Obama Vs. Oil

We’re all saying it. “I never thought I’d see the day when gas would go below 2 dollars.” “I just filled up my tank for 18 bucks.” Yes, it appears as though the 5-dollar a gallon prices have surpassed, at least for now. And we should all breath a sign of relief that the economic crisis has also forced oil prices to lower, which subsequently means less money for terrorist organizations. Hopefully though, the mentality created by expensive gas prices over the summer will not diminish. That people will not leave public transportation or the carpool lane and hop back into their Hummers. And yet, this is exactly what the most powerful businesses in the world would like to happen, but not if Obama has any say. Come January 20th we will begin to witness the clash of titans, as the powerful oil companies will, for arguably the first time, find a foe and not a friend in the Oval Office.

When you look at the past 100 years, oil has always been a factor in important decision-making. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after WWI the Middle East was broken up and given to Western nations based off the location of oil fields. Soon, revolutions for independence would end complete Western control of these countries, but not Western dependency.

After the gas shortages of the 1970s, Americans foolishly ignored the wake-up call and would continue their complete energy reliance on an unstable Middle East. Since then, in complete disregard for the interests of people living in the region, we have invested billions into oil, through war and the creation of large military bases.

In the past eight years, President Dick Cheney… I mean President George W. Bush has been arguably the most pro-oil President the United States has ever witnessed. In addition to the Iraq war, policies such as tax breaks for both consumers and producers of cars that weigh over 6000 pounds have helped to encourage oil consumption. And we wonder why America’s three largest automobile companies have yet to spend money in research and construction on more energy efficient transportation. Thankfully though, Bush is on his way out and hopefully taking some oil lobbyists with him.

However, oil companies continue to be the richest organizations in the US and surely will not go down without a fight. As the recent third-quarter profits saw red-figures for almost all major corporations, Exxon Mobile posted record profits of 14.83 billion dollars. In an attempt to stay on top, gas prices have lowered, but it is surely not the final tactic to encourage American consumption.

Have we finally learned our lesson? Will we be able to give up the Ford F350, which has become a symbol of Americana? Lets hope so. And lets hope that a President Obama will be the first to win the battle against the almighty oil.

Choose Your Lameness

With news of more economic disaster it seems as though January 20th cannot come soon enough. President-elect Obama will already have his hands full come inauguration day, but things could, and probably will, get much worse over the holiday season. In such times of crisis it seems imperative to replace public officials as soon as possible after Election Day. Lincoln, for example, had to wait until March to enter the White House, as President Buchanan sat back and watched the country break apart before entering a Civil War. The problem was solved in 1933 after FDR was forced to wait until March as the nation suffered through the Great Depression. The passage of the 20th Amendment to the United States Constitution served as the solution, which among other items, made the start of the newly elected President’s term on January 20th instead of March. However, in such crucial times, is this date still too far away from the first tuesday in November?

In many cases, Presidents choose to spend the lame-duck session building foreign relations and solidifying their legacy. President Reagan, for example, met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and helped to bring a final end to the Cold War. President Bush is currently meeting with Asian leaders this weekend in Peru, however this is surely a different time and a different President. Foreign leaders of the world have lost most, if not all, respect for the President Bush and are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to communicate with an Obama Administration.

President Bush could also take the route of many other Presidents and issue pardons. His father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, pardoned former staffers involved in the Iran-Contra affair. The current President surely has some felon friends that would appreciate this get out of jail free card. Maybe Senator Stevens will be one of the few to be granted an early Christmas present. It’s not as though Bush has to worry about his reputation as his approval ratings are already below that of President Nixon before he left office.

In this case, the ideal role for Bush is a difficult one. Almost everything he has done these past eight years, from the Hurricane Katrina response to the Iraq War, has lead our country down a horrific path. Yet times are increasingly scary in the US and it would be reassuring to have a President that said or did something. Thankfully, I don’t see President Bush attempting to make Obama’s transition more difficult by issuing thousands of pages of new regulations. Ideally, I would like Bush to leave the White House with the same personable and jokester attitude that helped get him elected. Chances are he’ll take some prankster inspiration from President Clinton, who removed all of the “W”s from White House computers. Here’s a suggestion, leave Obama piles of spare “change” around the oval office.

