News | The Daily Collegian

News | The Daily Collegian

Posted using ShareThis

The Champs Are Here

This is a photo of a Celtics schedule my roommates, friends and I have been working on the entire season. After every game we marked either a win, or a loss, which means we did 66 Ws and 11 Ls during the regular season. There wasn't a printable schedule for the playoffs, so we couldn't mark down the 16 Ws, and the insignificant Ls. It's all over the Celtics are the World Champions again. This is the NBA, where 17 happens.

The Dirt on New Dirt

Video Credit: Ryan Damon
Audio Slide Show/Article Credit: Jon Brandt and Daniella Bordonora

Blogger Response #16

This Sam Stein blog is a perfect example of why you shouldn’t write emails when you are angry. The battle for the superdegates has taken an unexpected turn which started on Thursday. Apparently Clinton supporters have attained an email list of undecided Democratic super delegates. Most of these emails claim that they have received email threats that if they don’t support Clinton that the people writing the emails will vote for John McCain in November. These emails are being sent, and the tone is that if the superdelegates fall in line with Obama they are traitors to the party. The blog had an un-attributed quote from a red-state democrat. This democrat said "I have been uncommitted throughout this campaign because I wanted to see how the candidates performed in a variety of settings. I am proud of them both. But I am horrified by this effort to threaten votes for McCain if super delegates don't vote for Sen. Clinton. I have received hundreds of emails from both sides - but I can say without exception that I have not received a single email from an Obama supporter that threatened a vote for McCain if I didn't support Sen. Obama. You really ought to be ashamed.” I don’t know if it was a good idea to accept an un-attributed quote, but it really does explain the situation perfectly. So, I guess Stein agreed that the quote was too good to left unpublished even though it isn’t attributed to anybody specially.

After receiving as she said 9 emails in one day campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000 Donna Brazille sent this response to claims that she was a traitor “I believe you're ready to not only destroy Roe versus Wade, voting rights, civil liberties and civil rights. Perhaps adding trillions more to the deficits through non-stop tax cuts to the wealthy and 100 more years in Iraq. Yes, please join Rush and McCain ASAP. The train has left. Catch it."

A Texas Democrat Shirley Luther explained the idea and how she will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. "It was a 'spur of the moment' idea brought about by a blog (Taylor Marsh),” Sam Stein had included a link to Marsh’s blog in case anybody wanted to read what inspired these people. “Tonight several of our bloggers came up with the idea of writing the super delegates. Someone on the blog found a list of emails and posted it.... Everything I wrote is the truth about my political background. The exit polls show I am not alone in refusing to vote for Obama and opting to McCain. This probably would not be possible if there was any other Republican running. But there are a lot of moderate Democrats who do respect his service." In an update of this blog post Taylor Marsh has denied any involvement in the campaign, and said that her readers are responsible for their actions no matter who inspired them to do it.”

These people claim that voting for Obama makes them a traitor? These people are claiming to vote for McCain instead of Obama. That’s actually traitorous, and it’s no wonder why the superdelegates responded with such anger. If you want to know what these idiots wrote in their emails check out Sam Stein’s blog I will not give them the satisfaction of writing their comments on my response to the blog. It would make me too angry and I wouldn’t be able to control what I wrote about it. In another update to the blog a spokesperson for Hillary Clinton Phil Singer, has denied any official involvement with this blitzkrieg of emails that has done more damage to Clinton then it has helped her.

Blogger Response #15

Review of Sam Stein’s May 8th 2008 Blog:

Obama Floated Idea of Voluntarily Capping Donations:


We have once again a very quote-loaded blog for my blogger response tonight. This blog is about Barack Obama and John McCain and the idea that they would use public financing in the general election.

Dave Donnelly national campaign director At Public Campaign Action Fund said “McCain opted into the public financing system in the primary and then opted out, then has slammed Obama across the country for this pledge he signed. But Obama never signed a piece of paper saying he would be punished for violating his agreement. That's what McCain has signed and he has gotten a free ride on it. The bottom line is, America needs a reformer in the White House and Obama has proven he will be a reformer by the legislation he's sponsored and his record on the issue. And McCain has clearly backtracked.”

