A Shout-Out to Robyn Dyba

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

Windfall in West Virginia

Hillary Clinton garnered a resplendent victory in the West Virginia primary today. Despite her rather dismal performance in Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton handed Barack Obama perhaps his "worst defeat during the campaign." However, her attempt to impede Obama's claim to the Democratic throne was hardly felt.

Instead, Clinton garnered 15 of the 28 West Virginia delegates, "with 13 left to be allocated." Although Obama still retains a commanding lead, Clinton accentuated her appeal to blue-collar workers. This particular issue has plagued Obama's campaign since its initiation. Perhaps he will be able to remedy this persisting problem?

No pestilance, however enduring, will hinder Clinton. She will continue to carry on until a nominee is named.

Queen Elizabeth was acknowledged for her vacillation and perhaps Clinton will be known for her stalwart inability to admit defeat. It is odd, however, because Clinton's stoical adherence to her campaign seems conspicuously like vacillation? What do you think? Enjoy.

-JCarmel

Walkabout in West Virginia

While Barack Obama may have garnered enough superdelegates to take the lead, Hillary Clinton still refuses to concede defeat. She is advocating a dum spiro spero, while I breathe, I hope, policy. Clinton is attempting to ensure, unlike the Pyrrhic victory in Indiana, that she is declared the unambiguous victor in West Virginia. Maybe she will be successful? Let us wait and see what the polls reveal.

Each candidate has immured his or herself in West Virginia politics, touring the state and issuing resplendent speeches. Although Clinton is ahead by a 40-point margin in West Virginia, Obama has consistently surprised the citizenry with his uncanny ability to obtain superdelegates despite a loss.

The candidates face off on Tuesday, with severe pressure on Clinton to succeed or relinquish her bid for the presidency. One thing is certain; a tumultuous and controversial race will soon continue to persist until a nominee is named.

-JCarmel

Goodbye to Machiavelli

Perhaps I am the only one who still reviews the epoch when slaying one's political opponent, whether through dynastic struggle or hierarchical exploitation, was seen as ethical. Where, an adroit prince would slay his counterparts and stand, as Machiavelli once prescribed, omnipotent over their entire family.

Or maybe I am not?

One thing is certain, the ethical conduct of politicians, unlike the bloodshed of former centuries, has effectively altered in this new political arena.

While ethics have always been integral in reporting political news, whether it is tactfully asking Chelsea Clinton about her father's extramarital relationships or Michelle Obama about her loyalty to America, subtlety and deception seem to be on the rise. It is now more important to confront, rather conspicuously, a politician with their vulgar or misattributed actions, in a public setting.

While I am of the same opinion as Milan Kundera, that private and public life should be separated, it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern the difference. One thing is certain, the furtive maneuvers of both the media and politicians alike have ushered in a new era of ethics. Is it right to, as my journalism professor put it, report that, for instance, "Bob Dole was picking his nose?" Perhaps it is better to leave such characteristics between you and the individual.

In the changing political world, where propaganda is present, either audibly or visibly, one must conceptualize the ramifications of his or her actions. While ethics are inherently the same, the environment in which they are executed and contrivances used to execute them are profoundly different.

Certainly we will miss the days when, in order to gain political superiority, one would simply remove, notice the euphemism, his opponent from power. Instead secret alliances, as Bismarck noticed, are the key to diplomatic and ethical success.

Goodbye Machiavelli.

-JCarmel

O(H!)Bama

The recent primaries held in Indiana and North Carolina proved auspicious for presidential hopeful Barack Obama. An unequivocal win in North Carolina and a pseudo-win in Indiana, although Clinton garnered enough votes to give her a meager win, legitimized Obama's claim to the Democratic throne.

Wielding his resplendent oratorical sword, Obama has received a myriad of different superdelegates, once again validating his predomination over Hillary Clinton.

Despite the rather solemn outcome for Clinton, she refused to admit defeat. Instead, she will continue her campaign for the presidency and further accentuate John McCain's relief at Democratic vacillation. While the campaign lumbers on tumultuously, only time will tell if Clinton's efforts are fruitful. Will we have another Bull-Moose Party? Let us wait; perhaps the political arena will surprise us all with an unusual outcome.

-JCarmel

Between "Wright" and Wrong

Barack Obama may posses resplendent oratorical skills, mellifluous speech, an increasingly effect campaign, other skills necessary of a political figure. However, Obama's connection to Reverend Jeremiah Wright have plagued his campaign for months. His virulent racially and politically charged sermons helped to facilitate a growing controversy.

Although Obama has explicitly alleviated all ties with his former pastor, his campaign has still been damaged, the major ramifications already incurred, by Wright and his unpatriotic statements. Perhaps this will be complicit in Hillary's return to glory? Obama's win in North Carolina begs the question, while further buttressing his success in the political arena.

On the contrary, Clinton has increasingly lost support and has been asked to remove herself from the competition, although she refused to do so. Keep one eye open, politics are just as mercurial as individuals. Enjoy.

(By the way, this was actually posted on May 9th, 2008. Once again, I apologize for the inconsistency and inconvience.)

-JCarmel

Lincoln-Douglas Resurrected

Well, if I may say so, Hillary Clinton has at long last issued an interesting challenge to Barack Obama. No, it is not another bowling competition, but instead a comprehensive Lincoln-Douglas debate.

The term Lincoln-Douglas debate is derived from the 1858 Illinois senatorial race between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. The debate is unique insofar that it is not regulated by a moderator.

It would be more interesting, however, to discern a winner. Although Obama stated that, "he would rather be on the ground talking to voters," such a debate may produce advantageous results.

During the actual Lincoln-Douglas debate, Senator Douglas issued what was known as the Freeport Doctrine. Although Douglas subsequently won the senatorial election, his advocation of the Doctrine, which reaffirmed sovereignty as the necessary tool for differentiating between slave and free states, led to his ultimate defeat during the presidential election that followed.

Of course, I am not attempting to draw parallels between Abraham Lincoln and the current candidates, for the former is incomparable and moderate, but such debates would likely generate controversial ruminations or elocutions. Perhaps Obama will accept Clinton's challenge? Keep an eye out, posterity will soon reveal whether or not it will prove feasible.

-JCarmel