A Spot on Mount Rushmore

About a month ago I drew comparisons between the 2008 Presidential election and the 1932 contest between Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Thankfully, I was accurate in my prediction that history would repeat itself as the United States witnessed a new political party shift and a significant change in direction. Additionally, the economic crisis has already made the 32nd and 44th Presidencies comparable and I believe Obama will carry out his term in office similarly, and along with FDR, become one of the Greats.

Polls indicate that the Reagan days of limited government are gone, at least for now, and Americans are ready for larger federal involvement. Similar to “change,” FDR ran on a message of a “new deal,” for the American people. During his first 100 days in office, FDR was easily able to pass numerous bills through Congress. Obama will have a supportive Democratic majority in Congress and will also have this opportunity to be immediately effective.

The current economic crisis on Wall Street is familiar for those Americans who witnessed the fall in 1929. However, there was no 700 billion dollar bailout in 1932 like our government has approved, but rather the creation of numerous social programs. With 700 billion of taxpayers’ dollars being handed over to the nation’s wealthiest banks, how can one make the argument that all Americans shouldn’t have access to affordable health care or quality education?

FDR’s creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps is also similar to Obama’s policy to double the Peace Corps and reward those that take part in other forms of civic duty.

FDR made initial cuts to defense, although this would change drastically at the start of WWII. In comparison, an Obama Presidency will bring a close to the War in Iraq and the waste of billions of dollars.

Through the Yalta conference, FDR helped establish a new post war world and lasting foreign relations. Obama has already seen immense support from foreign officials who are eager to work with new leadership in the United States.

In the 1930s government began to play a larger role in the lives of Americans. Therefore, FDR created fireside chats to present his proposals directly to the American people through the radio. Obama has already taken advantage of the technological advances in communication, text messaging supporters important decisions such as his choice of Senator Biden for the Vice-President position. In addition, Obama has promised to make available on the Internet all of the bills that pass through his office. The transparent government of the 1930s is surely something the American people have indicated they would like to return to.

Unlike FDR, Obama faces an energy crisis. Fortunately though, Dick Cheney and other oil lobbyist no longer have the power to gage wars and policies that benefit them directly, such as tax breaks for the purchase of Hummers and vehicles that weigh over 6000 pounds. Obama will further use the energy crisis to revitalize the economy and make the United States serve as an environmental example to the world.

I now wish there were not Presidential term limits. I realize that my complete faith in our future President could be perceived as naïve, but these is a crucial time for our country. “All we have to fear is fear itself,” is just as relevant today as it was 75 years ago, and I expect an equally inspiring message from President Obama on January 20th. My prediction is we will rise to greatness again though, partly because we have no where else to go but up and because we have a great leader to take us there. Sorry FDR, but I think he might even surpass you, and in 50 years they will be carving out a new spot next to your cousin on Mount Rushmore.

Tradition vs. Equality

On November 4th California voters will decide to either respect the privacy of Portia and Ellen’s relationship or to force equality back in the closet. If approved, Proposition 8 would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, and overturn the June 2008 Supreme Court decision that declared the ban unconstitutional. Proponents of Prop 8 argue for a defense of “traditional marriage;” yet fail to realize that while traditions evolve, notions of equality are unchanged.

Not long ago, heterosexual couples fought to obtain civil marriage equality. In 1948 California became the first state to declare a ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional, 19 years before the Federal government would overturn every state interracial marriage ban and insist the “freedom to marry” belongs to all citizens. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate a majority of minorities oppose Prop 8, likely because they have a clearer understanding of marital discrimination.

With millions of dollars being spent to protect marital tradition it raises the question, why limit the cause by solely focusing homosexuality? Marriages’ most visible enemy, divorce, destroys roughly 2/3 of Californian couples and should be made illegal. Another traditional marriage perpetrator, adultery, is also too common and should be made punishable by forcing those convicted to display the letter “A,” at all times. Mandating marriage for couples that choose to engage in sexual reproduction (a Bristol Palin doctrine) would further help to regulate tradition.

Homosexuality has been documented in some of the earliest civilizations, including ancient Rome and Japan, yet marital customs mostly stem from religion. Many of these traditional marriage values originate from the Bible, in which women were viewed as property of their husbands. Why not put this decision regarding the ownership of wives to the electorate?