This blog is based on news that Obama has considered using public financing. Obama gave that idea by saying “We need to separate money from political influence. It's an experiment in open source politics…One thing that I am considering, and my advisers might not like this: I may limit campaign contribution amounts per person to less than the federal limit in the general election."

The blog shows the response of many people in favor of major campaign finance reform. Joan Claybrook, president of the good-government group Public Citizen said “"I still believe Obama ought to lead the way and take public funding for these elections… What he is saying here is that he is going to do something to try and walk down the middle. But it is not really walking down the middle. In the general, you either take it or you don't take it."

Obama has said that he would follow up on his promise if and only if John McCain agrees to adhere to his promise as well. As the quote above says John McCain has already cancelled a contract for public funding, so I doubt he will agree to it now. Obama spoke on how great a presidential election would be if everybody had access to the same amount of public funded cash. Obama said public finance “takes power away from PACs, from lobbyists. It takes power away also from institutional players. Endorsements from a governor might not mean as much as it once did. Endorsements from some of the traditional institutional players, even those that are part of the Democratic Party, may not mean as much. That is actually a healthy thing."

Sam Stein also found somebody who does not agree that Obama’s system would be a better one then the one we currently have. Josh Israel senior researcher for the Center for Public Integrity's Buying of the President said that public finance in Obama’s system would basically make the people of America a special interest group. Israel goes on to say that public finance was established to level the playing field in the election. A popular candidate would be able to get more citizens to pay for his election, and therefore would destroy the playing field. Though he is technically correct I completely disagree with Israel. The whole point of an election is to get people involved and get people to the polling booths. What gets people more involved then investing? Do you care how good the stock of Yahoo! does? The answer to that question should be only if you own stock in Yahoo!. Voters would be more likely to vote for somebody if they have an interest in him or her. A person who is popular would have a better playing field? Isn’t that the whole point? Yes, it is the point. Nobody’s special interest means more then the interests of the American people. If the American people are a special interest group then they should be the only one allowed to the party with the poorly cooked chicken.

Blogger Response #14

A former host of the People’s Court thinks that Barack Obama is a loser. No, it’s not Judge Wapner it is Ed Koch a former mayor of the city of New York. Koch is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who believes that Obama will lose the general election in November. Koch believes that the super delegates should be used to give the election to Hilary Clinton. Koch believes that Clinton had the better chance of winning the general election in November against John McCain. Koch said “The reason the superdelgates are there is to select the person who is most likely to prevail…in all probability the super delegates will be afraid to exercise their own judgment and will simply go along with the count of delegates that were chosen in the polls.” This is news to me; I didn’t know we were polling for the Democratic nominee. I was under the impression that we were actually doing a little thing I like to call voting. Koch is suggesting that the people of the United States of America don’t deserve to have their voice heard. Koch is also suggesting that Obama doesn’t have a chance to beat McCain. I disagree, and so do the polls. I actually mean polls in the real meaning of the word, and not the fake definition that the former mayor of New York is using.

Koch takes Obama to task for the whole Rev. Wright debacle, and calls him a loser for not standing up and walking out on the preachers sermons years ago. Koch explained this by saying “"I'm absolutely surprised because I think that all the things that Wright says -- and nobody believes that Obama supports those statements -- but he didn't have the courage to stand up and object for twenty years. If you are running for president, you can't be like some other poor guy in the pews who is afraid to stand up or even say something privately to the minister. You're the guy who wants to lead the country and you have to have courage to stand up and lead your own pastor. He did not exhibit that. But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn't seem to care is a shock to me, but I'm certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy.”

Koch also believes that Obama not walking out of Wright 20 years ago will cost him the election. Koch goes on to say “I believe that the vast majority of voters will look at all of these allegations, which nobody disputes, as related to Wright and his comments, and that they will have an enormous impact on the vote and on those Independents and others who will make a decision in the general election. I just think he is a loser because of that." I think being a fake judge on the People’s Court makes somebody a loser, but that’s just my opinion.

U-Mass Celebrates First-Ever Founders Day

Team Credits:
-Video Credit: Ryan Damon.
-Audio Slideshow: Jon Brandt.
-Photographer/Article Writer: Daniella Bordonora.

