Question 3: "Why is Obama's proposed plan of raising taxes on people earning over $250,000 a year not class warfare? Why is McCain's proposed plan of taxing employers for health benefits, which some studies say would actually throw 5 million more people onto the roles of uninsured, not taking things out on the poor?"

Alex: Personally, if I am ever in the position of making over $250,000 a year, I would be more than happy to pay a little more than those citizens who only make around $50,000. I don't think its patriotic, per say, but I think fairness and morality come into it. It surprises me how many "Bible Belt" conservatives don't support a policy that would help the less fortunate. After all isn't that what Jesus was preaching for?

Enough about religion seeing as it is separate from state, or at least supposed to be. McCain's stance of deregulating the Health Insurance field is the wrong approach. His "$5,000 tax credit" for health care does not go to the citizen; it goes directly to the employer. Health care has always been a problem in my family, whether it be not enough coverage or no coverage at all when my mother was out of work. Obama's plan covers people in my position no matter what. McCain's stance on deregulation did not help the economy and will not help the health care industry.

Mike: All I'm going to say is that it's easy to say that when you aren't making that much. I would say the same - if I made that much, more taxes wouldn't seem like that big a deal. But if we were actually in that position, I guarantee that we wouldn't like being punished for being wealthy through higher tax rates.

There's a difference between voluntary charity and forced charity through taxation (which isn't even charity, since you have no choice). Biden's whole notion that paying more taxes is patriotic is absurd. If he is such a fan of helping the lower classes, why doesn't he donate some more of his personal wealth to charitable causes? The Palins make less than him on an annual basis, yet donated more to charity in 2006 than Biden has since 1998.

It seems to me that the right approach would be giving people back their own money to get their own insurance. To me, McCain's plan makes more sense. Maybe it's just the libertarian in me not wanting the government sticking its hand in my health insurance.

Alex: Come find me in 15-20 years; if Im making $250,000+ and I have switched my views on tax increase for my demographic, you can kill me. No questions asked. It is not "punishment" for being wealthy, its an opportunity to help those less fortunate than yourself. Being on the bottom half of the sphere growing up I can say with some passion that when I do start making a salary after my schooling in done, I will be more than happy to pay a percentage more than those who were dealt a worse hand than mine. It seems to me that the upper half generalizes the lower half as lazy, un-American, un-working, and unwilling to work. This could not be further than the truth. The bottom half is filled with single parent families, debt-stricken after a divorce with a father who won't pay child support. The bottom half is filled with skill workers whose factories have shutdown and have no other knowledge than that specific skill to re-enter the workforce. The bottom half deserves a break for once.

I pride myself on doing whatever I can to help people less fortunate than I, and there are more ways to do so then donating to charity. That being said, I have no proof of what Joe Biden does with his money or time when he's not in the Senate.

Mike: It isn't an opportunity; you're being forced into it. There's nothing charitable or generous about paying higher taxes because you have a higher income. So while, yes, it's nice to say the rich should be expected to help out the poor, to try to force it through taxation not only removes any pretense that they're being generous or acting out of concern for those less fortunate than themselves. "Soak the rich" taxation is not "patriotic," it is not "charitable," it is not a religious matter, it is not an opportunity to serve the poor, it's bearing an additional burden because you have more money.

"The bottom half is filled with single parent families,debt-stricken after a divorce with a father who won't pay child support."
This description describes my family's financial situation to a T. So I do agree that life is hard for people on the bottom, often through no fault of their own. I commend you for still finding ways to help others despite being in a difficult situation yourself. As far as Biden goes, maybe he does do more than donate through charities, but his tax information certainly makes him look like a miser.

Alex: That's your family to the T? You and I may have more in common than I thought.

No matter how different two people are, there are always similarities. It is our moral duty to find those commonalities and build on them. That's how were going to turn this country around; by building up, not tearing down.

Alex J. Martin

(You can view the entire thread of our debate here. You will need a Facebook account to access it.)

Question 1: "Was the House defeat of the [first] bailout bill the best of Washington D.C. or the worst?"

Alex: I think that it was the best of D.C. even though neither candidate wanted to admit that. To me, it showed that not many Representatives were super excited about bailing out Wall Street CEOs who had taken advantage of so many average Americans and were now going to get billion dollar pension plans. The typical American right now is afraid of their bills, potential bankruptcy and foreclosures. Not immediately passing this bill was a good move by Washington.

Mike: Well, it's hard to argue about this now that both houses of Congress have passed a bailout bill, but I'd say the rejection was more the best of Washington than the worst. The House listened to its constituents, who at the time were still strongly opposed to a bailout, and rejected a plan that would, at least in the short term, cost hundreds of billions of dollars based on numbers that were pulled out of thin air. In a lot of ways, though, this also showed the worst of the current Congress.

Nancy Pelosi was telling Democrats in close re-election bids that they could vote against the bill to appease voters, while calling the Republicans unpatriotic for opposing it. Then of course the Republicans were blamed for the bill's failure and, by extension, the market's subsequent collapse. If Pelosi was so desperate to get the first bill passed she could have done it without a single Republican vote. But instead it became a partisan stunt. No wonder Congress's approval rating is so low.

Alex: As Speaker of the House, Pelosi can say whatever she likes. Those Republican Reps. have to stand by their votes as all politicians do for years to come, no matter which way they voted.

Question 2: "Secretaries of State Baker, Kissinger, Powell, have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former Secretaries of State are wrong on that?"

Mike: No one in their right mind would think they are wrong on that. McCain has advocated engagement with our enemies, as he pointed out during the first debate. What McCain does not agree with is Presidential-level contacts with heads-of-state without first setting preconditions. But the whole idea that McCain opposes any diplomatic engagement with our enemies is about as accurate as Biden arguing that Obama never said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. But there is a difference between diplomatic engagement and Presidential meetings. For example, McCain pointed out that Ambassador Crocker in Iraq has met with the Iranians. I don't have a problem with that. We've been negotiating with North Korea for years. It even just came out in the news that Afghan representatives are meeting with the Taliban in Saudi Arabia to try to come to a political settlement now that the Taliban claims to have turned its back on Al-Qaeda. I don't have a problem with diplomacy, or meeting with hostile states. So, long answer short, yes, we should have engagement with hostile states. To not talk to them at all isn't going to help in any way, and would likely prove dangerous.