California recognizes the Constitutional separation of church and state, yet marriage poses a problem as it inherently combines the two. However, marriage does not require a religious ceremony, rather a quick trip to City Hall to sign legal documents or an even quicker Vegas drive-thru is sufficient.

Religious organizations main argument is that under the law they will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages. Such claims are untrue in the same way that a priest is not required to recognize a Muslim ceremony under the Catholic Church. Moreover, it is worth noting that Prop 8 is compelling religious institutions to encourage promiscuity over love and commitment.

Many states have found legal compromise in the creation of civil unions but why the need for a different legal category. Should such classification extend to other nontraditional engagements? Perhaps those that choose to marry an illegal alien, thus granting citizenship, should fill out a special marriage-B license. Then again, as the Connecticut Supreme Court recently reminded us, this country has already overturned the notion of separate but equal.In his majority opinion legalizing same-sex marriages, Justice Richard Palmer wrote that the court found the

"segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," in light of "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody."

In a political scare tactic, proponents of Prop 8 are suggesting the possible ramifications of legalizing same-sex marriage. One advertisement is truly a conservatives’ nightmare as it depicts a child suggesting the book “King and King” for his bedtime story. Additionally, in a series of blatant fabrications, proponents insist that schools will be forced to teach same-sex marriage. Curriculum though is controlled on the local level and is the same reason intelligent design is only taught in selected school districts.

As same-sex adoption rates continue to rise, marriage should parallel the evolution of the family structure. Children are already exposed to peers with same-sex parents and will be confused to learn that certain individuals are not “created equal” and granted such basic rights as marriage.

Traditions are subjective and continually changing. In contrast, as the California Supreme Court declared, equality is always protected under the Constitution. The passage of Prop 8 is truly a step backwards for society and the gay-rights movement. By voting for tradition as oppose to equality, there will be a lasting detrimental effect further encouraging homophobic discrimination for countless Californians.

Subtle Racism in Political Campaign Messages

The United States is rooted in a belief of discrimination and racial inferiority. Initially, it was the Founding Fathers who upheld such inequality by drafting a Constitution which accepted slavery, ensuring southern states that non-free persons would count as 3/5 of a person in order to compromise Congressional representation. It would take a bloody Civil War, several Supreme Court decisions, and a movement lead by a reverend from Atlanta, Georgia before African Americans would be granted equal voting rights. In the years following the Civil Rights Movement and the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits federal or state government from infringing on a citizen’s right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” racism continued to permeate American government and politics. Countless politicians were elected despite blatant discriminatory views, such as bans on interracial marriage. Eventually, these ideals would become socially unacceptable, in most elections, as the United States entered an era of egalitarian thought.

Racism would not be eradicated though, as public opinion would suggest, rather it would be revealed in the privacy of the voting booth. One victim of such deception was former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, both pre-election and exit polls had Bradley heavily favored in the California gubernatorial race. Bradley, an African American, would lose the election to his white opponent George Deukmejian. Following the results, Deukmejian’s campaign manager commented on the inaccuracy of the polls, stating “if people are going to vote that way, they certainly are not going to announce it for a survey taker.” The “Bradley Effect,” as political scientists would coin it, would go on to plague numerous African American politicians such as Harold Washington, Douglas Wilder, and David Dinkins. Author Daniel Hopkins discusses the “Bradley Effect” in his 2008 Harvard study, and while he concludes that it no longer exists, he does acknowledge that before 1996 African Americans running for office performed approximately 2.7 points worse than polling numbers. Although the public would no longer tolerate explicit racism, anti-black sentiments clearly continued, and politicians began to capitalize through more subtle means. Thus, modern politics has created a paradox in which African American candidates avoid policy discussions with racial undertones while white politicians implement implicit racial messages as a means to influence the electorate.

