Hillary -vs- Obama

Hannity and Colmes recently had an episode saying that it is getting nasty on the campaign trail. Ex-House Speaker Gingrich weighs in on the campaign. Earlier in the stage, Kurk Gingrich believed that Hillary had an 80% chance of winning this election, after some facts that Colmes stated, Gingrich reduced Hillary's chances to about 50%. After watching the episode, it looks that Obama is actually leading the campaign. Kurk Gingrich then states that he is reducing his chances for Hillary not because of Colmes, but because he noticed that she was beginning to fail and had a lot of problems keeping her campaign together.

I actually agree with Gingrich. Maybe Hillary is panicking a little bit. Although, i still think Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Thompson Debut

John Stewart is showing clips of Fred Thompson and saying that he didn't do such a good job in the republicans candidate debate. It was actually a pretty funny episode as he was making fun of Thompson. Not only Stewart, Mitt Romney indulged in the fun also as seen in the clip.

Does Obama have the onions?

Rush Limbaugh says on his December 3rd show, "They're right. The Clintons are famous for dirty campaigns and negative campaigns, but here's the thing, folks. If Barack Obama... Look at what he's just been accused of? He's just been accused of running a slush fund, from the Clintons, by Howard Wolfson! Slush fund? Try multiple slush funds: the legal defense fund, the illegal Chinese campaign contributions back in the nineties, the Chinatown contributions this year, Norman Hsu, and the Clintons call Obama and his PAC a slush fund? I'll tell you if Barack Obama has the onions here, folks, he would stomp Mrs. Clinton on this. She is the last person in the country running a campaign to talk about ethics and money in the same sentence. If he's serious about this, if he and his camp are really serious, they're going to say more than just, "Well, look at this. They're running a negative campaign." They are going to have to turn this around on her and on her husband, and say that this is the height of chutzpah, to be accused of running a slush fund by people who have created it as a work of art and who continue to do so to this day. Campaign slush fund! He's got a golden opportunity here, folks, but it does mean that Mrs. Clinton is in somewhat of a state of panic. A lot of people think that they're a week ahead of everybody in terms of polling data and understanding what's happening, and a lot of people think that she's panicking and coming out with the claws bared at Obama and others because they've got some internal numbers that show her crashing in Iowa and maybe in some other states. It could explain it."

To me this was interesting. He said that the Clintons are known for dirty campaigns. He is talking about running slush funds and that Hillary is in a state of panic. Basically he is saying, if Obama has it in him, he could stop Hilary.

NY Times, Making Piece with Pieces

Op-ed columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, writes about the U.S. peace summit in Annapolis MD.
"That’s right — Iraq and Kuwait, the two Arab countries hosting the most U.S. troops, and the two Arab countries with probably the most active elected Parliaments, were both absent. The Kuwaitis asked not to be invited, and the Iraqis were invited but declined to come."
He is basically describing how it is possible to promote peace, when it looks like no one is willing. He says that the summit was useful, but when two countries that you have saved don't show up, it's a big problem. He says that's what the problem is today, all of these countries are just too divided.

"What we are trying to do in Iraq is unprecedented: we are hosting the first real horizontal dialogue in modern Arab history by the constituents of an Arab country — on the assumption that if Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could actually write their own social contract, it would mean that something other than top-down, iron-fist politics was possible for this part of the world. It is hugely important — and next to impossible."
He is basically explaining that what we are trying to to in Iraq is impossible. Is this true? Are we risking the lives of our American soldier for an impossible purpose?

These past few years, it has been the story that younger adults and teens have to register to vote and start voting. Facts show that their has been a lack of young voters. A good idea came to mind to have music artists promote voting. And what better channel than to promote this?..obviously MTV.

MTV's new slogan for this coming election is "Choose or Lose". Their website has video clips of each candidate giving speeches. They are trying to inform the young adults about this election and our candidates. I believe they are trying. However, kids are kids. Just because someone is eligible to vote, doesn't mean that they will. Kids this age just want to have fun with their friends and not even think about politics. I know that I never once cared about a presidential election. I voted when i turned 18 because it was just something new that I could do. I felt old enough. After that I lost interest. At least MTV is trying and I do believe it is working. Young adults listen to hip hop and pop artists, so why not try and have them promote voting. It is the right thing to do. Children are the future...right?

Tonight, I watched the 11:00 news on CBS and came across the following stories...
-Ike Turner Dies At 76
-Tropical Storm Olga's Trail Of Destruction
-Midwest Reeling From Powerful Ice Storm
-Bush Vetoes Kids' Health Bill Again
-Congress Vows Action On Vets' Suicides
-Halliburton Under Fire Over Rape Charge
-House Panel Promises CIA Tapes Probe
-Clinton Campaigns With Warren Buffett
-Judge Rejects Automakers' Emissions Suit
-Baseball Steroid Report To Name All-Stars
There was also a piece where Katie Couric interviewed each candidate asking them what country they feared the most.

As you can see, there were only about 2 or 3 political stories. There was the interview with the candidates which took some time. I believe there was enough political news this night. You can't have too much, but again there shouldn't be too little. I think CBS did just fine. Now, was it entertaining? I don't find the news entertaining personally.

Fox News and CNN coverage

The latest stories on the Fox News channel are as follows...
- Search of 4 men accused of extorting ex-lawmaker
- Scientists: Evolution allows pregnant women to stand
- No Transcripts of Destroyed CIA Tapes
- Mitchell Report on Baseball Drug Use Will Name MVPs, All-Stars

The latest stories on CNN are as follows...
- Budget deal would probably give Bush victory on war funding
- President Bush vetoes child health bill again
- Couple face capital murder charges in Baby Grace death
- Friends: Dead teen refused hijab

From what I can tell from watching some parts of each channel, CNN had more about Bush. Fox News channel obviously is biased and hadn't said a single word about President Bush when I had watched it. If the big story has to do with something bad about Bush, CNN will cover it, and Fox News channel will not.