Blogger Response #13

This latest Sam Stein blog was posted at 12:19 am on May 7^th 2008. I have started to write this response at 1:55 am on the same evening. This shows to me something very clear: that multimedia journalism has an immediacy to it that can’t be found in other forms of journalism. The printing presses have long started in the normal print world, and probably won’t have complete coverage of the results of tonight’s primaries. This blog has a lot to do with the election, but not what is normally covered anymore: John McCain.

McCain's Rough Night Overshadowed By Clinton's:

McCain, according to the numbers has a quite a problem on his hands. McCain has only one opponent who is still technically in the race and that is Ron Paul. The election results show McCain with what would have been a large victory had the race been fully contested. These numbers should be much larger then they are since nobody of note is still in the race. According to the data, in North Carolina there are 105,000 who voted in the uncontested primary for somebody other than McCain. In Indiana, the number of people who voted for a candidate other than McCain is 85,000. These numbers are also shown in the race last week in Pennsylvania where McCain got 73 percent of the vote compared to Paul’s 17 and Huckabee’s 11. The title of the blog says it all “McCain’s Rough Night Overshadowed by Clinton’s.”

The blog barley mentions the Democratic Race because the results were not fully processed by the time the blog was posted. I will update this blog with newer information on the Democratic race when or if Stein updates his blog. The results from last night and early this morning are not exactly good for Clinton. Clinton did win in Indiana, but apparently will only gain about four delegates in the effort. Obama on the other hand gained eight delegates his North Carolina victory. Obama has a net gain of four delegates in tonight’s primaries. In last weeks primary in Pennsylvania Clinton had a net gain of 12 delegates. Since, the primaries had started back up last week Clinton had gained 8 delegates. It seems that time is running out for Clinton’s campaign. On a related note CNN.com has a new feature that is really interesting to this news story. They have a new interactive delegate count tracker, which allows you to predict how the final primaries will go. You plug in the percentages of how you think the vote will go and the computer calculates how much delegates would be won. On the bottom of the interactive module is a bar that is the super delegate counter. You can also slide that around to predict how the super delegates will vote if indeed their vote will be allowed to sway the primary one way or another. DNC chairman Dr. Howard Dean has said that it would be a disaster for the party if the super delegates were allowed to choose the winner, so I don’t think that will happen. You can reach this Democratic delegate counter here.

Blogger Responces #11 and #12: Clinton Gas Holiday Plan

Just like my last post I have two articles from Sam Stein’s blog that correspond with each other. Both of these blogs are based on Hilary Clinton’s idea for a Gas Tax Holiday sometime during the summer. Sam Stein’s blog seems to have created news itself, as one entry got a response from the Clinton Camp.

Expert Support for Gas Tax Holiday Appears Nonexistent:

Hilary Clinton and John McCain have come forth with a plan to have a Gas Tax Holiday sometime during the summer. This blog is a response to a futile attempt by Sam Stein to find experts who agree with this idea. This blog contains a great deal of quotes from political, economically and environmental experts who seem to all agree that the tax idea is not the correct answer to our gas problems.

Tom Friedman from the New York Times said that Clinton “has now joined John McCain in proposing the most irresponsible policy idea of the year – an idea that could actually aid the terrorists.” In response to these quotes Stein attempted to get a response from Howard Wolfson, a Clinton adviser. They were not able to get a statement from Wolfson, but there was a response the next day which became another blog story.

Jerry Taylor from the Cato institute called the idea a holiday from reality and that the gas prices would not fall. Taylor said “service stations would just continue to charge what they are charging.” So, that would mean the profits would be very high for the oil companies and it would be tax free. Max Schulz called it “bad policy and political gimmicks.” Schulz continued “I have never seen the wisdom in playing gimmicks with the tax code.” This quote also reminds me of Tax Free days in Massachusetts which suspend the states 5 percent sales tax usually in August.

Environmentally Robert Shapiro commented that this tax would lower the cost of substances that raise greenhouse gases. So, the experts agree that the cost overweigh the benefit. The only question is how the Clinton camp will respond to the charge that this plan is a waste of time and money and potentially dangerous to the environment.