Alex: Yea I do agree with you here. Although I discount any attempt to make the moderator Gwen Ifill look biased, this question seemed to play directly into supporting Obama's "no pre-conditions" stance. Since Ifill was not solely responsible for developing the questions, you cannot place blame on her. I think that diplomacy is first in the eyes of Obama and second in the eyes of McCain and I can back that up with each candidate's initial reaction to the War on Terror. Although I do agree that something needed to be done instanstly, I absolutely disagree with how fast we became involved in Afghanistan and subsequently, Iraq. Even after Pearl Harbor was bombed we took a longer time deciding on how bad we were going to blow Hiroshima off the face of the planet. That being said, I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with advocating some level of engagement with enemies, as several Secs. of State have advocated.

Mike: What do you mean Ifill wasn't solely responsible for the questions? She announced in the very beginning that "the specific subjects and questions were chosen by me and have not been shared or cleared with anyone on the campaigns or on the commission." Now, I'm not trying to argue that she's biased, I think she did quite a good job of remaining objective, certainly a far better job than you'd expect from someone who has an upcoming book on politics in the "Age of Obama."
And PLEASE tell me I'm misinterpreting your statement, because it seems to me you think we should have negotiated with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda after 9/11.

Alex: Ifill is writing a book about POLITICS IN THE TIME of Obama... not OBAMA IN the time of politics. There is a difference and she has reported to have not even started her "chapter" on Obama. Its hard to predict what a book will say when it hasn't even been written.

And no, I would not have wanted to sit down with the Taliban or Al-Qaeda on Sept. 12, 2001 and sorted things out. I was angry and I wanted heads. But I am in no position to run this country. People with cooler head always prevail and a more thought out course of action in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been better.

Mike: Oh come on. Is a book entitled Politics in the Age of Obama really going to be critical of Obama? Think about it. She describes the book as covering the stories of Obama and three other Democratic politicians and their accomplishments.
But as it is, I'm not trying to argue that she was a biased moderator - she actually quite objective I thought.

(continued)

(You can view the entire thread of our debate here. You will need a Facebook account to access it.)

It is difficult to find statistics pertaining to the amount of youth that watched this debate, although I can say with certainty there was at least ten; 4 in my room and 6 on the other side of the suite who watched. What is lacked in statistical evidence is made up for in youth opinion of the debate and the candidates' performance.

I thought the bar was set much lower for Palin, mostly because her Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews made her appear barely capable of forming a sentence. Interestingly enough, Palin impressed me. She was knowledgeable, charismatic, and even personable when she gave a "shout-out" to a third grade class. However, this did not shield my eyes from her stances on several issues, the lies she tried pulling off as truths, and the misleading information she gave about Obama.

For one, Palin lied about her administration's role in an attempt to divest Alaska's holdings from Darfur. She claimed she opposed investments in Darfur when she first found out about them, however, documents show that Palin's administration opposed efforts by Alaskan legislators to pass a Darfur divestment bill towards the end of 2007. Congress even wrote her a personal letter in 2006 asking her to join other states divesting assets from Darfur when she was running for Governor. The Palin Administration held investments in businesses linked to the genocides in Darfur up until March 2008.

Palin also misled the American people when she said that Obama had voted to raise taxes 94 times. Biden jumped on this misinformation instantly.

"Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Using the standard that the [Gov. Palin] uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes."

Palin also stated that Obama once voted for a raise in taxes on families making $42,000 a year. He did no such thing. The budget bill she is referring to would only raise taxes on singles making that much a year and would have no effect on a family of four unless they made over $90,000.

It's one thing to use someone's record against them in a political race. People should be held accountable for their actions and politicians should have to stand by what they voted for. But to present information in such a false light is deceiving and dishonest.

"If a candidate's statements are misleading or if he or she leaves a question unanswered, it seems as though the candidate will prohibit government from being transparent," said Alex Sanders, commentary editor of the Daily Campus.

Palin also claimed that Obama voted against funding for the troops. In actuality, Obama voted against a billthat would have kept troops in Iraq, and if he were to vote for this bill he would have contradicted his position of wanting a gradual withdrawl from Iraq. McCain opposed a bill that funded the troops when the bill contained language referring to the withdrawl of troops, whereas Obama supported it.

The misrepresentation of facts has become a standard in both McCain and Palin's public addresses since they became running mates.

Alex J. Martin

When a Facebook user adds this application, there are several features that they will find useful. They can register to vote, request to vote absentee, and change/find their polling location. Along with these features, the application goes through the user's list of Facebook friends and allows the user to remind friends they have living in swing-states to register to vote through this application.

I added the application so I could change my polling location from Waterbury, CT. to Storrs-Mansfield, CT. so I didn't have to travel home on November 4th to vote. I was also prompted to remind the friends I have in Florida, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania to register to vote in these swing-states.

There is also a "Get Involved" feature in the Vote for Change application that can help a user become active in the Obama campaign. The options given for users wanting to become more involved are volunteering for the campaign, donating to the campaign, or getting involved in their local community. The links in this part of the application take users directly to the Obama/Biden campaign website where they can subscribe and become active in Obama's quest for the White House.

Like most Facebook applications, the Vote for Change page enables a discussion board for users to post their feelings and questions that can be viewed by all users of the application. There is also a feature that allows users to post articles or videos pertaining to the Obama campaign.

Alex J. Martin

Mike: I've lost count of how many times I've heard this one. If I support the war I should join up, right? Well, you may not know, I had planned for years to join the military, I even considered applying to West Point, until I found out I was medically disqualified from commissioning.

Yes, 4,000 deaths is tragic, no one is denying that, but put in a historical context this war has had very low casualty rates. And remember, violence overall is at its lowest point in years right now. I believe it was July had the lowest death tolls for US forces in the entire war, and Iraqi casualties were down over 80% from a year ago.

If the war was for oil, not even Bush would be so incompetent that in 2007 we'd still be importing more oil from Nigeria and Algeria than Iraq. Oil price rises have more to do with rising global demand, especially in India and China, than with the war in Iraq.

I do feel sorry for the journalists who have been killed, but that risk is always there, especially since we're fighting an unconventional war against an enemy who makes no distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

The Senate also passed a resolution saying they were convinced that the surge was a failed strategy, didn't they? As recently as May Obama was saying "We don't need more spin on how the surge is succeeding" at accomplishing its objectives. And now that's he's basically been forced to admit it worked, he says he'd still have opposed it.He essentially admitted he'd rather lose the war to help his political career. Why else would he say "The surge worked beyond anyone's wildest dreams" but if he got to do it over, he still would have opposed it? Because losing the war would help him politically. It's that simple.