Political campaigns appeal to racial beliefs through either explicit or implicit messages. Explicit messages make blatant racial claims using such words as “black,” or “race.” In the past, white politicians’ strategy when facing a black opponent was to link unfavorable policies explicitly to African American citizens. Between 1940 and 1970, these prejudice policies directly targeted blacks, such as measures against racial integration in marriage, housing, and the workplace. In 1942, 68 percent of whites favored school segregation yet in 1995 only 4 percent responded similarly (Schuman et al. 1997). As society progressed and anti-discriminatory laws were passed, politicians shifted away from explicitly racial messages. As Gregory Huber notes in his article “The Race Card Revisited,” “even those who hold negative views of blacks consciously resist explicit appeals by instead embracing a widely held egalitarian antiracist ideal that is stronger than the racist counterpart.” Thus, white politicians would have to be subtler in their messages. The Willie Horton advertisement from the 1988 Presidential election exemplifies such implicit attempts at appealing to anti-black views. The portrayed an African American convicted felon who was serving a life-sentence. It then describes how Horton was released on a weekend furlough program and committed an additional robbery and rape. The program was supported by Massachusetts Governor and Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis, and was the critical blow to his candidacy.

Political scientist Mendelberg outlined the four fundamental goals of racial cues in campaign messages. First, the cues needed to appeal to white Americans’ internal conflict between the concept of egalitarianism and resentment towards minorities for lacking hard work and individualism. Second, racial cues must create a memory, which is readily employed during political decision-making. Thirdly, the content must not be explicit and lastly, the audience must not recognize the racial cues. Racial cues can either be verbal, for example, continually citing the term “inner-city” as a means to invoke images of African Americans, or visual, such as a political advertisement discussing illegal immigration while flashing images of Mexican immigrants. Racial messages prove more successful in campaigns with strong racial attitudes. Such endorsements often prey on the negative minority stereotypes as well as white dissatisfaction with minority advancements. Both older whites, as well as uneducated voters are most susceptible to these anti-black implicit messages. These tactics often times increase voter turned in biracial elections by roughly 3 percentage points (Hopkins 2008).

When explicit campaign messages proved unsuccessful, white politicians began to portray African Americans through implicit racial cues as opponents of American values and tying them to controversial issues such as affirmative action, welfare, and crime.

White politicians have capitalized on the fact that traditional American values are in fact that of ‘white’ American values, therefore blackness itself is in violation. The 2008 election exemplifies such tactics, as Republicans made several attempts to portray African American and Democratic candidate Barack Obama as out of touch with traditional American values. Rumors of his ties to Muslim extremists were circulated in correlation with the advertisement of his middle name Hussein. In addition, Republicans have attempted to depict Obama as an elitist. Georgia Congressman Westmoreland even referring to the Senator as “uppity,” but would later issue an apology, claiming he was unaware of the term’s racial connotation. McCain also attacked Obama’s celebrity in a televised advertisement making comparisons to socialite Paris Hilton and pop star Britney Spears. Although none of these attacks had a severe affect on voters, the strategy of separating the Black candidate from traditional white American values continues.

Historically, “racialized” campaign messages have implicitly linked both African American citizens and politicians to welfare reform. In a 1999 publication titled Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy author Martin Giles notes that “By 1973, 75% of magazine pictures featured African Americans as the face of welfare, despite African Americans making up only 35% of welfare recipients.” Thus, politicians have used this stereotype to depict African Americans as opponents of individuality and dependent on government assistance. Giles uses the results of an experiment in which a welfare story was embedded in an 11-minute news clip. The clip was shown to two separate groups, one using a white woman in the welfare story and the other a black woman. The results showed that people were extremely accurate in recalling the race and gender of the black female recipient, thus confirming that the racial narrative incited implicit associations between blacks and welfare (Giles 1999). This image has continued well into the 1990s, yet has lessened since the passage of the welfare reform bill in 1996. Notably, Barack Obama has illustrated awareness of the racial sentiments and has spoke little on the subject of welfare reform. Nevertheless, John McCain has attempted to depict Obama as a reckless government spender.

Another racially charged policy issue is affirmative action. Just days before the 1996 Presidential election, Republican candidate Bob Dole traveled to California to announce his support for Proposition 209, a measure that would end state affirmative action programs. President Clinton later responded with a “mend it, don’t end it” approach to maintaining federal affirmative action programs (Petrow 2006). Obama has successfully avoided this subject matter in the 2008 election, as his position on the policy is not even listed on the issues section of his web site.

