Link:  Barack Obama’s “Closing Arguments” Speech

SEE FULL VIDEO OF THIS OBAMA SPEECH HERE

How much Constitutional power does the vice president have?  It seems Sarah Palin is very confused regarding the position of Vice President…

From Think Progress…

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sat for an interview with KUSA, an NBC affiliate in Colorado. In response to a question sent to the network by a third grader at a local elementary school about what the Vice President does, Palin erroneously argued that the Vice President is “in charge of the United States Senate“:

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

From Daily Kos…

Take a look at a clip from another typically vapid and disastrous Sarah Palin television interview and see what it looks like when the reporter is actually uninterested in clarifications or follow ups. I guess that’s what Palin has moved on to these days. Local affiliate interviews with reporters who won’t ask anything hard.

But that doesn’t actually mean Palin gives correct answers. Oh, no! Far from it! All it means is that the reporter asking the questions doesn’t give any indication of being aware that the answers are incorrect.

From Taylor Marsh Broadcasts…

If women are going to be taken seriously they need to be held to the same standards as men. A man who said something so incredibly ignorant would be pilloried.

This latest gaffe, actually implying that the vice president has legislative authority, makes what she said with Couric seem harmless. This woman has no business being anywhere near the White House. John McCain’s judgment is a joke. Making America pay for it through a possible Palin presidency is dangerous.

And, adding insult to injury…

Guess how much the RNC is shelling out during this economic crisis for Sara Palin’s wardrobe???

What do you think?  Should Sarah Palin understand what the “actual” job of the vice president is?  Or, do we just expect that if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin can do what ever she wants to do?

Personally, I don’t think she is stupid (at least on this issue).  I think, if elected, she plans on ignoring the constitution every bit as much as the Bush administration did.  Let me know what you think in comments.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Last November 26 as the race for nomination began in earnest I posted an Open Letter to the Candidates. I think it relevant that I now post it again with a few additions highlighted in bold.

Well, since it is here and easy to step onto, I am pulling out the soapbox this morning. This is an open letter to all the presidential candidates about what I want from my next president. Here it is not in priority order since I don’t want to make this too hard:

1. I want you to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq within the first 100 days of office and to provide medical care for the wounded and support for the reserve military to return to their civilian lives.
2. I want you to find a way for everyone in this country to have medical care !
3. I want you to find a way for everyone in this country to have affordable medications.
4. I want you to find a way for every young person to have access to higher education.
5. I want you to improve our schools and get our teachers better prepared and better paid.
6. I want you to find a way to ensure that the people who have entered a tacit agreement to turn over some of their earnings with the understanding that they would have a return as social security annuities will in fact get that return on investment.
7. I want you to behave as a Global CITIZEN rather than as the AUTOCRATIC PATRIARCH telling your global brothers and sisters how to run their countries.
8. I want you to strengthen our relationships with other countries and to broker agreements that will improve our security and our economy and that will reduce barriers and build alliances.
9. I want you to use more diplomacy in dealing with world issues and NOT rush to invade, conquer and quash.
10. I want you to be as concerned about what is happening in Burma and Darfur as Iraq and Iran.
11. I want you to refuse to build a WALL across our border and to develop a considered approach to immigration issues that is not fueled by fear, prejudice and narrow vision.
12. I want you to ensure that religious thought does not dictate decisions such as who may or may not enter into the civil contract of marriage. Such issues are for (of-age) individuals to decide not government.
13. I want you to reduce the availability of automatic weapons.
14. I want you to ensure our environment is protected.
15. I want you to use passion, vision and focus to develop and deploy real alternatives to fossil fuels as energy in this country. Kennedy took us to the moon in a decade … we can do the same to solve our energy problems.
16. I want you to sign the Kyoto agreement and to work diligently to reduce global warming.
17. I want you to immediately take appropriate action to improve our economy for the small towns, the working people and the small business owners of this country not simply for the big cities, the moguls and the financial houses.
18. I want you to be a person of integrity and intelligence and to surround yourself with passionate, dedicated people of equal intelligence and integrity.
19. I want you to do what you said you’d do while trying to get me to vote for you and to not use clever ways of speaking to avoid telling the truth about what you’re doing. (thanks Mary Ann of DSS)
20. I want you to lead us, inspire us, unite us, redefine us.
21. I want you to understand the need for and the way to build consensus when leading change.
22. I want you to promote harmony, to inspire pride and confidence, and to unite us.
23. I want you to protect the constitution and not erode the rights protected by the constitution!
24. I want some sane and reasonable regulations or restrictions on the financial community (or some creative and realistic solution) to restrain the overwhelming greed and corruption that brought us to our current dismal financial situation. I don’t have the answer but creative problem solving that does not simply put a band-aid on a headache can certainly be developed over the next four years. And while you are looking into that, how about reconsidering the federal stance on usury.
25. It is absolutely reprehensible that we as a nation continue to employ land mines in our warfare strategies.We need to change that! See references below.