Alex: All things aside, how can you justify a war with so many cons and so few pros for the American people?

Mike: Because, simply put, we cannot afford to fail in Iraq. The stakes are too high, arguably even higher than they would be if we lost in Afghanistan. If we leave too soon, and Iraq collapses back in sectarian violence and chaos, it will unravel everything done in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. If the violence flares up again and we aren't there to contain it, the Iraqi government will probably collapse, causing a power vacuum that al-Qaeda and Iran will be all to happy to step into. And what happens if al-Qaeda reestablishes itself in central Iraq? When an Iraq-based al-Qaeda strikes the American homeland again, you'd have only yourself to blame.

Alex: Seems like typical Republican scare-tactics to me. That being said, I do agree that we cannot just pull out of Iraq. Obama supports a responsible, timely exit; not an instant exit leaving a mess. If the Iraqis keep progressing in the way that they are now, then by the time Obama's timetable (something McCain lacks) completes withdrawing the troops, they will be in good shape.

Mike: Obama supports a fixed deadline whereas McCain wants it based entirely based on conditions on the ground and the opinions of the commanders. It seems to me that McCain's approach is the more responsible one. Should something go unexpectedly wrong, would Obama stick to the timetable regardless of the conditions on the ground, or bend the timetable to deal with it, which is McCain's stance. 

Alex: My biggest problem with the war is the cost. I am in no way relating the $800 billion extension bill to the economic crisis going on now; tThat had much to do with too little regulation and lenders giving loans to individuals that had no way of paying them back. That being said, this $800 billion+ could have been invested more wisely in alternative fuels like wind and solar, or even nuclear power as the recent progress we've made in producing it and making it environmentally friendly, relatively speaking. We could have invested it in the education system; helping under-privileged students afford college, being able to upgrade some public school facilities, and so on. I just think if were going to spend that much money, it should be reinvested in the American people.

Mike: Yes, ideally it would be nice if we didn't have to fight a war and all our resources could be spent on improving life here, and I do agree we need to improve our education system. As far as alternative energy, I say drill here while we develop alternative fuels that can eventually replace fossil fuels altogether. It will keep American money in the country, and boost the economy through lower fuel prices and more jobs. Win-win in my opinion.

Actually, the problem with the economy had to do with too much regulation, going back to the Community Reinvestment Act, which forced banks to make risky loans to poor minorities in unsafe neighborhoods. So, like you said, they made bad loans to people who couldn't pay them back, but the loans were made due to government regulation, not deregulation. Efforts by the Bush administration to take action in 2003 and by John McCain in 2005 to stop the spree of bad loan-making by companies like Fannie and Freddie were stopped by the Democrats in Congress.

Alex: The CRA is not as much the problem as you make it out to be. A recent BIS working paper has concluded that "Contrary to some media commentary, there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the sub-prime lending boom and subsequent housing bust." In addition, just about half of the sub prime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA and therefore had no government obligation to offer credit lower-class citizens. The CRA doesn't FORCE banks to loan to lower-class citizens, it just prevents them from redlining their credit to only wealthy neighborhoods. For the record, there aren't only poor minorities in unsafe neighborhoods.

Drilling is not going to solve any energy problems that we are having. Hypothetically, if we were to drill, it would take 10-15 years before anything we get out would be usable. In 10-15 years we can be well on our way to being completely rid of oil's death grip. Yes, it would create jobs, but wouldn't sending people to work in a solar energy or wind energy facility create just as much if not more jobs then sending people to drill oil? After all, oil is just a couple places in the country. Sun and wind can be found pretty much anywhere.

Mike: Drilling will help. Assuming we don't have enough alternative supplies in place by the time drilling gets underway, we have enough oil reserves to feed our current consumption rate for over 100 years in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming alone. The reserves hold an estimated 800 billion barrels. We use 20 million barrels a day. That's 40,000 days, or over 109 years, worth of oil. More than enough to buy us all the time we need to wean ourselves off of oil entirely, enjoy much cheaper gas prices until we get there, and stop importing from places like Saudi Arabia. Win-win-win.

Alex: Drilling would help, maybe, if it didn't take up to ten years to refine what we get out of our new oil wells. That being said, in the same timetable we can invest in clean energy instead of eventually burning all that oil we drill out. This will help to prevent further global warming and climate change. And for one thing, we don't REALLY know what effects offshore drilling will have on the environment. Some people claim that it will help it, but it certainly will not. Think about oil spills from oil tankers transporting oil from the platform to onshore facilities, from pipelines doing the same, and from leaks and accidents on the platform. According to the organization Culture Change, a Gulf of Mexico rig dumps about 90,000 tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings over its lifetime.

Mike: Drilling will help. Just the option of having it available may be enough to lower prices, with the way the market works. Just raising the potential supply could lower costs. And considering it's nowhere near definite that we could fulfill all our energy needs with alternative or nuclear power in 10 years, drilling could be necessary to supply us with our own oil while we build up our wind, or solar, or nuclear, or any other supply of alternative energy.

It doesn't matter who said what, who made better arguments and points, or who won. When you can find  youths educated enough to debate about something intelligent, everyone wins.

Alex J. Martin

You can view the entire thread of the debate here. You will need a Facebook account to access it.

These two gentlemen put off going to the parties on a college Friday night. Instead, they watched the debate between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. They are prepared to debate on the presentation of each candidate's points as well as the issues themselves: foreign policy and national security.

In the left corner, we have Alex Martin. Alex is a journalism and political science double major at the University of Connecticut and is in his 5th semester. He enjoys political writing, listening to music, UConn football, and a fine brew.

In the right corner, we have Mike Anton. Mike is a history major at Norwich University and is in his 5th semester. He enjoys debating politics, Bon Jovi, video games, and Battlestar Galactica. Mike so graciously agreed to this debate on such short notice; much is owed to his committment.

DEBATE!

Alex: I personally think that the debate was a draw. For a debate on national security and foreign policy, Obama's weakest topics, a draw is just as good as a win.

Mike: Both candidates did well. While this is an area believed to be Obama's weakness, he did not have any major issues with it (aside from the "Uh, I have a bracelet too" moment) or get dominated by McCain on any particular issue. And as you said, for Obama, not getting defeated may be as good as a victory.

Alex: One thing I did not like was McCain's demeanor towards Obama. On countless questions, Obama tried to make eye contact with McCain in a sense to make a conversation. McCain did not look his way once, and just trashed him by saying that Obama "doesn't understand." What I dont understand is how were suppose to trust McCain when he cant even look his opponent in the eye when they're talking.

