarding their potential spot on the show. According to Mr. Gonzalez, Cook’s response was anything but appreciative, claming that the Fox reporter told him “If I don’t have to be on camera I don’t want to,” which seems hard to believe given Ms. Cook’s vehemence regarding the situation and the interview I conducted with her Tuesday.



While it is unlikely we will ever know what truly went on between the two networks, one thing is sure, the battle of the broadcasters has officially begun.

Image vs. The Message: John Edward's Ascent

By Loren Shimanek

Opinion Editor

The ad campaign, thus far, has been an assault on the senses with a lack of definitive resolution placed on the issues at hand. However, the reason why print and television ads are effective is due to the immediate scope of a candidate's image for public digestion. If ads were to be the "end-all" in campaigning, there would be less cautionary negotiation of text and more blatant image rendering. For example, mini press conferences that last a minute or so with visual aids where entire policies are written out and discussed at full length by the candidate. The issues, fortunately, are generously addressed and exposed in open forum situations, but it's the short information bits in the form of ads, that people attach to their general notion of a candidate's worth. In the most recent Edwards television ad, the former Senator triumphantly acknowledged his values not only as a statesman but also as a family man. His image is important because he is not as well-publicized than his fellow candidates; the effort Edwards asserts shows he is equally, if not more, concerned with image. Ultimately, this effort illustrates his awareness of voters' low attention span and sensory overload. In fact, in a Meet the Press show last week, a journalist attacked the Edwards campaign for being glitzy, or as I referenced the Kylie Minogue backed ad, "Edwards all up in the club." That type of reference, while discouraging on first encounter, actually ties in the post-modernist perspective that accompanies short, inadequate bursts of information: information which may be perceived as light hearted and delightful is compounded by individual experience based on numerous perceptions. Perceptions of what type of image a President may encompass. The liberating vibe of a dance floor song with nicely paced footage creates multiple sensations for each individual voter every time the ad is viewed. The process of interaction becomes more profound with real-life assessments of Edwards character or image.

Now... using the debate from the night before where Hilary and Barack engaged in a scandalous tit-for-tat about linguistic shortcomings, and the next day's many polls and media reports declaring that Edwards was the decisive victor... Edwards' image is rejuvenated. Of course not without being slightly marred by the other two candidates, who tend to grovel and wallow in each others' inadequacies. Edwards emerges confident and experienced. He realizes that he should not be involved in political spats of image when he is so far behind in delegates. Also, his mature stature amongst the other candidates shows his influential capabilities if given a fair opportunity to couple his image with a credible dissertation of issues. This coupling of image and message points to how convoluted ads, the media, and each social relation becomes when realistic provisions, such as a debate, allow for cognitive grounding. Back to the ads...

The Obama and Clinton ads were very self-aware in a different way than Edwards'. They knew that voters knew them; that the voters already had substantial information about who they were as candidates. The overarching message distinctive in Edwards' ad was that he wanted to get to know you. He may be the candidate that can fully embrace the "me" generation by telling a bit about himself so you can relate... the war, the economy, the issues that real people, not corporate lawyers or wishy-washy lobbyists, but real people, with real self-images, that want to share themselves with someone who cares. That someone is John Edwards or Ron Paul, if you're 20, and you've gotten a good laugh out of believing in the post-modernist dream. Until the libertarians rule the world by enslaving a continent like they once did in the 19th century, or do now, we shall all be wise to get behind someone who thinks free trade means expensive costs and big business means big government. John Edwards with image and message in tow will possibly be the best Democratic candidate, but only once people start looking with their ears and listening with their eyes.

McCain Focuses on Big Issues and the California Primary

By Loren Shimanek

In an exclusive interview with John McCain, the Senator discusses the issues of the faltering economy and stability in Iraq. McCain provided clarification of issues he hopes will strengthen his position in the Republican party nomination race that has so far produced three different winners in three different states. The loss yesterday in Michigan may be a setback for the Senator, but McCain’s focus on the California primary is where his moderate political position could bolster a deciding presidential nomination.
Suffering the loss to an absent candidate would discourage some, but not war time veteran and political moderate Senator John McCain. Instead, the loss to the former candidate, Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary serves as a wake-up call to McCain, who fared well with over 30 percent of the vote compared to Romney’s 40 percent. Romney campaigned so heavily in Michigan that despite dropping out of the race a wave of voter confusion ensued, as the majority voted for a candidate no longer in the race. Senator McCain, however, has put more stock in the primaries of South Carolina and Nevada that occur this weekend. The coming weekend’s primaries will undoubtedly give the Republican party a confident leader to support, and John McCain feels confident about being the Republican representative, despite polls that indicate a much closer race. When asked about the influence and consistency of polls, McCain declared “Americans are too smart to rely on polls and will vote with their heart and mind.” Votes, the Senator hopes, that are determined by issues important to Californians.
In an exclusive interview Tuesday, Senator McCain discussed his position on issues that matter for the California primaries. When asked about his stance on lowering emission requirements on sport utility vehicles, an agenda recently aligned with the California consciousness, McCain, who hoped his pro-automotive industry policies would be a boost with the Michigan voters, said “concern of emissions are a small point” in the global warming debate, and insisted that “dependency on oil should be replaced by alternative energy sources.” McCain also voiced concern that policy, economic or otherwise, should affect “all citizens, not just individuals” or single states. Regardless, Senator McCain sees conservative Democrats in California as an opportunity to pull votes away from his Democratic rivals which gives him an edge in the Republican bid for the 173 delegates in the state. McCain’s moderate stance, as he describes it, is to “make bridges between the parties” which has proved a constant problem during the Bush administration.