The Ottawa Treaty or the Mine Ban Treaty, formally the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, bans completely all anti-personnel landmines (AP-mines). As of 2007, it has been signed/accessioned by 158 countries. Thirty-seven states, including the People’s Republic of China, India, Russia and the United States, are not party to the Convention. (Wikipedia)

Arms Control AssociationI KNOW. These are big expectations, but not unreasonable and they are the goals and expectations that will allow us to be a truly great and powerful nation.

[If you would like to be a guest blogger on The Political Voices of Women, just join our community, and start posting.]

Like everyone else in America, I was waiting to see how the match up between Palin and Biden would transpire. Beyond the giddy atmosphere that was building (somewhat between a sporting event and a game show), was a deeper, darker space. It was a low, wide valley occupied by symbols and ambiguities of murky distinctions — the roles of gender and race in the 2008 election.

Those specific issues were discussed and debated at a two-day symposium at St. John’s University. As
I sat down to watch the two Vice-Presidential contenders, the presentations of the conference’s speakers reverberated in my head.

Presented by the university’s law school, there was a heavy representation of scholars focusing on media and law, election law, and legal theory. In addition to those emanating from the academic world, there was a cross section of journalists and activists.

Perspectives on Gender in the 2008 Elections; The Role of the Media in Shaping Perceptions of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender in the 2008 Elections; The Intersectionality of Race, Gender, Media, and the Political Process; A Dialogue on Legal Constructions of Race, Gender, and Identity in the 2008 Elections, were some of the panels which I attended.

The concerns that had been come up earlier in the election season got turned on their heads once again with the placement of Sarah Palin onto the McCain ticket. Charges of sexism, reverse sexism, populist feminism, anti-feminism — and permutations on the theme — were doled out in abundance. Prominent in the mix was the role of the media, both amplifying and exacerbating misconceptions to the public.

Several themes coalesced over the two-day period. A prominent one was the oft repeated, “Did race trump gender?” Dr. Cynthia Neal-Spence, Associate Professor of Sociology at Spelman College, spoke about the dilemma of the black female. Asking, “Are we as a group more gender conscious or race conscious?” she then suggested “the media coverage had helped black women to choose sides.” Despite Obama offering a post-racial approach, she sensed the same “tensions resurfacing that were in place during the suffragette movement.” She also saw the media’s analyzation as being “racialized.”

Valorie K. Vojdik, Professor at the West Virginia University College of Law, acknowledged that with women as the minority of politically elected representatives, exclusion of women from political power was still in play. She spoke of Hillary Clinton as having challenged and transcended gender when she won her seat in the Senate. Having left the White House and the female sphere of “home,” Clinton entered the realm of competence (male driven) with her inclusion in the Senate. She “cracked the ceiling and the gender structure of power.”

However, Vojdik said, “Those in the media insisted on gendering her candidacy, taking her from the public sphere to the private construction of her identity as a wife and a mother.” This was often accomplished through the use of specific language. She gave as examples the terms, “shrill, emasculating, castrating,” with oft used analogies of Hillary as “the hectoring mother,” or “the wife as ball-buster.” Hillary was not male, but she “had failed as a female.”

On the other hand, Vojdik saw Sarah Palin as seeking to be elected because she was a woman in the “good wife and mother” mode. Projecting herself as stereotypically feminine, albeit a “pit bull with lipstick,” she “appeals to the 80′s concept of the superwoman.” “But,” Vojdik asked, “where are the supports for ordinary women?”

Her masculine hobbies don’t appear “gender bending,” instead they conjure up an image of her as a frontier woman. By that token, it is ironic that when you place Palin’s gun in the hands of Michele Obama (as on the cover of the New Yorker magazine), you have a totally different image. Donna Rouner, Professor at Colorado State University School of Journalism, pointed to the masculinization of Michele Obama as too strong, angry, scary, and the militant who used the “whitey” epithet. Neal-Spence concluded that the sexism toward Hillary Clinton had been “more palatable for some, because she was white.”

With Sarah Palin dealing the “motherhood card,” but only wanting to play it her way, she created a dichotomous situation. While claiming the right to trot out her family, she stepped away from discussing work/family issues. Enabled by her own specific circumstances, her connection to struggling mothers who are faced with untenable survival choices, was strictly superficial. As moderator Rosemary C. Salomone, Professor of Law at St. John’s University observed, “If we talk about it [working women's issues], we would have to do something about it in social policy.