Clinton Camp Defends Gas Plan: She Doesn’t Have to Listen to Experts:

The next day the response from the Clinton Camp that Sam Stein wanted actually happened. This might not have been an actual response to the blog, but it might be because Stein commented that he attempted to get a statement from Wolfson. Wolfson said in a conference call that "Senator Clinton realizes there is a problem for consumers that requires both a short term and long term set of solutions. In the short term, she has laid out a plan to suspend the tax and have those resources or revenues paid by oil companies as well. In the long term, she has the boldest and most comprehensive plan that will increase fuel efficiency standards... help lawmakers retool their production facilities.”

Wolfson did not give a definitive answer whether or not Clinton would leave the campaign trail to push this legislation. Wolfson also responded to the critics of the tax plan by saying “we believe the presidency need leadership.” Basically Wolfson was saying that the president was the “decider” and would do whatever they want whether or not the experts agree with it or not.

Also, the blog has a piece of commodity news from 2000 showing that Clinton was not in favor of a Gas Tax Day while running for her senate seat. Clinton called a tax free day “a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies.” Clinton experts were quick to these potential flip-flop allegations by saying that her tax plan will be paid for by the oil companies. Clinton advisers note that the 2000 republican plan would have been paid for by using a highway trust fund. This idea of a highway trust fund was also noted in the first blog with Stein commenting that no trust funds would be used in the plan after he got a response about these funds by the American Trucking Association which said the “ATA appreciates the effort and supports the proposals. But we do have concerns that any fuel tax suspension proposal could damage the already ailing Highway Trust Fund. To the extent that McCain and Snowe's proposals use general revenue funds to offset the hit to the trust fund, that concern is addressed. ATA did not ask for this legislation. And we believe it is only a very short term answer that does not do anything to address the longer term issue of rising fuel prices. ATA recognizes that rising fuel costs have a disproportionate impact on small trucking companies where even a small savings can be the difference in their staying in business.”

In regards that the plan would be a waste of time and money Clinton adviser Geoff Garin disagreed. Garin said that “our calculation is that the average driver would save 70 dollars.” With upcoming votes in blue-collar states such as Indiana, could this idea sway the vote? As George W. Bush has proved these states love getting extra money no matter who pays for it in the end. This Tax Break idea reeks of republican politics, and how will that help Clinton during a democratic election? I don’t think it will help that much and it could do a great deal of damage.

Blogger Response #9 and #10

McCain strongly rejected long-term Iraq presence “Bring them all home”:

This is a Sam Stein blog from April 28^th 2008, and it has a video piece from MSNBC. The blog and the video show the differences between Sen. John McCain the senator in 2005 and Republican Candidate McCain in 2008. MSNBC’s video had the headline “McCain’s Iraq Flip-Flop?” On Hardball with Chris Matthews in 2005 McCain said “as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be.” Matthews was asked if Iraq would be a good place for a permanent military installation like there is in South Korea.

Now in 2008 McCain has changed his mind as has been widely shown in the news that he feels we could be in Iraq for 100 years and beyond. McCain now believes that the Korea model is exactly the right model for our troop deployment. The blog has been updated with a response from somebody in McCain’s camp Marc Ambinder, who says “the full context of the interview he gave in 2005 suggests that he modeled a long-term U.S. commitment to Iraq on South Korea, albeit with a big difference: a major corps would not necessarily have to embed itself in the country.” Also Ambinder suggests that the military advisers in the speech are actually solders just not called soldiers.

Clinton in 05 ‘I agree with McCain on long term-Iraq presence:

This is a Sam Stein blog from May 5^th 2008 which directly relates to the McCain blog from a couple of days ago. In 2005, Hillary Clinton agreed with John McCain that Iraq military presence should be modeled after the US military presence in South Korea. This is the same thing that John McCain said on Hardball with Chris Matthews which was the story from last week’s blog. Clinton said “we’ve been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We’ve been in Europe 50-plus years. We’re still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II.