Mike: As far as demeanor, in my opinion, Obama got too defensive whenever McCain criticized him, often times he wouldn't even let McCain finish his comment before trying to retort. I also did not like his calling Sen. McCain "John," but that's just a personal preference that it would be more polite and the debates should remain more formal. It's not about having a "conversation."

Getting back to Iraq - McCain can legitimately separate himself from Bush on the poor handling of the war, given that he has criticized he administration since 2003, so he may be able to lessen Obama's advantage there. Perhaps not, though. It may permanently be part of the baggage he has from being a Republican.

I think Obama will get some support by continuing to argue that he opposed the war, but his continued refusal to acknowledge the surge worked will hurt him. His "no political progress" line will also be damaged by the Iraqi Congress's unanimous passage of a provincial election law, which I was glad to see McCain mention.

Obama continues to make himself look like a fool with his "no preconditions" stance. Every time he says he'll have preparations but not preconditions just makes him sound more and more like he's trying to wiggle out of a hole he so happily stuck himself in during the primaries. Of course, his incorrect presentation of Henry Kissinger's position doesn't help him either.

Alex: Obama's "preconditions" stance is simple, and McCain is presuming and assuming plenty of falsehoods about this stance. His position for creating open lines of communication between countries we are at odds with is refreshing. This will enable us as a nation to form alliances when possible, instead of having countries agree to our terms before meeting. I believe that our president should sit down with the leaders of any country to talk about things before we just throw a bunch of missiles at them. He would not say "Oh, you want to wipe Isreal off the map. That's cool."

Its no doubt that Obama faulted a couple times when talking about foreign policy. His somewhat incorrect interpretations of Kissinger's stance was a slight advantage to McCain, and that fact that he has never come out to say that the surge was successful also looks fishy. But, in Obama's view, we should have never been in Iraq to begin with. Therefore, the surge would never have been executed or even needed. Theres no denying that it worked, but the sequence of events up to it that made the surge NECESSARY should have been different.

There's no sense in arguing "what ifs". We are the war and McCain gives us the best chance to win it. But what are we trying to win? As Obama said repeatedly during the debate, the real enemy is Afghanistan and we should be there. We cannot fight this battle on that front because so much of our money, troops, and resources are being used up Iraq. With our troops absent from the picture, absent meaning in the wrong country, the violence in Afghanistan increased 30% in 2006-2007.

Mike: Which is why we're sending several thousand additional troops to Afghanistan instead of Iraq as we speak. As the fighting in Iraq declines, it frees up more of our men and resources to combat the resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. I agree that Afghanistan has gotten worse, and in response we are already sending more troops there instead of to Iraq, and have tried to convince our NATO allies that they should send more too.

In Iraq, we couldn't just run in, blow stuff up, kill Saddam and walk away leaving wreckage in our place. The country would have collapsed. We were responsible for helping them establish a secure democracy. We didn't go about it the right way for too long, but now we're on the path to victory. With violence at its lowest levels since 2004, significant improvements in the Iraqi military, and political progress taking place, we have succeeded in moving Iraq towards a stable democracy. Now we need to make sure this progress endures, and continue to step down as Iraqis step up. As it is, Iraqis control 11 of their 18 provinces on their own, including Anbar, once considered "lost". Another reason we can't just leave - what happens when we pull out and a true civil war breaks out? When regional powers get involved and the conflict escalates beyond Iraq? One of the world's most volatile regions could go to hell in a handbasket, and how long before we have to go back in to fix the mess we caused because we didn't have to guts to face it earlier?

Alex: But what about here at home? The cost of the war keeps going up and with when W. approved a bill in June it brought the cumulative cost of war to $800 billion. We need to be using the tax payer's money on alternative fuels, education, and healthcare. If were going to go trillions of dollars in debt, we might as well use it in areas that will genuinely help Americans.

You seem perfectly fine with sending more troops into the Middle East. But its not you thats going. As of May, over 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and over 30,000 that have been wounded. 2,100 have attempted suicide in 2007 alone. The most terrifying statistic to me is the death toll of innocent American journalists in Iraq, which is at 127 since March 2003.  This war is hitting on all fronts, and for the sake of the American people we need to bring the troops home. (stats)

The cost of a barrel of crude oil is up from $33.51 in March 2003 to $108.02 today. Oil prices were as high as $147.27 in July. For a war I consider to be mainly about oil and the democracy of Iraq a distant second, the prices aren't correlating to Bush's motives.

A majority in the Senate has voted to change the course in Iraq 8 times. Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course 7 times, and the White House vetoed the other one.

(continued)

You can view the entire thread of the debate here. You will need a Facebook account to access it.

Most states are all but won by their respective candidate, and the battle for votes has shifted to swing states such as West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and so on. The winner of these undecided states will win this election. Politically savvy people refer to this as the electoral college.

But how can I, a resident of a non-swing state, persuade people in a swing state a to vote for Obama? There's no way, right? Wrong. Cue Joe Biden.

In an email addressed to me, mainly because of my subscription to the Obama campaign site, Biden let me in on a program that is helping Democrats do just that: persuade swing state voters.

"In the final weeks of this campaign," writes Biden, "supporters like you will be traveling to their nearest battleground state to do the kind of work that will decide this election - knocking on doors, talking to undecideds, and getting out the vote on Election Day."

The Drive for Change program is designed to organize and send supporters to swing states in order to generate as many votes as possible in each crucial location. Anyone interested in the program can sign up through the site and they

will be sent information on which state closest to them is in need of supporters, and how to get involved with other Democrats in that state.

"Face-to-face contact with voters is the single most effective way to deliver the votes we need to win," Biden continues. "Don't let this election be decided by political stunts or distractions. Join your fellow supporters, roll up your sleeves, and help carry this campaign to victory."

Relying on their internet grass-roots foundation, the Obama campaign is generating a lot of support for the Drive for Change program. Once signed up, supporters are given the information on events in each particular battleground state. They will also recieve a list of dates that they can choose from to get their hands dirty in grass-roots politics. Supporters have the option of driving, carpooling, or if they cannot travel, making phone calls to voters to help persuade them to vote Democrat.

So, how can I, a resident of a non-swing state, persuade people in a swing state to vote for Obama? By driving. Driving for Change.

What time should I pick you up?

Alex J. Martin

Over the summer one of my good friends became very active in the Waterbury for Obama Committee. Although I could not be as involved as I would have liked to have been this summer, I respected the time and effort he was putting in to this cause. Aaron Schrag, a junior at the University of Connecticut, is helping organize a rally for Barack Obama in Waterbury, CT. this fall.