Another manipulative tactic implemented by politicians in elections is to pray on whites’ fear of the black man as a criminal. White voters often associate violence and criminal activity with minorities, specifically African Americans. Not coincidently, one adjective used by Republicans to describe Barack Obama is “dangerous.” Although this is most often in reference to Obama’s foreign policy views, it is no doubt a subtle attempt at evoking the subconscious belief that African Americans are violent. Obama has proved his awareness of these attempts though, and while several political pundits criticize him for not getting angrier, he realizes that such hostile emotions will only play into the “angry Blackman” stereotype. Even in the first Presidential debate, Obama remained mostly calm and not too aggressive with John McCain. White politicians, on the other hand, are not subject to such emotional restrictions. It is also no surprise that Obama’s most damaging attack was his link to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Sermons in which Wright angrily states "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme," were immediately damaging to the Obama campaign and he was forced to cut relations with his pastor of 20 years.

It is important to note racial messages are not solely exclusive to white politicians. In August of 2008, Democrat Steve Cohen faced a racial charged primary in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. Cohen, a white Jew, faced tough competition against African American Nikki Tinker in the states only black majority district. Tinker used implicit racial cues in several television advertisements. One ad showed several images of Klansmen and the other challenged the Jewish incumbent for “praying in our churches” (“Cohen Hangs on In TN-9 Dem Primary”).

While the 2008 Presidential campaign has exemplified racial cues to discourage support for African American candidate Barack Obama, it has yet to be determined if the messages will truly influence the electorate. However, a recent September 2008 poll, conducted by Associated Press/Yahoo, illustrates McCain might have made an impact. In questioning 2227 adults (1083 registered Democrats and 798 Republicans), the poll found that racist views might cause roughly 2.5 percent of Democrats to “turn away from Obama because of his race.” In addition, one-third of white Democrats cited a negative adjective describing blacks while roughly twenty-five percent felt “if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites.” Such results are surely noteworthy, considering the past two presidential elections have been decided by slight margins.

As the current Presidential election includes the first African American candidate it is uncertain whether the “Bradley Effect” will transcend national politics. Researcher Daniel Hopkins argues that we have seen the end of polling inaccuracy due to undisclosed racism. He basis his analysis off past elections and cites the welfare reform bill of 1996 as the end to erroneous polls. Conversely, there has never been an African America presidential candidate, thus the affect of racial cues in national campaigns is unknown.

The electorate has certainly evolved over the past fifty years and has become more accepting of African Americans. While few feel that blacks are inherently less intelligent many still hold the belief that they lack the motivation to succeed (Schuman et al. 1997). However, there are countless minorities who still face discrimination, including Latinos, Middle Easterners, and homosexuals. Will these groups face similar implicit messages when they begin running for federal positions, or has America progressed beyond personal attacks to focus more on issues and policies? Ultimately, the future of race and politics will rest on the 2008 Presidential election and the candidacy of Barack Obama.

Welcome To The Seventh Political Party System

Okay, so maybe the map is a little unrealistic, but after last night’s debate, I feel as though Obama is going to win big and ultimately, we will enter a new era of political parties. English Scholar James Bryce introduced the concept of the political party system in his 1888 book the American Commonwealth. Since then, political scientists have furthered Bryce’s original observations, noting the major election cycles that illustrated massive party realignment. Scientist’s agree on the dates of the First Party System, between 1792 and 1824, which put Alexander Hamilton’s Federalists against Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. The later periods become slightly more debatable, but many agree that the Fifth Party System, which began with FDR’s 1932 victory, ended in 1968 when Republicans began to dominate Southern politics. However, in the year 2008, it is my prediction that we will see an end to this era, and a Barack Obama Presidency will lead us into the Seventh Political Party System.

This is the first election since 1952 in which there is not an incumbent President or Vice-President on the ballot. Because of this, both candidacies have redefined aspects of their party platform.

With the numerous scandals and the dismal approval ratings of President Bush, the Republican Party has been in shambles. As John McCain emerged from the primaries as the nominee, many were still unenthusiastic about this “maverick” politician as he differed from Republican colleagues in areas such as climate change, stem-cell research, and campaign finance. Yet, the surprising addition of first-term Alaskan governor Sarah Palin to the ticket immediately re-energized the Republican base, if only for a short while. Now even conservative columnist are asking Sarah Palin to step down, such as Kathleen Parker of the National Review who states in a September 26 column:

“If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

So where does this leave the Republican Party? Sure, national defense was a top priority in the primaries, but with the recent economic crisis, they are now left with a candidate whose strongest issue is not one that over 50 percent of Americans feel is the most important. Furthermore, the social conservatism that defined Republicans in previous elections, such as views on abortion, gay-marriage, and climate change, have been put to the back burner due to the failing economy.