McCain is not afraid to ruffle the feathers of fellow Republicans when discussing economic policy. While maintaining the promise President Bush made to entrepreneurs that they should not be “taxed into submission” Senator McCain sees not only the benefit to the American public of lower taxes, but an ethical obligation based on “another man’s word.” Unlike other Republican candidates Senator McCain will cut taxes for the middle class and maintain a tax structure that is “more fair” in a global market. The global market is where “money can be brought to domestic economy through lower costs,” and companies being able to traverse manufacturing capabilities. Also, domestic jobs will be “created through innovation in the war effort” as corporations will need workers in the new market, said the Senator. The new market will be accomplished through a “strategic plan for Iraq.” Ultimately, according to the Senator, the income disparity in the country and the troubled economy is the top priority along with stabilization and infrastructure building in Iraq.

The Great Economic Divide (and Conquer)

By Loren Shimanek

Opinion Editor


The war in Iraq, immigration, health care, social security, and ubiquitous “change” were cornerstones of the 2008 Presidential Primaries but are quickly losing ground to income disparity, the housing crisis, and the overwhelming consensus that a recession is looming. The economy is in disarray according to most polls and the candidate swinging the sharpest policy ax could possible walk away with their party’s nomination, as well as the presidency.

The only outspoken economic propagandist that seems to make sense, both fundamentally and rhetorically, is Senator John Edwards. His pro-union and anti-big business stance coupled with his moderate working class image may become the benchmark others have been avoiding due to the prevalence of equally serious issues. However, as a dimming flicker in the Democratic primary race, Edwards will go silently and possibly re-emerge, once again, as a running mate for vice president. A strong economic spokesman would be great for the Democrats, but difficult on Edward’s bruised ego which earlier this week was afflicted by John Kerry’s personal endorsement of Barack Obama. Senator Edwards seemed to take the news quite well saying he “stands by Kerry,“ and that there was a “surplus of qualified individuals” among the candidates present at the 2008 118 announcements that faired less capable of tackling the issues, especially the economy.

Edwards’ fellow Democrats were enlightened and verbal about what type of “change” they could bring to the country. Senator Hilary Clinton executed impeccable correspondence during the Thursday’s conference, and candidly remarked “We are not the Bush family,” after being confronted her campaign being aligned to the Bush family’s administration as a so-called dynasty. Senator Clinton added “I have learned from Bill’s mistakes” which garnered a roar of laughter from the crowd of attendees. Sen. Clinton did address how to remedy the housing crisis, but failed to fully embrace the middle class who is suffering from greater economic disparity. The Senator from New York did, however, perform much more confidently than Obama.

Obama tiptoed around major issues while paying lip service to the American vote. The economic issue was not of priority. What was a priority was bringing the troops home, energy dependence, health care, and higher education costs. Obama’s rise to the political elite from a relatively disadvantaged background aids the “American opportunity” argument, but how can even the most impoverished American find refuge when the “affluent” middle-class feels the economic crunch? At least there was some concern for Americans from the Obama camp, as well as the Democrats, but the Republicans offered little more than a resume of previous achievements.
McCain used his veteran status and Giuliani used the narrow scope of New York City as backdrops for what they can offer the country. Meanwhile Erica Huckabee changed her rigid Republican stance as she asked Americans to not “look to the right or to the left, but up” signaling a grievance with the Christian right as she headed for a more moderate if not a complete liberal ideological turnaround. And, finally, Ron Paul amused and bewildered the attendees and fellow candidates as he sauntered through a repertoire of nonsense and finger pointing. None of the Republicans showed much concern for the economy or the fact that they are running for their party’s nomination.

Not to discourage Americans in the shadow of near economic meltdown, but the future looks a bit uneasy when considering the prospects, albeit Edwards surefire economic will. The Exxon Valdez had a more apt captain than what the United States may end up with as head of doomed vessel.

"I Wont Be Engaging In This Silliness"

As Senator Barack Obama campaigned in northern Nevada earlier today he stated he was concerned that a heated discussion of racial issues in the presidential campaign could divide the Democratic Party.

“I don’t want the campaign at this stage to degenerate into so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why all of us are doing this,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference.

“We’ve got too much at stake at this time in our history to be engaging in this kind of silliness. I expect that other campaigns feel the same way.”

Obama was seeking to be seen as taking the high road in the ongoing feud between his campaign and that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. After speaking to hundreds of Nevada voters at a rally, Obama urged Democratic voters not to become embroiled in racially-charged or motivated discussions.

On a day that initially was devoted to speaking about the economy, he held a nine-minute news conference. Before taking questions, Obama mentioned his rivals by name and praised them.

“I think that I may disagree with Senator Clinton or Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We’re all Democrats,” Mr. Obama said. “We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. We all believe that regardless of race or gender that people should have equal opportunities.” He continued, saying: “They are good people, they are patriots. They are running because they think that they can move this country to a better place.”

This came about after a comment by Senator Clinton was made that was interpreted by some as giving President Johnson more credit than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for winning changes in civil rights laws. The comment disturbed African-Americans who saw it as unfair and diminished the role of civil rights activists.

News conferences are a rarity for Obama. The last formal one – with chairs for reporters and a flag backdrop for him – was a month ago in Iowa. It was not immediately clear why he called one today, except to be seen as taking the high road heading into a key debate in Nevada on Tuesday with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards.

Campaign Announcements 01/10/08

This Thursday, January 10th campaign announcements are going to take place in SOC 118. At that time, we will meet the candidates and also be able to ask a few questions.

Details from that event will be posted shortly after so check back for the latest news.