I Tivo both shows each night but only seldom get around to watching them. Colbert is definitely more theatric, while Stewart does, as someone has mentioned, has a naturally funny appeal. I saw Stewart when he came to my campus last year to speak and it was a great performance. I do think, though, that Colbert has risen to the same stature as Stewart.
KY Superdelegate Jennifer Moore Waiting fo May 20 Primary
I'm gonna agree with KYdemocrat and say Moore's gonna go for Clinton. 4 of them are undecided, 1 has gone for Obama, and 3 are for Clinton, as of now.
Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style debate
I'd really like to see this as well. I worry though, that if the Clinton and Obama camps come together and work out the details of the debate, it'll be very toned down, which would be unfortunate.
RDavid,
Unfortunately, information on some of the superdelegates is very hard to come by. Oftentimes the DNC for a given site has a page with all the members in that state (of which Wheat is one), but a lot of the times they don't have contact info. It's kinda the luck of the draw. I did, however, find some general contact info here. The best we can do at this point is to contact Yolanda Wheat, the Missouri State Party Vice Chair at the Missouri Democratic Headquarters, here:
208 Madison Street
PO Box 719
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Phone (573) 636-5241
Fax (573) 634-8176
Hope this helps! Yolanda Wheat is as of now undecided in her pick, so let her know what you think!
Michael,
You can contact Leila Medley here. Voice your opinion! Missouri's 16 superdelegates are split at this point, with 5 already throwing support behind Clinton, 5 going for Obama and 7 more, including Medley, still undecided. Let her know what you think, and please, let us know of any response you may receive from her!
Sunnyspot,
I agree with you that the system Foucault discusses is tough to see in a positive light. In his essay on "Governmentality" (a great read if you're interested), Foucault says that in Modernity citizens have become “the object in the hands of the government, aware, vis-a-vis the government, of what it want[ed], but ignorant of what [was] being done to it.” I like to think of what Foucault talks about as the absolute worst possible scenario of what, arguably, our world is like today. We "know" what we want (a legitimate government of the people, the rule of law, etc.) but we really don't know how we're getting it, and at what expense (suspension of habeas corpus for suspected individuals, wiretapping, etc).
I do think, though, that we're not to the point of no return...yet. And, is the price we pay for our cherished modernity, or notion of civilization, worth it? Don't we like that our hands are not cut off if we steal, that we're assumed innocent until found guilty, or any other rights? We belong to “a triangle [of] sovereignty-discipline-government, which has as its primary target the population and as its essential mechanism the apparatuses of security.” We want to belong to a safe society in which we are not attacked, where we don't see remnants of our 'dirty' past. We put away our criminals for a duration we deem sufficient to save them from falling from modernity. We hide away our insane, assuring ourselves that our society only contains sane, responsible citizens. We are constantly running from our history, and what Foucault writes of is the logical, albeit tragic, finish line in our race. We once gave our souls to the Church for salvation, and now we give them to the State. We are thus docile bodies, moved by multiple forces of restraint, to our greatest level of efficiency.
I'm a big fan of Foucault as well, sunnyspot. Thanks for getting a discussion started!
Foucault does an interesting job of showing us the relationship between power, knowledge and the individual. Whereas in antiquity punishment was a bloody spectacle, today we are under constant surveillance as a means of correction. It's all very 'Big Brother,' but I don't see any need to think that it is necessarily repressive.
Foucault argues that our very system of knowledge, what we define as TRUTH, is a by product of a power structure. Once, an average villager in a kingdom would be able to see his King and say, "That is my King, I am below him. He is the sovereign." But what now? Who is our sovereign in a democracy? For the prisoner, is it the warden? For this "episteme," or prevaling ideas of a given age, are to continue, its clear that power must be re-defined on the individual. This is exactly why Foucault brings up the Panopticon model. The actions of the delinquent is constantly watched so as to reform them and put them back into a society whos 'Truths' they originally abused.
