Pennsylvania Debate: 1st Half, non-issue fluff. 2nd Half: Real Issues.

The first half of tonight’s “debate” between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton was absurd. The debate began at 8 PM Eastern and literally no real issues were covered for the first 50 minutes. The tide turned once George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson focused on the withdrawing of troops from Iraq. Before this turnaround occurred at 8:50 PM, anyone viewing the debate received tabloid garbage news from both Obama and Clinton.

But whose fault is this? Is it ABC’s for actually posing questions about sniper fire in Bosnia, racist ministers, and shady individuals know by each candidate? Not entirely. If you dig down into the belly of the beast, it is each of the politicians who are to blame. Looking back to a three-way attack Sen. Obama faced about his minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Watching this exchange, it seemed more like a trashy talk show than a Presidential debate.

However, it wasn’t strictly Obama who was on the receiving end of “issue” attacks. Gibson and Stephanopoulos also attempted to, again, make Hillary Clinton talk about how ridiculous her sniper fire story in Bosnia was. Is this really a pressing issue? This question counts as the third time that this absurd story has swept through the mass media. The first was when it initially “broke.” The second, when former-President Clinton decided to randomly bring it up at a talk he gave just over a week ago. The third comes tonight.

It really baffles me that these two stories that the American people have had force-fed down their throats are coming up again! Not only that… but taking away from the time that two candidates for the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES could be discussing REAL ISSUES! It is disgusting that the first hour of this two-hour debate was on nonsense that people really should not base their votes on. Especially since the second half of the debate hit real issues that people should take into consideration when casting their ballots next week and in November.

In the issue of Iraq, Hillary Clinton had her best showing thus far. She spoke about not knowing what will happen if US troops are withdrawn from Iraq. However, Sen. Clinton said that we do know that troops are continually in danger and dying in Iraq if the United States remains overseas. This is the first time that I can remember, that Sen. Clinton took a solid stance on the removal of troops from Iraq. She also listed three specific factors that remaining in Iraq will result in: (1) Iraq will continue it’s dependency issues and passive approach to independence so long as the US remains. (2) The U.S. Military will continue to be stretched thin as troops will be forced into third, fourth, and fifth tours of duty in the Middle East. Lastly, (3) The U.S. will not give its full attention to more pressing issues (e.g. the economy).

However, this strong position began to fade once Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama addressed the social security crisis. During this juncture, Sen. Obama called Clinton’s bluff about waiving a magic wand and fixing the social security crisis. At this point, I was expecting a specific approach or example that Sen. Clinton had up her sleeve. No. Her response was, “We’re gonna work it out, we’re gonna make it happen.” ABC went to commercial right after that “response,” and I sat back and wondered… Was that really just her response? If there was any chance of her running away with this debate, it fell flat at that very moment.

The debate closed with a lack of commitment on gun issues and a lack of furtherance on propositions of transforming affirmative action at some point down the line. It’s hard not to think that both candidates could have expanded on both of these issues that they danced around if the entire first half of the debate was not spent delving through non-issues. It saddens me to know that there are some people who turned off the debate after an hour or less. Those who did so only received information about irrelevant topics (like church minister and imaginary sniper fire) that could potentially decide for whom they case their votes, and that is a sad reality of our political coverage.

SNP: Saturday Night Politics

Tonight, the first Saturday Night Live since the conclusion of the Writers' Guild strike aired on NBC. As a twenty-something, the low expectations I hold for the program clash with the high standards my parents once possessed. Nonetheless, I tuned in because, well, it was a choice between that and Godzilla (yes, the one with Matthew Broderick) on ABC Family channel.

Upon changing the channel to NBC, I immediately recognized the opening set as the stage of Texas' Democratic debate between Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama that took place two nights ago. The role of Barack Obama, was played by Fred Armisen, who, at first glance, looked the part. The salt-and-peppered hair, slim build, and the slightly protruding ears all contributed to a living, breathing Obama caricature. However, one component of Armisen's Obama bothered me, and that was the omnipresent frown that he wore as he spoke and grunted in response to questions directed at him from the "CNN panel."

Now, Barack Obama is loved by the camera, yet this one characteristic was ignored by the SNL directors, producers, and, most noticeably, Armisen. In fact, not a single smile was cracked throughout the entire introduction to Saturday Night Live. This certainly isn't the Barack Obama that Democrats, Independents and (even a few) Republicans have come to know and love.

In fact, not that this was the sole decision of Armisen, but he displayed Obama as a quasi-awkward character. This was blatantly displayed as he reached to grab the rested hand of Hilary Clinton, played by Amy Poehler. During the awkward exchange, Poehler ripped her hands away from that of Armisen in disgust. The scene drew few laughs and, personally, made be wonder what politician the writers and producers of SNL had been watching over the past few months, because this depiction certainly was not Barack Obama (despite Armisen providing a really good caricature).

Later, during "Weekend Update" with Poehler and Seth Meyers, a surprise guest appeared on set. Governor Mike Huckabee appeared to Meyers' left, introduced as an unofficially official former Presidential Candidate. Huckabee, once again providing the great humor that debate viewers have come to expect, displayed charm and likability during the bit. In a micro-second of seriousness, Huckabee told his supporters and the American people that he would bow out "gracefully" when he "knew it was time." Meyers hinted that the time may be near as he was "mathematically eliminated" from Presidential contention.

Overall, the first episode of SNL was lackluster, but provided a decent look into the political atmosphere that the show had missed out on for so long. In the end, Mike Huckabee saved a sinking ship during the "Weekend Update" segment with his wit and charm. On the bright-side, at least the show can go nowhere but up in subsequent weeks.