These quotes came back to the public eye this past Sunday which makes it similar to the Reverend Wright speech. This is old news that is coming back to the fold which is in news terms is called commodity. The old news becomes today’s headlines, and everything old is new again. Clinton continued “We don’t want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorist that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain… We want to send a message of solidarity.” The blog tried to explain why exactly Clinton would say the things that she did. One thing that Sam Stein noted that the interview was Clinton had just traveled to Iraq and saw their first democratic elections. This would put her in good spirits as she just saw a big success in Iraq.. Stein noted that everybody except war critics believe that this was a turning point in the mission. Clinton now believes that we should get out of Iraq by sending a few brigades home every month for 16 months. The blog has links to a CNN article in which Clinton said that she was the only candidate who would or could end the war. The blog also has a statement from Barack Obama who says that he is the true war-ending candidate.

The only thing that would have made this blog better was the video from the Meet the Press interview. The other blog had a video from Hardball, and that made it better overall. I think most people will believe a video or audio piece better then something that is written. It would have been better to see or hear Clinton in her own words. The interview from Meet the Press is the news, and it should have been the focal point. An embedded video would have made that point clear, and it was a missed opportunity.

UMass students study local climate

SOUTH DEERFIELD- Geoscience students at the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst took their class outside last Wednesday to conduct a hydrology experiment.

Led by Professor David Boutt, the class prepared their experiment in the Crop Research and Education Center in South Deerfield, next to the Connecticut River.

“Today we have been doing a ‘stress test’ where we remove water out of the ground and measure how the system responds,” Boutt explains.

“Whenever you pop a well next to a river, you will be drawing the river flow into the well. It is a nice site because the wells are shallow enough for us to do the experiment well.”

Mark O’Malley, an UMass student majoring in earth systems explained the importance of such experiments.

“If we are taking water out of here to use for drinking or to water the crops, this experiment will let us know how much water we can take out without damaging the surrounding areas.”

In addition, hydrology can also be used to measure climate change.

Timothy Randhir, an associate Professor of Natural Resources Conservation at UMass, has been researching climate change on the Connecticut River.

“Hydrological processes could be used as a mechanism to understand the before and after changes,” Randhir explained. It can allow scientist to document the shifting temperatures from climate change.

Randhir’s research was sparked off by the desire to localise climate change and create better understanding.

“My research attempted to downscale the global predictions. We get a lot of abstract talk about global climate change but it always comes back to ‘how is my water supply going to be affected’ and that is an important question.”

Randhir’s research took global data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and combined it with his research in order to focus on the Connecticut River fluctuations.

The 2007 IPCC synthesis report says, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.”

Global Green house gas emissions (as a result of human activities) have increased by 70% between 1970 and 2004, according to this report.

Using this system, Randhir predicts the Connecticut River is going to see both quantity and quality changes to the water flow.

“The seasonal patterns will change. There will be more winter runoffs and more evaporation and transpiration in summer,” Randhir explained. Runoff is very important because we are dependent on it for water supply and river flow. Rivers and reservoirs rely on it.”

As well as water supply, lack of runoff in summer can lead to pollution concentration and consequently affect aquatic life.

Randhir wants his research to relate better with the general public and in turn, prompt lifestyle change.

“We need to maintain open space and have serious water conservation in the summer months, Randhir suggests. Towns could put pricing restrictions on water as an incentive measure to encourage people to conserve.”

Hydrology is one way to capture the rising and fluctuating temperatures through water measurements.

Randhir research puts climate change into chilling perspective. An increase in temperature by half a degree can now trigger huge shifts in wildlife and water levels.

Photo of: Mark O’Malley (Picture Credit Chris Cuffe)
Video Credit: Chris Cuffe
Audio Credit: Ryan Damon
Article Credit: Pamela Lawn

Blogger Response #8

This week I am commenting on a Sam Stein blog entitled “McCain Speaker: Have Your Tiger Woods, We’ve Got McCain.” This article was posted on April 8th 2008 and can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/mccain-speaker-have-your_n_95665.html.

The main piece of news that this blog talks about are the comments of Former Army Staff Sgt. David Bellavia. Bellavia has sparked a lot of controversy from people from both parties by saying “men like Sen. McCain will be the goal and the men that my two young boys will emulate and admire. You can have your Tiger Woods, we’ve got Sen. McCain.”