How do we overcome this? First, do we really want to? I think it depends. If we lived under a truly oppressive regime or lived in an age when basic human rights were blatantly ignored, then yes, I think we'd like to overthrow the 'power-knowledge' structure. Foucault doesn't seem to talk much on how to overcome this system though. He wasn't overly critical of the interim regimes after the Iranian Revolution, so one may argue that he advocated revolution at times. I'm sure that Foucault would say, if we feel oppressed, we must embrace our own power. To what ends, I don't quite know.
Obama Denounces Pastor's Comments
I think Obama will be fine. He's been on top of all the heat that's been brought his way thus far, and he's done a good job. He said he doesn't agree with the pastor's comments, and now the pastor isn't part of his campaign. He has distanced himself, as he should. And frankly, who cares what his pastor says? If and when Obama gets into office I highly doubt he'll call up his pastor seeking advice on policy. Obama, to me at least, seems genuine. I wouldn't worry about this as a voter. Of course it's going to be played over and over again, just as the Ferarro deal is. Let's get back to the issues, shall we?
Which do you feel is more capable of getting the U.S. out of a potential recession? Is lowering taxes or creating stimulus packages, tools of fiscal policy, good in the long run, or are they restricted? And finally, is Bernanke the "most powerful man in the U.S.," or have we just become very scared when it comes to our wallet?
Is the Secret Service setting Obama up?
When I saw Hillary Clinton speak on the campus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, the screening was minimal. Bags were checked, but that was it. No secret service, campus student officers. The security of these candidates is very important, don't get me wrong. But when there are hundreds, in this case thousands, of people waiting in line to get in to a scheduled event, security is going to be sacrificed.
Daily Californian Endorses Obama, McCain, Ron Paul's Ideas
In a Tuesday editorial, the staff of the Daily Californian, UC Berkeley's campus paper, threw support behind Obama, McCain as well as urging voters to consider the libertarian views of Ron Paul.
On Obama, the Daily Californian writes, "Beyond the policy nuances, a vote for Obama will be a vote for you. Obama transcends categories-whether you're Republican or Democrat, secularist or evangelist, our commonalities outnumber our differences. Obama offers us a new politics, one that transcends labels, leaving us with just one: American."
On McCain: "To cover all of McCain's merits in a short space is hard to do; the above is far from exhaustive. But to summarize: if you want congress and the White House to get back to work and you want to promote democracy and the rule of law at home and abroad, then John McCain is the president for you."
On Ron Paul: "So even if you're not voting for him, even if it doesn't happen this election, consider the ideas of Congressman Ron Paul-a little-known, oft-marginalized candidate with tremendous grassroots support, the most donations of any candidate from active-duty military members and an unusual sense of decency...So as the candidates waste debate time squabbling over religion, race, Ronald Reagan and hairdos, then nitpick at voting records that are far too similar, Ron Paul sits on the sideline of the debate-ignoring them about as much as Fox News ignores him, talking about issues and trusting that it's issues that the American people care about."
Why are lobbyists allowed to bribe elected officials?
sbritton,
Your concern is well-founded and is a concern of mine as well. A government of the people is highly destructive when it allows pandering of the special interests of the highest bidder. Kind of makes you lose hope in the system that prides itself on prudence. Exposure is probably our best bet at stemming the problem of lobbyist gifts to Congress and other elected public officials, this is increasingly clear in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal and The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. I hope you'll look into the issue more right here at Political Base so we can talk more about it.
Bill Clinton on Obama: "He Might Win"
So I was reading this article and was pretty suprised that Clinton phrased Obama's chances as "he might win" rather than something more pro-Hillary. Now, he might have just gone on the Al Sharpton show and said this to cover his tracks after originally calling Obama's campaign a "fairy tale," but still, I wouldn't imagine Hillary is too thrilled.
Ohmygod, PLEASE let Huckabee win the nomination
Hey, with Huckabee's embrace of Chuck Norris we see that he knows the power of pop culture icons. I wouldn't be too suprised either.
Romney Ad Says Michigan Race 'Personal'
Now I may be wrong, but wouldn't it be smarter for Romney to downplay the importance of the Michigan primary? While it may help to remind Michigan residents that his father was indeed once Governor, what happens if he loses this "personal" state? Doesn't say much of Romney if he can't take Michigan, right?