"At the first committee meeting we decided something like this should occur and it really took off from there" Aaron said. "The other members of the group have taken a lot of pressure of me [this semester] since I cannot be in Waterbury every day."

The event is scheduled to take place October 9th in downtown Waterbury on the Green. There will be speeches, live music, and the Waterbury Drill Team is scheduled to do a performance.

Aaron has been very active in generating youth interest for this election and more specifically youth support for Barack Obama's campaign. For him, Obama is more than just another politician.

"Obama has really motivated me as a person," he said. "Most people know that he is a very eloquent speaker but, when I hear him speak, it's like music to my ears."

"I know it sounds cliche, but we are the youth of this country. If we don't take action and help shape our futures then we are not acting as intelligent as we should."

I have already shown what kind of attention a youth rally can generate in my blog The Youth of the Nation. Aaron expects similar results and hopes to draw some apathetics and undecideds into the political scene.

"I hope that this rally will cause youth in the Waterbury area and youth around the country to get out and vote. I'm tired of hearing that the youth demographic is last or second to last in voting percentages. We need to be active and we need to be heard."

I could not say it better myself.

Alex J. Martin

You glance over at the television which is tuned into a local news station. Within ten minutes of viewing, you've heard TV personalities argue about abortion, the energy crisis, gay marriage, the war in Iraq, and why exactly Sarah Palin is a great choice as vice-president or why she is the worst political decision in history.

It's all white noise to you by now. You've heard all of these things debated day in and day out with no one providing a reasonably honest answer. You have also come to expect politicians and the media to lie right to your face. You're used to it.

In through the doorway walks Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin. You are given the chance to ask them one question; any question, on any topic, and they have to give you a straight-forward, honest answer. At last, some transparency in politics!

This is the situation I wanted young Americans to imagine they were in, and then they were to decide what they would ask the potential leaders of the free world. What hard-nosed, character-revealing, no-nonsense questions can the youth of this country come up with when they know they won't be told a tale? Would they question McCain's policies, Obama's political history, a controversy involving Sarah Palin, or Biden's views on pretty much anything at all?

The following is a collection of questions submitted by several 20-somethings, outraged by untrustworthy politicians and in need of answers. And they want them now.

"We are too dependent on oil. There are two ways to address this problem. The first is to continue down the same path we have been, which would consist of off-shore drilling in the ANWR and continued reliance on foreign oil. The second way would be to change paths and change directions entirely, consisting of becoming more efficient in alternative fuels (solar and wind energy) and research into nuclear power. What is better for us as a nation: continuing down the same broken road while trying to fix it, or changing directions and trailblazing a new, more efficient road for the future? -Vince Varsh, 21years old from Orange, CT.

Gov. Sarah Palin, you have stated that you are a Republican because individual freedom and independence is important to you. Doesn't the notion of not supporting a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and limiting her rights and liberties to her body contradict your stance on "individual freedom"? - Jacque Herrick, 21 years old from Langhorn, PA.

Mr. McCain, what is the real reason you picked Sarah Palin as your running mate? - Brian Luong, 20 years old and a junior at Carnegie Mellon.

Stereotypes are very common in our society and you as public officials are certainly not immune to them. What are your reactions to the negative stereotypes portrayed on your character in this election? For example, McCain being "an old man," Obama being "a black man," and Palin being "a woman?" How do you plan to rise above these stereotypes? - Mayya Medved, 20 years old from Trumbull, CT.

Mr. Obama, you have made a considerable amount of progress in respects to motivating and inspiring the youth of this country. How can you help us realize our potential and help us realize that we are the future of this country? How can we inspire the people around us to be the best people they can be and focus on the positives instead of the negatives in one another? - Jennifer Layton, 21 years old from St. Croix, Virgin Islands.

How much of a difference do you really expect to make in a Democratic system so deeply rooted in capitalism that you would have to hurt members of Congress and deciding powers in order to make a difference, which, by default, would prevent any approvals for something revolutionary to our system? - Nick DeFilippo, 20 years old from Southbury, CT.

Why are there so many minority focused scholarships, loans, and grants for a college education but none specifically targeted at working-class white Americans? How can you help to improve the costs of a college education for all young people of this country? - Ashley Bisaillon, 21 years old from Waterbury, CT.

What stances and policies of the opposing party do you actually agree with? In what ways can we move past "left" and "right" politics, focus on crossing party lines and actually accomplish something in the next four years? - Kaitlin Kennedy, 21 years old from Radcliff, KY.

How does the government plan to fund all these corporate bailouts, like AIG and Lehman Brothers? - Jon DelCegno, 22 years old from Farmington, CT.

Since there are so many public family issues that go unaddressed, such as marriage and civil unions, family leave for pregnant women, poverty levels, and so on, how would you define "family"? - Rachel Julian, 21 years old from Berlin, CT.

Mr. McCain, why do you think the fact that you were a POW is in anyway relevant to our future or makes you a better candidate for office? - Felicia Greco, 20 years old from Wolcott, CT.

Sarah Palin, for someone who is running on a platform of extreme patriotism, how could you possibly have supported an Alaskan succession from the union? - Marissa Rann, 20 years old from Edison, NJ.

The prohibition of alcohol at the beginning of the 20th century can now be deemed as an ineffective piece of legislation. It can also be agreed that during prohibition alcohol increased the crime rate and was a pivotal factor in organized crime as an illegal market was created for an unregulated product in high demand; alcohol. The contemporary scenario that can be compared to the prohibition of alcohol is the illegality of marijuana. It has been proven that marijuana is a safer substance than both alcohol and nicotine, yet those are legal. It has also been proven that marijuana can be used for medicinal purposes and is legal in California for that reason. Countless tax dollars are being thrown away by holding individuals charged with marijuana related offenses behind bars. What are your thoughts on the legalization of marijuana? If you think it should be legalized, how would you go about regulating it? - Tom Kuczynko, 21 years old from Unionville, CT.

"Do any of you candidates have what it takes to answer our questions?" - Alex Martin, 20 years old from Waterbury, CT.

Alex J. Martin

After posting this piece, I, through instruction of my professor Rick Hancock, found a site that allows you to say anything to George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama. If you're interested, check it out

Mr. McCain, I know it may come as a surprise to you, but there are actually voters under the age of 60 that support you. Not all of them, obviously, but there's a solid chunk of young Americans who think that you should be our next president. However, there are some of us that don't agree with what you stand for or the direction you want this country to go in.