Most Americans know that there are many similarities between Barack Obama and Tiger Woods. They are both African American with mixed heritages, they are both well spoken and charismatic, they are both popular and more importantly they are both winners. The democrats are upset because Bellavia is trying to spark more racism in hopes that Obama would lose in November. The republicans are upset because Bellavia referenced Obama to the biggest winner of the past decade: Tiger Woods.

The blog has a video from a shaky cam of the speech in question. I’m sure it was not shot by a professional because the camera shakes around a lot. It is apparent that this is citizen journalism in practice. This video has gotten around the internet and the news world. This piece of citizen journalism has sparked debate from traditional news sources trying to catch up to the story. This video could have been up on somebody’s blog and posted to the web before any traditional news organization had any inkling that something newsworthy was happening. The blog also has a few in-line links to some editorial pieces on the story and a link to an Obama conference call.

The blog does not comment on something that I learned from watching Countdown with Keith Olberman. After this speech McCain embraces his introducer and I’m pretty shocked about that. A few weeks ago McCain took another introducer to task for insulting Obama by making multiple references to Obama’s middle name Hussein. Why did he accept Bellavia’s obvious racist remarks, but not the remarks made by his other introducer? Was it because Bellavia was a former member of the Army? Or does now McCain think Obama is a bigger threat now?

Normally, I don’t focus on the comment board when I am writing this because I rarely see Stein reply to them. There is one line that I thought deserved additional spotlight, and it was from a posted named WLA who said “I think an accurate golf metaphor reply in this case would be, "Yes, we'll keep our Tiger Woods and you can keep your Fuzzy Zoeller." Zoeller is well known in the sports world for being racist and originally didn’t believe Woods had any right playing in the PGA. This is a tremendous comment, and I think it speaks perfectly toward the situation, and the golf metaphor used by Bellavia.

Bellavia before making his Woods comment made a comment with a little bit more weight when he said “There (Congress) will has been replaced by political maneuvering and partisan politics.” This is not new news as it is always the minorities in congress who clamor about bipartisanship. The minority power always thinks the majority should subjugate to their will and not the other way around. No matter what party is in control in congress, the other party whines about bipartisanship. I never complain about bipartisanship because I know the danger of when these people work together. The last time both parties worked together we got the PATRIOT ACT. For the good of the nation, we need partisan politics.

Campaign 2008: An Endless Cycle

Professor bellows "Woo-Hoo"

Professor bellows "Woo-Hoo"

Political Panel a roaring success

This past Wednesday the U-Mass Amherst journalism department hosted a public lecture. The lecture covered the ever changing use of multimedia journalism in another ever changing realm: politics. The panel discussed how this new feature of reporting has led to a tendency for a national narrative to surround the political scene. This lecture attempted to explain why that was, and to give advice on the future of political journalism.

Mary Carey, U-Mass professor and political reporter for the Daily Hampshire Gazette was the first speaker to discuss the national narrative. Carey said “I want to talk about sort of the national narrative you know. I think you hear people talking a lot more, people are saying well the narrative was that Hilary {Clinton} was unbeatable. Then all of a sudden Obama came out of nowhere and Hillary was nose diving real bad.”

When host and U-Mass professor Steve Fox commented that the national narrative is often responsible for several mistake predictions USA Today’s national political correspondent Jill Lawrence explained why that was the case. Lawrence said “I think we get in trouble when we made predictions. The national narrative comes from the fact that we are reading the same tea leaves.”

The third panelist deputy publisher of Governing magazine, Mark Stencel commented that the national narrative is hard to keep a hold on. Stencel said “It is an endless treadmill to face the narrative, it is exhausting. The phrase you always hear is feeding the beast you know that kind of thing.”

Host Steve Fox enthusiastically introduced the three guest speakers to the captivated audience. Fox said “I feel like it’s my birthday, Christmas…everything wrapped into one. I get to just talk politics with these guys. We spent lunch talking politics. We hung out in my office for the past couple of hours talking politics and we get another 90 minutes of politics. Yes, I’m very excited here.”