The Democrats too, made a decision to enter a new era of politics by choosing newcomer and African-American Barack Obama over the female veteran Hillary Clinton. Obama’s historic candidacy has put many southern Republican states in contention to turn blue. He currently leads by a slight margin in Virginia, a state that hasn’t voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964, and hasn’t even been a hard fought race for years. In addition to these Republican strongholds characterized under the six-party system, the financial crisis will also continue to affect the electorate in November. It remains the largest financial crisis our nation has faced since the Great Depression. Republican candidate McCain has frequently said that he is not strong on the economy and has proved this lack of knowledge in numerous speeches and in the first debate. His economic policies parallel lame duck President Bush, and he fails to even mention the middle class in most speeches or debates. Which is not surprising, with 7 houses and 12 cars, how can he appear relatable?

Obama and the Democrats have been running get out the vote drives for over a year now and the Democratic primaries showed significantly higher figures than any of the Republican numbers. And although the polls appear to be close, if we have learned anything from the New Hampshire primaries, they don’t account for much except adding to the horse race excitement. I predict we will see even more Obama support in November.

The debate last night was truly the end for McCain and the Republicans. He needed to demolish Obama and make him look risky and unfit to be Commander in Chief. He failed, as Obama appeared competent and forceful yet was able to stress philosophical differences between McCain's world view and his own. In the next couple weeks it is my prediction that Palin will make several more embarrassing interviews (if she is allowed to talk to the press) and will appear extremely foolish next to Biden on October 2nd. McCain will continue to look haggard and angry, and more voters will realize his weaknesses when it comes to the economy.

We are in the midst of a realigning election. While the Republicans will mostly likely hold onto the more affluent white voters, it is uncertain which demographics will ultimately gravitate towards Obama and the Democratic Party. I personally know 5 lifelong Republicans who are voting Obama this election. What about you?

IQ Test For Presidential Candidates?

As a nation we count on our leaders to be among the most intellectual and educated members of the electorate. After eight years with a President who confuses everything from the presence of weapons of mass destruction to southern proverbs regarding shame and foolery, we should be a little more concerned about the intelligence of our Commander in Chief. Yet even George W. obtained degrees from both Harvard and Yale, despite an SAT score that would prove difficult for admittance to many state schools. Clearly, intelligence isn’t the number one factor voters consider in November, but wait, shouldn’t it be?

McCain, of course, is a graduate of United States Naval Academy and was ranked 894 out of a class of 899. At the age of 73 he remains intimidated by the concept of email (like most grandparents) and continues to confuse the former country of Czecholoslovakia. I hoped he would at least choose a running mate that made up for this lack of knowledge in important areas. Someone who could be an educated reminder on the differences between Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims: a concept McCain has struggled with. However, Sarah Palin’s educational background shows that it appears to have taken her almost six years to complete college at six different schools. She began her studies at Hawaii Pacific, transferred to a two-year school in Northern Idaho, and eventually earned a degree in journalism from University of Idaho in 1987.

In contrast, Obama attended the University of Columbia followed by Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Joe Biden also obtained a law degree from Syracuse University and the two currently serve as law professors at respected universities. As the next possible law enforcer of our nation, it should be reassuring to voters that both individuals have extensive legal knowledge. But then again, this is America.

Throughout this campaign, Republicans have used Obama’s status as an Ivy League graduate in an attempt to portray him as elitist. I thought attacking someone for being smart and educated stopped after middle school. Don’t we want our President to be one of the smartest and most elite members of our Nation?

In the recent past, Democrats have nominated educated individuals to take on Bush and the GOP. The problem was that, although intelligent, Al Gore had trouble energizing a room, let alone a nation, and to this day no one could tell you the main message from the John Kerry campaign. Also back then, Americans preferred a President that they could drink a beer with rather than the capacity to lead a college classroom. I hope we have learned from our naivety because now we are now faced with a similar choice. Do we pick the maverick and hockey mom, who, despite their weak educational backgrounds promise to shake up Washington, or do we go with the analytical professors, who we know will think critically and carefully before they change up Washington.