Mr. Obama, you have a sizable lead over the Arizona Senator in youth support. There are some of us that agree with your policies, are ecstatic about your approach to politics, and are moved by your rhetoric. However, there are some that are skeptical about your experience, your trustworthiness, and your controversial background.

Ms.  Palin, we have to be honest with you. We didn't know who you were up until a few weeks ago. Some of us like your image, and your political history. Others are unsure about your credentials, afraid of your views on certain topics, and generally unsure if you can successfully lead this nation. But we're ready for you to prove us wrong if you so choose.

Mr. Biden, you're quiet style is refreshing, but as a potential vice-president, we demand to know more about you. We want to know what you stand for as a politician. We want to know what your plans for this nation are. We want to know why we should vote for you. Most importantly, we want to know who Joe Biden is.

The point of all this is that my generation has a voice; but it's not from just one mouth. Collectively we have plans, dreams, and expectations for our next president. What follows is a few voices from all over the country. All the candidates should listen closely. We need you to be our advocate in Washington for the next 4 years.

The best way to capture the "voice" of the youth is to let them voice their "voices" themselves. I generated "voices" by creating a forum on Facebook where anyone could post their ideas, concerns, views, and so on about the election, the candidates, the policies, the issues, etc. The following are some of the "voices" that spoke up.

"I think for me the most important reason why I like Obama so much is that he has this view that any new idea is a good idea, as long as it is for the betterment of all people. He doesn't see race or age but instead he sees Americans who need to come together to better each other to accomplish things like healthcare and education reform and fixing things with the Middle East. I'm not saying every idea thrown at him he is going to take up and run with, but his mind is much more open then McCain's." Aaron Schrag - 5th semester Business and Political Science major at the University of Connecticut

"I think either man can honestly make a great president. But I do have to say for me there is just something sketchy about Obama. I'm not sure I can trust him. I think that I do trust more of McCain because I am a military brat and my dad was never around growing up because he was fighting for our rights. I like how Obamais all about CHANGE, but then again, McCain said that change is good for him too. McCain and Bush, bothfrom the same party, yet they both are going different ways in the government. I really don't see why everyone is Anti- Bush, because honestly all [these problems] started when [Bill] Clinton was in office, but no one grasps that. I'm leaning towards McCain this time around mostly because I do trust most of what he is saying. Obama is a great speaker and would make a great president, I just find something very odd about him and I cannot pinpoint it." Amanda Fandrey -  Liberal Studies major at Antelope Valley College

"I have a hard time understanding why it's so hard to trust a man who worked hard on the Chicago streets for years, day in and day out, working to turn the city around. Obama helped low income families, worked to change and improve child labor laws, women's rights, and so on. His first piece of legislation in the Senate was increasing the Federal Pell Grant that most low-income college students recieve every semester. You see, the deal with this election is how much longer can we really tolerate a republican conservative in office who's working for the top 5% of the population. Not much longer, I'm afraid. Health care is a major problem for working families, the economy is in the dumps (but McCain doesn't think so), and our country is blowing so much money on the war its ridiculous. I'm not all for government spending, but if we are going to spend trillions of dollars to the point that were trillions of dollars in debt, let's use it to help American families who really need it." Alex Martin - 5th semester Journalism and Political Science major at the University of Connecticut

"I definitely think that for America to thrive we need Obama in office. McCain says a lot of things that sound pretty but he never says how he will make these things comeabout. He mimicked Obama's slogan "Change" but he has voted for the same stances as Bush 95% of the time. Obama is accepting of views different then the U.S.'s or his own but won't compromise our country because of them, which is very important in our culturally diverse country and world. He chose his running mate based on who would benefit him and our country best. McCain met Sarah Palin the night before he announced her as his running mate and chose her because of her being a woman would bring him voters that were questioning Obama; white middle class women. This is one of the most important decisions a presidential candidate can make. Even just thinking of these choices and why they were chosen shows Obama sees the future of America as more important then his personal success." Destiny Printz - 3rd semester Materials Science and Engineering major at the University of Connecticut

"At first I was a little apathetic about the whole thing because I don't trust politicians to begin with, and I can see how both candidates are choosing carefully what aspects of themselves they are highlighting and what type of language they are using when describing themselves or their opponent; but that's politics. However, the bottom line is that it comes down to choosing the BEST of the two; and as far as I'm concerned McCain hasn't done enough to differentiate himself from Bush, and no one wants another Bush. I realize he's in a tough spot because he has to make himself sound like he is gonna clean up the mess that Bush has left while at the same time backing him up to keep the Republican party united. I don't think that he is enough of a difference. Besides that, Democratic ideas simply fit my own much more closely than those of Republicans. McCain is so traditional he scares me. Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage AND civil union, he wants to keep Don't Ask Don't Tell and remain in the war? I think these things and others indicate that he is out of touch with both thechanging times and with the needs of the lower and middle classes. If you notice, I'm focusing on the negative things about McCain; I'm not a huge fan of Obama; probably because I know he's a brilliant speaker and can convince people of pretty much anything so I don't particularly trust him; but next to McCain there is no other choice for me. And it's about time we have a president who's not a white male. Hopefully soon we'll have a woman!" Angelica Huertas - 5th semester English Language/Literature and Philosophy at Smith College

"Obama is a strong candidate and he identifies with people on many levels. However, at the same time I think people are forgetting one thing: One of the most substantial issues facing us right now is the war, and our overseas presence. While like you said, Obama hasn't been afraid to get his hands dirty here at home, he has nowhere near the foreign experience McCain does. If anyone knows about war or how we should handle the war, its definitely him. I started off a strong McCain supporter, but as days go by I find myself more and more unsure, especially now that he has chosen Palin for his VP; I really cannot picture this country in her hands. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that this election isn't about picking the best candidate for the job, its turned into picking the lesser of two evils." Jason Simonsen - 5th semester English major at the University of Connecticut

One election. One president. Two candidates.

One generation. One voice. Millions of contributors.

Alex J. Martin

Although the youth vote is on the rise, 42% in 2004 compared to 32% in 2000 and 1996, there is still much room for improvement. Democratic nominees have been waiting for us to show up since the 1960's.

In recent memory, Democratic nominees have had the support of the youth. Eugene McCarthy did, George McGovern did, Howard Dean did, but none of them were president and two of them, McCarthy and Dean, did not even get the party's nomination. How can we turn the misfortune of the all the others turn into success for Barack Obama?