The lecture was a complete success, and if you don’t believe me, would you believe U-Mass professor B.J. Roche? Either way this is what she said “Two things really thrilled me about this afternoon. One was I though it was a terrific line up of speakers and had very exciting and interesting things that they were talking about. Also, what I got a really big kick out of was that all of the students were either taking pictures of it, or video taping it, or taping it on their audio thing. I’m really thrilled that the students are going “all in” on the multimedia track. Hiring Steve Fox was the one of the best things we’ve ever done. We are a super happening department right now, and believe me a few years ago we were not.”

Blogger Response #7

The blog that I am commenting on right now is entitled Clinton Foundation Received $500,000 From Wal-Mart. The story talks about how Wal-Mart gave Bill Clinton’s global foundation a half a million dollars. The blog contains a link to the Wal-Mart Press release which was announced in New Orleans. It might have been announced there to highlight the fact that Wal-Mart gave a lot of money in hurricane relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The blog highlights the Clinton’s business relationship with Wal-Mart which Senator Clinton has been avoiding. Senator Clinton was a member of Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors as she served a six-year term. Mrs. Clinton was the company’s first-ever female board member. The blog has a link to a very interesting article of the New York Times. This article suggests that Sam Walton’s wife Helen was a factor in the decision to have a female board member. The article also shows that as a board member Clinton was determined to suggest that Wal-Mart get more females in management. The article also made comments that Clinton did not try to stop Wal-Mart from its anti-union labor policies.

These anti-labor policies have traditionally made Wal-Mart an enemy of the Democratic Party. It is because of this that Senator Clinton is trying to avoid talking about the six years she spent on Wal-Mart’s Board of Directors. This large donation is bringing the question up again, but it was noted that Clinton returned a $5,000 donation to her campaign by Wal-Mart in 2005.

The blog also has an article showing Bill Clinton praising Wal-Mart for its recent involvement in the fight against Global Warming. The environment is another topic that has made Wal-Mart an enemy of the Democratic Party, but not the Clintons. The question is being asked: Is the Clinton’s personal and business relationship with Wal-Mart clouding their judgment and is Wal-Mart giving money just to curry favor with the hopeful presidential candidate? The blog contains a quote from a Wal-Mart watch dog company called Wake-up Wal-Mart, their spokesperson Meghan Scott said "It follows in Wal-Mart's recent attempts to make themselves look like a responsible corporation with their environmental efforts, and then you have Lee Scott who is announcing at meetings that Wal-Mart is not sure when they will reduce their emissions," said Meghan Scott, a spokesperson for Wake-up Wal-Mart, a watchdog group for the organization. "It is important to look at two things; whether their press releases turn into action, or whether it is simply an attempt to curry favor."

Blogger Response #6

The blog that I am discussing right now is entitled “DNC Web Ad: McCain in Lockstep with Bush” and it can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/dnc-web-ad-mccain-in-loc_n_92065.html . The blog talks about a new web-video posted by the Democratic National Convention. The video’s message is very clear: a McCain presidency is literally a third term for George W. Bush. The blog has the video in its entirety which is very helpful. I didn’t have to go to YouTube to access its video. I don’t think the blogger has to worry about the video being pulled because I don’t see any copyright infringement occurring. While looking for my SNL video I saw a lot of YouTube broken links because NBC Universal forced YouTube to pull some video clips.

The video shows how some of John McCain’s speeches mirror that of words said by George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. All of the audio and video clips relate to the war in Iraq, and in general the war on Terror. There is a mixture of audio with photographs of the person speaking and normal video with audio.

Early in the republican debates there were no references to George W. Bush. Now that Bush has endorsed McCain the flood gates have been opened. This video is trying to make John McCain’s approval rating to be just as low as the Presidents. The DNC is doing this while Clinton and Obama are still fighting to become the democratic presidential candidate. The fact that the republican race finished early is proving to be helpful to the DNC. The DNC can attack McCain openly whereas McCain would have to attack both Clinton and Obama. It’s like Germany in World War I trying to fight to wars on the Eastern and Western fronts.

