I was browsing the Web, when I ran across a neat mini-series called Purple States. The series is run by the New York Times, and it documents the stories of five everyday Americans as they criss-cross the country covering the 2008 primary season. Each of the series’ subjects represent a key primary state (Iowa, Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and California), and, more importantly, each subject portrays a different facet of American society.

  During each episode — which is no longer than ten minutes — two or three of the Purple State subjects grapple with an issue that is both directly affecting their lives and currently being debated by the 2008 presidential candidates. I will warn you; the series is a bit out-dated, being  that the majority of it was filmed throughout the weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire Primary. However, the topics of each episode and what the subjects have to say about them are still relevant.

  So, without further ado, here’s Purple States.

  In a blog I posted February 1st, I argued that Obama and Clinton must not settle for a VP position; for if they did, the Democratic Party would not reach the “pinnacle of its political potential.” Instead, I suggested that either Clinton or Obama, depending on who wins their party’s nomination, take a cabinet position, while the former senator from North Carolina and former Democratic presidential candidtate, John Edwards, fills the role of VP.  

  Now, I still stand by this strategy; however, after reading Dan Streib’s column in today’s DI, a gap in its logic has became apparent to me: How do you rally Obama’s supporters (moderate Democrats and independents) and Clinton’s supporters (traditional Democrats) under a single candidate? The answer is simple: the losing candidate must campaign on the winning candidate’s behalf.

  Although John Edwards’ southern charm and good looks may win over some apprehensive voters, they simply do not compensate for the experience Clinton’s Democrats are looking for, nor do they make up for Obama’s fiery rhetoric and inspiring persona. Thus, in order for the Democratic ticket to be seamless, either Obama or Clinton must stand firmly by their party’s choice for the president. Then, once January ‘09 rolls around, they can assume the cabinet position they rightfully deserve.

I partially buy into the kingmaker argument. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards waiting until the democratic convention in August to support Clinton or Obama, and thus, determining the nomination.

But what I don’t buy into is that he’s going to wait until August. After an essential split of the Super Tuesday states, the upcoming contests favor Obama since they’re caucuses (cauci?)  6 days from now is Chesapeake Tuesday with Virginia, Maryland and D.C. up for grabs. I think the beltway goes for Obama. So where does that leave Clinton?

Wisconsin on Feb. 19. and then Ohio and Texas on Mar. 4th. Obama’s Chicago strength will be felt in Wisconsin and Hillary has been polling strongly in Ohio. Texas is a wild card but I would be willing to bet there would be a stronger anti-Hillary sentiment among state democrats in one of redder states in the union.

But Ohio, which has a lot of blue-collar workers, will be huge, HUGE for Clinton. But what better state can one of the most pro-union politicians in this country be a factor? I think Edwards endorses Obama before Ohio and blunts whatever victory Clinton has there.

I don’t think he CAN wait for the convention to be kingmaker, he’s got to make his move now.

Also, another senator likely to be a factor in the coming weeks is Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold. Obama has Wis. Gov. Jim Doyle backing him already. Feingold is a darling of the left, and he may be too far left to actually endorse Hillary Clinton. Add in strength in neighboring Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri and Obama’s chances look extremely good.

I said it earlier before Iowa and New Hampshire, I think Obama and McCain will be the nominees. McCain is going to come true. I think Clinton is in serious trouble and Edwards and possibly Feingold will put Obama over the top within the next few weeks.

This column, written by New York Times op-ed columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof, argues against the claim that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to become our next president. I would have written on this topic myself, but Kristof’s words exemplify my opinion perfectly. I especially enjoy his ability to extract historical evidence and make it relevant to the reader — journalism at its finest!

Ever since John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race for the presidency, there has been a lot of talk concerning an Obama-Clinton “Dream Team.” Pundits and laymen alike are championing a 2008 general election where Clinton and Obama, depending on who win’s their party’s nomination, assume the position of vice-president.

  Although this may sound fine and dandy at the moment, don’t get ahead of yourselves. The vice-presidency is primarily a symbolic position that is used to balance a ticket and solidify a campaign’s platform. But once a campaign is over, the vice-president is constitutionally incarcerated and forced into perfroming lack-luster responsibilities.

  These responsibilities include:

-acting as the head of the Senate
   -not engaging in debate while acting as the head of the Senate
   -monitoring Nancy Pelosi’s blinking during the president’s State of the Union Address
   -casting a vote in case of a 50/50 tie on the Senate floor
   -and succeedinng the president in case of his or her unwarranted death

By constitutionally marginalizing either Obama or Clinton, the Democratic Party will never reach the pinnacle of its political potential. Instead of placing either of these political titans in the idle position of vice-president, the most effective Democratic strategy would be to have John Edwards play the role of vice-president, and to have either Obama or Clinton take a cabinet position, preferably in the State Department.

  With this ticket, the Democratic Party can appropriately harness the political tenacity of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In turn, John Edwards’s handsome looks and southern appeal will soften the Democratic ticket and win over voters who are still apprehensive about changing the status-quo.