Eugene McCarthy's youth following had much to do with his anti-Vietnam War stance in the 1968 presidential election. Many anti-war college students decided to cut their long "hippy" hair and shave their beards to campaign for McCarthy in New Hampshire. Some even went door-to-door tagging the slogan "Get Clean for Gene." However, McCarthy lost the democratic nomination to Hubert Humphrey, who went on to lose to Richard Nixon in the presidential election. McCarthy ran for president unsuccessfully a total of 5 times.

George McGovern captured the youth vote similarly in the 1972 election. Like McCarthy, McGovern's anti-Vietnam War stance was agreeable with many anti-war college students across the country. However, after "Amnesty, Abortion, and Acid" controversy combined with the Thomas Eagleton controversy, McGovern lost in a landslide to Nixon who would start his second term as president only to resign in 1974, 2 years later, after the Watergate scandal broke.

Howard Dean, like McCarthy and McGovern, launched his campaign the same way; opposing war. At the California State Democratic Conventionin March 2003, he opened by saying, "what I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?" His anti-war position grabbed some college students, but he made his mark on the youth by using the internet as a foundation for fundraising. Unfortunately, youth support and fund raising did not end in votes leaving Dean in a third place finish for the nomination behind John Kerry and John Edwards.

All this history spells trouble for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, right? Well, not necessarily.

A report by CBSNews found that Obama'sconnection with the youth voter is different than past Democratic presidential hopefuls. "His appeal is not primarily ideological," the report says. "The campaigns of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Howard Dean were each driven by their opposition to a war. While their ideological stand helped woo Democratic primary voters, it alienated older voters."

Time Magazine recently observed that Obama has "one of those faces that seem beamed from a postracial future," like the faces of Tiger Woods and Angelina Jolie.

Similarly, in another report by CBSNews, Cora Currier finds that "[Obama] has made a campaign theme out of being post-boomer, thus distancing himself from the generation Clinton represents. He also touts himself as a postpartisanleader, someone who "can get things done" outside the bickering of Washington Democrats and Republicans. This all meshes well with the way young people view politics right now. According to opinion polls, they are less likely than older voters to be up in arms about gay marriage and abortion--perhaps because war, climate change and a plummeting economy appear to be more serious threats."

But perhaps the most telling information in Currier's report is that the youth of today are distancing themselves from party affiliation; distancing themselves from both Democrats and Republicans. "A survey of 18-to-24-year-olds last fall found that 40 percent identified themselves as independents, and 37 percent said that the existing parties "do such a poor job that a major third party is needed," Currier's report states. "Obama'stalk of "a new majority" fits nicely withthese sentiments, as does the claim he made in a speech to Virginia Democrats on February 9 that he can "move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and, yes, Republicans who are disillusioned with our current course together to get things done."

Yes, obviously Obama as the youth support this election and it differs in many ways with the youth support of candidates in the past. But will that turn into votes?

Optimistically speaking, from the UConn standpoint, we should have record numbers this November since we had record numbers in the February primary. Out of 1250 student voters registered to the Mansfield Registrar in Storrs-Mansfield, 477 of them came out to cast their  vote in the primary, according to Andrea Epling of the Registrar's office in an email interview with me last spring. Registered Democrats, encouragingly, accounted for 417 of those voters.

So, if I can make one point from this entire piece it is that excitement, support, and donations to your candidate can only go so far. What needs to happen is everyone getting off the couch to vote on November 4th, 2008. That truly is a definitive way to defeat apathy.

Alex J. Martin

"Liberty is the soul's right to breathe and, when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight." 

This powerful quote has been exclaimed in court rooms all over this country and has even been featured in the Academy Award  winning film Good Will Hunting. Liberty is what motivated our forefathers to declare independence from Great Britain over 200 years ago. We have had countless pieces of legislation passed to protect the liberties we enjoy every day.

Liberty as we know it is in trouble. But what if the problem wasn't that the laws are girdled too tight? What if the problem was that people elect to suffocate their own souls? What if American citizens opted to ignore their liberty by keeping their voices silent every day? 

By definition, apathy is the absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement. A report by CBSNews.com  found that younger people "do not understand the ideals of citizenship, they are disengaged from the political process, they lack the knowledge necessary for effective self-government, and their appreciation and support of American democracy is limited."

Harsh, right? I wish I could refute this claim, but the truth is that there are a lot of people my age that don't know about or just don't care about politics or the system through which our country is run. On the social networking site Facebook there are nearly 500 users that list their political views as apathetic, and more than 200 users on top of that that list apathy as an interest on their page.

I am a journalist however, and as a member of the alleged lethargic generation, I had to dig deeper into this accusation. There's no way I was going to believe that the majority of the youth doesn't want a say in where this country is going.

I managed to got a hold of a friend and self-proclaimed apathetic Erick Alfisi.  I told him the forum for my piece and proceeded to pick his brain about his political views. I started prying slowly, asking simply why he had lost interest in politics in general.

"I follow politics and all because I want to know whats going on, but I don't really support any politicians because I feel they all have their own agenda ahead of the interests of the people"

Its not like I could argue with him. I know several people young and old that feel out of touch with their representatives; the ones that are elected to voice the needs of the public. 

I wanted to know if there was anything he could think of that would make him excited about politics again. Maybe a policy he'd like to see in action, a politician he'd like to see in charge, anything to spark some interest.

"That is an interesting question. Its tough for me because I do have my bias and preconceived notions about politicians and the political system, but I'd say if there was someone who really had something to say, who didn't make empty promises and actually got his hands dirty for reasons other than a photo op."

What preconceived notions could one possibly have against politicians?

"It seems like they're all spouting the same nonsense as the guy before them. Its always "vote for me and this will happen and that will happen" but then, nothing happens."

I asked him what he thought of Barack Obama. I asked him if he thought that Obama was like every other politician and was just spitting political machine oil at America or if he thought the Illinois Senator was different.

 "I'm on the fence about [Obama]. I like what he has to say, but I think time will tell if he really makes a difference or if he's just banking on the fact that a lot of people in this country want things to change and he's catering to their thoughts."

What if he does make a difference and he does follow through with what he says?

"He has good ideas and if he actually implements the things he's talking about, there may be hope for me yet!"

So I asked him one final question.

Would you now say you are more of an apathetic or a skeptic?

" [Skeptic] probably sums it up better. I hope that doesn't ruin your article."

No, Erick, it didn't. I didn't want to ever think that there were people my age that were truly apathetic. It is human nature to be skeptical. You shouldn't take what anyone says for face value without doing your homework first anyway. I was in my glory; I had proved the CBSNews report wrong, at least for a moment.