McCain's Misquotes and "Dirty" Tactics Lead to Ambiguity

Tonight’s four candidate Republican debate ended up being a two-man show. In their best attempt at replicating the heated exchange between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the last Democratic debate, John McCain and Mitt Romney continuously spoke over one another, exchanged blows, and refused to let Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul get a word in during the hour and a half broadcast.

Mitt Romney, normally robotic in his responses during such debates, showed, dare I say, emotion when John McCain offered a dated quote implicating Romney as a proponent for a timetable for leaving Iraq. “What does that even mean?” Romney repeated several times over McCain, as if in a last ditch effort to stop the negative slander that was being fed into the public before his very eyes. The exchange between McCain and Romney over this “Iraq Timetable,” in a sense, did not completely bury Romney.

Before today, Senator McCain was framed as a man who was respected by all of his opponents in the race for the GOP Presidental nomination. This was further enforced earlier this afternoon when former opponent Rudy Guliani pledged his support to McCain. The outflow of support for McCain did not stop with Guilani however, CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported, just before the beginning of the debate, that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was due to pledge his support for John McCain as early as tomorrow afternoon.

It really makes be wonder why someone like McCain, who has so much going for him at this point during primary season, would stoop to using “dirty” tactics against Romney. It was weird for me to feel bad for Mitt Romney. Personally, I think that he is the coldest candidate on both Democratic and Republican cards. Not to mention that the New York Times hit the nail on the head when its poll named Romney the least likable Presidential candidate. However, after McCain’s attempt to use “dirty” tactics against Romney, viewers cannot help but feel the same ambiguity that I spoke about earlier. By the end of the debate... were they really feeling bad for Mitt Romney? The tactics and misquotes that littered McCain's debate tonight did more harm than help for the Arizona senator.

Will Rudy and "The Governator’s" endorsement of John McCain overshadow his attempts to burry Romney with dated quotations and misquoted statistics? Only time will tell. At the close of tonight's GOP debate, despite no indication of a clear-cut winner, it was blatantly apparent that John McCain was a loser.

Giuliani's Evil Alliance Should Mean More to Yankee Fans

The Red Sox are a team that knows what coming from behind for the victory is all about. This was the general tone in New England over the past couple days when presidential hopefuls campaigned in New Hampshire and Massachusetts in preparation for their respective primaries. The theme of the “underdog” was evident when Barack Obama addressed several Massachusetts voters yesterday evening. Receiving a full endorsement from Gov. Deval Patrick, the lone African American United States Governor, Obama did not attempt to lure voters by pledging his support for city’s favorite sons: the Red Sox.

In fact, Barack Obama spoke of his undying love of different colored Sox: those of a white variety. The Senator from Illinois reasoned with the crowed who quickly began booing him after he pulled no punches on his baseball allegiances by asking if they wanted a President who flip-flopped on issues like rooting for sports teams.

Baseball allegiances have provided a concrete mainstay during any political interviews, debates, or general talk. For this reason, Barack Obama’s no-holds-barred approach to his lack of love for the Red Sox also provided a shot at his competition: Senator Hilary Clinton. Senator Clinton, a native of Illinois, flip-flopped at the concept of her Chicago Cubs facing off against her New York Yankees in the 2007 World Series. Fortunately, for Senator Clinton, both the Yankees and the Cubs were both bounced in the first round of the playoffs in 2007, giving her at least another year to pledge her undying support to either franchise.

Hilary Clinton’s waning support for the Yankees is something that Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani is very familiar with. Giuliani, a self-proclaimed life-long Yankees fan, was outspoken in 1999-2000 when, then-First Lady, Clinton donned a Yankee cap at the White House when the pinstripes visited for a photo op with the President and First Lady. In fact, during the 2000 World Series, seeing Hilary Clinton wear both a Yankee and Met cap, depending on which was the home team of course, was not all that unfamiliar. On the other hand, there sat Rudy Giuliani in the front row at Shea Stadium during games three, four, and five wearing the same pristine navy cap with white interlocking N-Y sitting prominently at the forefront.

If there was one thing that New Yorkers could rely on, it was Rudy Giuliani’s devotion to the greatest franchise in sports and entertainment history. However, that all changed on October 23, 2007. While campaigning in New Hampshire, Giuliani announced to a crowd of supporters that he would be rooting for the Red Sox to defeat the underdog Colorado Rockies in the World Series. While the crowd erupted in cheers of joy for Giuliani’s pledged support, the residents of New York dropped their collective jaws in complete and utter shock.

Could this have really happened? Did the same man who openly ridiculed Senator Clinton for not knowing about the history and tradition of the Yankees really pull the ultimate no-no? As the saying, for all Yankee fans, goes: “I root for two teams, the Yankees and whoever’s playing the Red Sox.” Has Giuliani really lost touch with the great New York Yankee fan base, or has the “nation” in Red Sox Nation convinced him that he could obtain more votes around the country by supporting the most hated rivals of his “beloved” Bronx Bombers?

Giuliani is someone who has attempted to bully his competition at every Republican Debate by citing their propensity to flip-flop on issues ranging from gun control to tax cuts. Despite the light humor surround sports allegiances, Giuliani’s flip-flop regarding his undying support for the Yankees provides a rather significant metaphor for voters. If Giuliani is willing to turncoat on something as important to him as his Yankees (he “bleeds pinstripes,” you know…), then what would he be willing to do on issues not as close to his heart as gay marriage, foreign policy / wars, the economy, and social justice in America?