  “Oh, no! That was on today!” Those were my initial thoughts after realizing I had missed Bush’s final State of the Union Address yesterday. How careless of me to put my political savvy in jeopardy. Instead of taking an hour out of my hectic schedule, I chose to delegate my responsibilities elsewhere. In doing so, I doomed myself to journalism hell — biased CNN recaps and the text version of Bush’s address.

  Call me fickle, but it appears that I have grown tired of Bush. His abandonment of Congress, incessant lies, and terrible Texan accent, have finally rubbed me the wrong way. And based on the lack of media coverage concerning his administration and the unusually high Democratic turnout rates at the voting polls, it appears that I’m not the only one fed up. Even Bush himself has acknowledged his waning presence in the public eye, forcing him to wildly parallel Iran’s nuclear program with WWIII during a press conference this past October.

  Although Bush’s lame-duck status appears to have finally caught up with him, we as Americans still have the responsibility to monitor our commander-in-chief’s actions, especially when they concern the wellbeing of another country (hint, hint Iraq). So, whether we like it or not, Bush is still our president for another eleven months; and until then, we must — no matter how hard it may be — refrain from putting the cart (Obama, Clinton, McCain) before the horse (Bush).  

After her devastating defeat to Barack Obama this past Saturday, it is justifiable to assume that Hillary Clinton would be upset. But like all good politicians know, it is never appropriate to let your anger get the best of you. Why, then, did a politician as polished as Hillary Clinton do just that? Instead of gracefully returning to her campaign headquarters to deliver a speech to her supporters, Clinton rocketed out of South Carolina on a one way flight to Nashville. 

  Have she any decency? In spite of her numerous blunders leading up to the South Carolina primary (the “slum-lord” remark and Bill’s incessant bullying), Clinton still had the opportunity to play nice with her fellow Americans. For example, in order to regain the respect of South Carolinians, all Clinton had to do was say something along the lines of: “Although you overwhelmingly voted for my opponent, I still respect your willingness to turn out to the polls today and vote.” Instead, however, she turned her back on them. 

  American politics is a tricky game, and it has the potential to lead candidates astray from the leading reason behind their running for office: the American people. By quickly shoving the people of South Carolina aside and reverting her attention elsewhere (i.e. Florida — a state who’s delegates don’t even count!), Clinton is proving to voters that the game of politics takes precedence over their wellbeing. Don’t the people of South Carolina deserve the same respect as the people of Florida? Apparently not.  

 As I was wathcing yesterday’s Democaratic debates, attempting to keep my attention from going wayward, this simple question, echoed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, brought me to my senses: “If Dr. King were alive today, why would he endorse you?” Almost immediately, I scratched my head, attempting to rationalize the wrong that had just been done. Only after reassuring my roomate that, yes, he was snoring loudly, was I given the opportunity to ponder the enormity of Wolf Blitzer’s question.

  It is potentially dangerous to take a historical figure, like Dr. King, out of his or her historical context. In order to understand the true intentions of a deceased individual, meticulous research must be done. Personal letters, diary entries, public speeches and statistics all must be reviewed. But within the fray of a political debate, none of these resources are available. Thus, by putting into question Dr. King’s political persuasions, CNN and the Congressional Black Causus Institute were establishing a forum in which a lack of evidence could have potentially undermined Dr. King’s legacy.  

  Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that King’s message of civil equality is far greater than the forum it was placed into. Furthermore, to coincide this message with partisan politics seems petty and exploitative. Essentially, a debate’s intention is to allow various individuals the opportunity to showcase their personal talents so as to set themselves apart from their opponents. Naturally, then, it is right to assume that within a debate setting, personal embelishment is likely to occur. King’s ideas were not based on selfish premises, however. Instead, they were selfless, and were meant to inspire large groups of people to unite, rather than divide. Thus, the coincidence of Martin Luther King and a debate is fundamentally oxymoronic.

  History is a touchy subject. To impose your bias onto historical figures, like CNN had attempted to do yesterday, disregards the sovereignty of that figure’s legacy and, more importantly, can potentially ill inform our already capricious society. I do concede, however, that there is a lot of relevancy to past, and that this relevancy can be brought into a modern context. But please keep in mind that historical extraction not only effects the present moment but has the potential to drastically alter the fabric of our collective past.

Animaniacs-Presidents video

I admit it, I love cartoons. I even go down to the workout room just to watch Spongebob.
One of my favorites shows as a kid was Warner Brother’s Animaniacs. Not only did Yacko, Wacko, and Dot entertain, but they offered a variety of cultural and political satire during the early 90s. Sometimes they even presented a few history lessons. The Animaniacs’ Presidents song provides a silly review of our country’s past presidents with an ending that should be especially amusing to anyone involved in the media.

U.S. News and World Report’s “Paper Trail” blog is holding its second annual “Best of College Newspapers” contest. Completely unscientific and arbitrary sure, but a good overview of the most notable developments across America’s higher education community.

The Chief Illiniwek mess is nominated for “Nonstory of the Year” AKA “2007’s Most Asinine News,” along with five other stories that mattered so much to so few (across the country, that is).

However, a bright spot. Sujay Kumar, local columnist and all-around good guy is nominated for Columnist of the Year for his “Should you be voting for Chuck Norris or Oprah Winfrey?” column published right before winter break.

Good luck Sujay!