Then I did my next interview. The interviewee asked to remain anonymous, and due to the nature of my story I saw nothing wrong with it. I started it off the same way; what made you lose interest in politics?

"All the failed policies of the Bush administration and the same empty promises of change from both politicians running in this year's election."

Ok, he didn't bite. I'll work with him. So I say, well, one of these politicians will have to win this election. Who do you think is better suited to run this country?

"Honestly, it doesn't matter. It's just going to be more of the same thing. Neither candidate is capable of making a difference for this country and turn it around."

Could this person truly have such little faith in the American people that not one candidate could bring about even a little change after four years in office? There's no way. So I ask him one final question to see if I can get him to open up a little.

What do you think we should do? As two young guys ready to vote for president for the first times in our lives, what should we do to overcome the issues we are facing as a country today?

"There's nothing we can do. No matter who gets in they're not going to listen to us. They're more concerned with the private interests any way. And if they were going to listen to an actual voter, why would it be a 20-something?"

I closed my eyes and saw John Stewart Mill carrying On Liberty  proudly in his arms, not knowing that the most powerful and influential civilization in human history will base their doctrine on it.

I saw Thomas Jefferson and John Adams signing the Declaration of Independence, saying loudly and proudly that their beliefs and opinions were valid and that they would fight along side eachother to make sure no one was persecuted for theirs.

I saw Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address, liberating a people who was beneath liberty for so many years and could now let their souls take in fresh air.

I saw Martin Luther King Jr. saying "I Have a Dream", filling his soul's lungs deep to motivate and give courage to people who may have never taken their first breathe.

And then, right as I opened my eyes, I saw liberty; gasping and blue in the face, suffocating in the tight girdle of apathy.

Alex J. Martin

The internet is a relatively new medium used by politicians to reach potential voters. Howard Dean is considered by many the first to use the internet as the foundation for a campaign when he ran for the presidency in 2004. However, Dean's internet following did not turn into votes for him and he lost the nomination to John Kerry. In any case, the infamous "byah" scream at the end of his speech in Iowa certainly didn't help.

Barack Obama is using the social networking aspect of the internet to grab hold of young people and to keep them up to date with information about his campaign. At the time of this post, Obama had over 1.7 million supporters on Facebook to McCain's 300,000. The MySpace margin is just as large. On this site Obama has over 500,000 "friends" compared to McCain's 88,000.

I know what you're thinking. How will these numbers from social networking sites turn into votes in November when they didn't for Howard Dean? Simple. The excitement factor. According to a poll by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, 44 percent of Obama's youth supporters are "excited" about him in contrast with just 14 percent that said they felt the same feeling for McCain. Excited seems like an understatement. The feeling I have is more along the lines of ecstatic or even euphoria. How else could I explain to my mother that after 20 years of her begging me to pick up a book with no luck I just went out and bought both of Obama's novels (Dreams from my Father  and The Audacity of Hope) and read them cover to cover?

As much as Senator Obama is gathering the youth of America together for his cause, his reach goes far past the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. For the past seven months Palestinian students have been making phone call after phone call to U.S. citizens urging them to vote for Obama. That's right. Students in the Middle East calling American citizens to persuade them to vote for Obama. What century is this? Not only does this story show how instant world communication and news has become since the advent on the internet, but it also shows how Obama's message of peace transcends borders and language barriers.

This Palestinian youth movement was started by Ibrahim Abu Jayyeb, a self proclaimed "political junkie" who has been following the presidential race and Obama since he emerged onto the scene during the primary season.

"I believe that Barack Obama will achieve peace in the area, in the Middle East and Palestine, between us, the Palestinian people, and the Jewish people," said Jayyeb in an interview with Ynetnews. Jayyeb's group of 24 students have made an estimated 120,000 phone calls to the U.S. since February.

This kind of global support for a presidential candidate is unprecedented, especially support from the youth of a part of the world we are currently at odds with. Barack Obama's campaign is not only sweeping young adults of this country and the Middle East, but it's getting them excited for the change it could bring about.

Alex J. Martin

A topic I'm passionate about? The election. Barack Obama. Making sure John McCain and Sarah Palin do not get the opportunity to lead this country down the path they deem appropriate.

The funny thing is I knew nothing about politics nine months ago. I was apathetic, not registered to vote, and unenthusiastic about anything going on outside of the sports page or, occasionally, the arts and leisure section. I had always thought that George W. Bush and his cabinet were the main reason for the slow decline of our country in the last eight years but like many people my age I felt there was little or nothing I could do to change that. See, the only president I can actually remember being elected is Bush. Other than Clinton's impeachment scandal, the only president I remember seeing on television is Bush. The only way I remember our country being viewed by other countries in the world is under the Bush administration. Do you really blame my age group for being apathetic? I certainly don't. Or at least I didn't, until I saw a candidate that I along with a multitude of others my age strongly feel can put this country back on track again.

Before Obama officially announced that he was running for the presidency, Students for Barack Obama, a group started on Facebook by students, had organized a rally for him at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. The rally was a huge success and was run completely by the students of GMU. This was just a taste of the kind of impact the 18-25 year old demographic could have on this election. Check out the video of the speech he gave that day below.

This rally catapulted and energized his entire campaign, and was the first rally he attended after he announced he was running. When the students began to put things together for the event, it was uncertain if he would be able to show up or even if he would be running for president. Having something to believe in can make people do amazing things, such as a bunch of 18-22 year olds launching a political event that RunObama.com blog author Adam Conner noted as "something you expect to see towards October of an election year rather than February of an off-year."

Months after the primaries and caucuses have been finished, Obama is still rolling largely in part to the youth of this country that are pushing for change. This will be the theme of my blog this semester. Anything that the youth of this country is doing to push for the Obama/Biden ticket will be analysed and my personal expertise will shed light on the truth about this election.

Alex J. Martin

I have had darning on the brain since I saw these wonderful samplers by late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century young Quaker women in a book I am now reading (more on this later). While the main purpose of these samplers is evidently the learning of a useful household skill, there is lots of showing-off involved too. Examples like this one are, to me, breathtaking decorative objects which, like other kinds of sampler, are obviously meant for display, circulation, and private appreciation. Indeed, many of the items of plain work or utility sewing in the book seemed to me to be stitched with large quantities of (entirely justified) hubris. The immaculately executed and minute herringbone stitch in this sampler really fills me with wonder. Unfortunately, I have no reason to be si