The blog ends with McCain’s own words: If the Country doesn’t think the war was worth the risk then he won’t be President. The video ends with the message “after five years, we don’t need a third Bush Term. Bush & McCain: Wrong Then, Wrong Now.”

Interesting Interview with Comedy Legend George Carlin

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/01/george-carlin-reads-more-_n_89179.html

This is a link to a Huffington Post interview with George Carlin. Carlin talks about his new stand up special, "It's Bad For Ya" and about the blogs that he reads. He also talks about his favorite political humorists. I just thought everybody would find it interesting, so have a look if you want to.

Blogger Response #5

The blog I am commenting on is entitled Obama Aides: VP Talk is a Ruse, and it was posted on March 10^th. It can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/obama-aides-vp-talk-is-a_n_90825.html.

As the title suggests the blog is about Hilary Clinton suggesting that Barack Obama would be a good vice presidential running mate in November. Obama blasted this report by asking it he wasn’t ready to be the President how could he be ready to be the Vice President? If Clinton were to be incapacitated Obama would assume the office. The blog has some of his aides mirroring what he has said in various speeches since Clinton made that comment.

Susan Rice said that “the Clinton camp is trying to suggest that Sen. Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, they are touting him as a potential a running mate, which puts him a heartbeat away. He is not going to be a running mate. He is going to be commander in chief."

It is also suggested in this blog that as President Obama would be able to get more people to recruit for all branches of the armed services. Obama is leading in the youth demographics who also make up a majority of the people being recruited to fight in Iraq. This makes sense because not only does the youth trust him Obama has promised to be out of Iraq. So, the people who get recruited could be being signed up for other postings in a post-Iraq war scenario. In my opinion they would most likely be deployed to find Osama Bin Laden and win the war in Afghanistan. The blog questions whether or not Clinton would redeploy combat troops because they said that Clinton hasn’t said anything definitive.

Another part of the blog was a response to the Clinton had about the call at 3am in the morning. Rice says that she doesn’t believe Clinton is qualified to answer the call just because she was first lady. Handling a critical situation is a lot different than watching somebody else handle it. Rice who is a former Clinton aid added : "We continue to ask the question as to what exactly is the experience that Sen. Clinton can point to that indicates that she has had real crisis management experience? And when asked that question we get 20 seconds of silence.”

This Sam Stein Blog was very text heavy, and didn’t have a video unlike that last one I reported on. I was somewhat disappointed with the lack of convergence on this blog, but it still was loaded with useful quotes. It would have been better to hear what Rice was saying instead of reading it, but it was still effective.

Blogger Response #4

The blog from Sam Stein I am discussion in this post is “MSNBC-Clinton Feud Continues: Tucker Goes Off.” It was posted on February 25, and discusses the next round in the ongoing feud between MSNBC and Hillary Clinton and her campaign team. The blog can be found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/25/msnbcclinton-feud-contin_n_88417.html.

This is the first blog of Sam Stein’s that I have seen which contained a video, and the video was posted on YouTube, and embedded directly into the blog. This is the video in question:

This is an on-going battle between Clinton and MSNBC, and it got very personal a couple of times already. Chris Matthews made comments that Clinton only received her Senate seat of New York because the voters felt bad about her failing marriage. Also, a MSNBC analyst David Shuster was suspended for making a comment that Chelsea Clinton was being “pimped out” to recruit super delegates. Matthews also made comments on his show “Hardball” that the Clinton campaign teams were “knee-cappers” and they were “lousy” to delve into intimidation.

This blog also contained a quote from Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s Press Secretary. Wolfson was asked by Time Magazine whether or not the media in general was dealing with Barack Obama with kid gloves. "I think it is true," he said, "that every time the Obama campaign in this campaign has attacked Senator Clinton in the worst kind of personal ways, attacked her veracity, attacked her credibility, said that she would say or do anything to get elected, the press has largely applauded him."

The overall tone of the blog is to highlight the wrongdoings of MSNBC which Carlson did not mention in his tirade. The blog shows why the Clinton campaign has been “awful to the press” or maybe it is just that they are being awful to MSNBC. I think MSNBC should remember that you only get what you give, and try to be nicer to Clinton in the future. At very least they should try to treat each candidate equally: love them or hate them, treat them the same.