Carolyn M. Byerly, Associate Professor at Howard University, questioned if the press was “meeting its social responsibility” to provide coverage of issues and events that affect women’s status. She emphasized, “You can’t underestimate the invisibility of women.” It was clear that she didn’t believe women’s concerns were being explored, and backed that up with citations on the lack of story lines about women’s economic concerns (i.e. 1 in 8 women lack the money to take a sick child to the doctor.).

There was a strong consensus of displeasure on how female candidates were observed. Elizabeth A. Skewes, Assistant Professor at the University of Colorado’s School of Journalism, characterized the coverage as “hair, hemlines, and husband headlines,” with a spotlight on personal traits.

Jennifer L. Pozner, Director of Women in Media and News, showed visuals of gender bias in the media. My favorite example of what Pozner qualified as “passing for public debate” was the clip of Donny Deutsch exclaiming about Palin, “I want her laying next to me in bed.”

That thread was picked up in the ecstatic reaction to Palin’s presentation of self in the debate by National Review‘s Rich Lowry who gushed, “I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, ‘Hey, I think she just winked at me.’”

Although feminine for Sarah Palin is an asset, “feminine” attributes in general are considered a negative. “The process of gender,” as phrased by Vojdik, is a methodology employed by the Republicans where they “feminize” a male candidate — to his detriment.

Like Hillary Clinton, Obama also faced challenges. Meta G. Carstarphen, Professor at the University of Oklahoma Gaylord College of Journalism, stated that race has “always been a element, even as a subtext.” Bryan L. Adamson, Associate Professor at Seattle University School of Law, talked about the use of Obama’s religion (Is he a Christian?) as a race proxy. It was a natural stepping-stone to the coded language of outsider and otherness.

Frank Rudy Cooper, Associate Professor of Law at Suffolk University, spelled out that “Obama had to deal with the media representation of black masculinity.” He posited that Obama had to be “a unisex president.” Despite trying to run a “post-racial campaign, Obama had to be careful avoid “the angry black male” stereotype by not being too aggressive. Cooper explained that in pitting McCain against Obama, the masculine vs. feminine style is emphasized. Obama’s empathetic style has been criticized, and as “feminization is a slur,” he is forced into a precarious balancing act.

The “other” category was not a hurdle for Obama alone. Nancy Wang Yuen, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Biola University, spoke to the “media pattern of racialization.” She asked, in reference to an article in Time (2/17/08) entitled, “Does Obama Have an Asian Problem?” why the media was “not likely to racialize why a white candidate wins.”

Laura E. Gómez, Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico, lamented the paucity of coverage in the national media about Latino voters. She expressed concern about the “lack of depth and context about the Latino population,” citing that in the future, 30% of the American population will be Latino. Gómez also characterized the media’s concentration on a black/brown divide as “race baiting.” She named it as a “structural racism,” where the emphasis is put on, “Oh, they [Latinos] are racist too.”

Yet new technology and new media may be transforming the game. Carolyn M. Byerly’s opinion is that “technology is changing” with a huge shift in how people seek information. In her view “the structures of the media are anachronistic” and “alternative media matters.”

That concept was illuminated by Anthony E. Varona, Associate Professor of Law at American University. He pointed out why the 2004 Karl Rove election strategy based on the “unease felt by religious and social conservatives” wasn’t going to work in 2008. Plainly put, “Things have changed. New media and the blogosphere have made it impossible.” Varona discussed the prior use of fear and enmity toward gays “to mobilize voters.” He said, “Trumpeting anti-gay rhetoric” flies in the face of the fact that “McCain has senior people, both open and closeted gays” on his team. Or as Varona succinctly put it, “The Internet has pulled the curtain on homosexuality and the appalling hypocrisy of the Republicans.”

UCLA law professors Devon W. Carbado and Cheryl Harris brought up the question, “Who gets to invoke identity, and what does it mean?” Discussing identity and politics replacement strategy, they presented construct examples such as: “Sarah Palin is to Hillary Clinton as Clarence Thomas is to Thurgood Marshall.” The audience immediately got it.

A particular exchange during the Vice-Presidential debate put the issue of identity on the table when Sarah Palin spoke about how her role as a mother has given her “special insights.” Biden, in his visceral response, challenged Palin’s claim. Speaking emotionally about the car accident that changed his life he said:

“Look, I understand what it’s like to be a single parent…When my wife
and daughter died and my two sons were gravely injured – I understand
what it’s like as a parent to wonder what it’s like if your kid’s going to
make it.”

He went on to say:

“But the notion that somehow, because I’m a man, I don’t know what it’s
like to raise two kids alone, I don’t know what it’s like to have a child
you’re not sure is going to — is going to make it — I understand.”

Throwing off the mantle of constrictive masculinity to create his own paradigm, Biden created a 2008 perspective on gender that was worth noting.

Reviews are in on the McCain vs. Obama Debate…

Obama strikes back on McCain’s Iraq policy…

Is Healthcare a Right or a Responsibility?

Joe Biden on NBC’s Today Show…

Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on the debate…

CNN Post Debate…

If there is one thing that really gets under my skin, it’s John McCain referring to EVERYONE as “my friends” – It feels condescending to me. Last night he said, “My Friends” twenty times….

McCain seems to be a little ADD trying to answer this Environmental questions…I do like what Obama had to say.

Also See:

Fact-Checking the Debate

From The Mahahblog…

Flipping back and forth between CNN and MSNBC, it seems on the whole a consensus is forming among the bobbleheads that this debate was not a “game changer.” McCain needed a “decisive win,” Wolf Blitzer says, and he didn’t get it.

McCain was less dismissive of Obama as in the first debate — I don’t believe he said Obama “didn’t understand” this time — but he still seemed condescending, and I don’t think this is helping him.

New York Times…

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama provided enough direct answers or personal, emotive moments during Tuesday night’s debate, according to three audience members who posed questions to them, though Mr. Obama won quite a bit of goodwill by staying afterward to shake hands and sign autographs while Mr. McCain left.

MyDD…

A few initial impressions. First, and most important, John McCain failed to make the most of this opportunity — one of his last — to fundamentally change the direction of this race. Nothing, and I mean nothing, occurred tonight that will put McCain back in the driver’s seat of this campaign, let alone help him retake a lead.

Beyond that, McCain had some serious optics problems during the debate. McCain’s lurking in the background was truly Cheney-esque, and that’s just not a good likeness for the GOP nominee. And McCain’s extreme derisiveness towards Barack Obama, unwilling to call him by name, instead only calling him “that one,” seriously undercuts the notion that McCain can be a cool operator on the world stage. Note also that Obama’s jokes did connect with the audience — he got a nice chuckle towards the end of the debate when he said that Michelle could easily list all of the things he doesn’t know — while the only laugh McCain earned during all of his botched jokes over the course of the debate was from Tom Brokaw.

As for memorable exchanges, Obama speaking about his mother stands out in particular, though this retort to McCain, which Josh caught, was highly effective as well.

So.  What did you think?  Let me know in comments.

See more from this young man here.

Should we give the people’s money to the failed banks, and hope they don’t continue to fail?  Or, give the people’s money to the people, and know they will spend it, buy homes, pay off mortgages and debt?  Give the people the opportunity of really having the American dream.

This is from a comment on a post I did on the Bailout for The Care2 Election Blog.  It makes a lot more sense to me than what is being offered now.  What do you think?

From Care2 member Laura C…

Yes, we resent it and have good reason. Those in power taking high salaries from us are never made to pay. The following email some of you may have received. It is the best idea I’ve heard and should be sent to every congress person and the president.

Now here is the idea of how to save the economy ………

I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a ‘We Deserve It Dividend’.

To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bonifide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a ‘We Deserve It Dividend’.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage, housing crisis solved. Repay college loans, what a great boost to new grads Put away money for college, it’ll be there Save in a bank, create money to loan to entrepreneurs. Buy a new car, create jobs Invest in the market , capital drives growth.

Pay for your parent’s medical insurance, health care improves Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean, or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we’re going to re-distribute wealth let’s really do it…instead of trickling out puny rebates.

If we’re going to do an $85 billion bailout, let’s bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t.

Can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion ‘We Deserve It Dividend’ more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.
And all those who lost jobs when these companies folded will have a new financial beginning!!!!
Is there a better plan than this?????

And, this is what I think…

I was thinking the same thing. It not only would be better for the people of this country (both struggling and not)…But, it kick starts the economy almost immediately. It seems a total no brainer, AND it’s a guarantee election win for the person who suggests it. This money would trickle UP much faster than anything would ever trickle down (we know trickle down does not work).

There is no way the economy wouldn’t make a quick recovery with a plan like this. It’s a win win for the entire country. WHY DOESN’T ANYONE SEE THAT? Is it because of all the money given to politicians from financial institutions? That’s the only explanation I can think of. I’m so sick that our government is willing to use 800 Billion of our tax dollar for something that (I don’t care what they say) really doesn’t affect or help the average American. Invest in the people of this country.

This is the perfect opportunity for REAL CHANGE!!! Why is Obama not taking advantage of this opportunity to help the entire country? Why is he just following along with a Bush plan for the economy??? Why is he agreeing with McCain??? What kind of change is he really offering? I will vote for him…But, I am VERY disappointed in him.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  With all this money, why can’t we bail out the people first, and let the people bail out the banks?

•An interactive tool that provides users with issues-based coverage of the election in one
location
• Pick among 25 issues central to the election and explore side-by-side comparisons of the candidates
• Watch video breakdowns created by the VoteGopher team
• Begin our MyBallot feature and find your candidate