Finding questions that Kenny and I truly disagree on are a little difficult, so from now on we're going to write our posts on individual topics.
Dylan Campbell: "Words"
Recently, many have criticized Barack Obama by saying that he is a great public speaker but will not be a President who can accomplish real change in America.
Words are great, they tell us, but action is what counts.
But since when is that a realistic preference?
President Bush has, on many occasions, put action over words.
He went to war in Iraq without telling us there were neither WMD’s nor a credible connection to Osama Bin Laden.
While that war produced billions in revenue for civilian firms, he failed to mention how that benefited some of his closest friends.
More recently, he wiretapped American citizens without informing them with a court warrant.
So putting action over words, obviously, is not always a recipe for success (or constitutionality).
But to be fair, Bush hasn’t been silent for the past eight years.
He famously told the former FEMA director that he did a “heckuva job” while thousands of American were left dead in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Instead on taking appropriate steps to reduce climate change he told everyone it wasn’t a scientifically proven phenomenon.
And in his early years as President he spoke a lot about paying down the national debt – too bad it has increased by trillions of dollars since he entered office.
My point is this: words without actions and actions without words make bad politics and a bad future for our country.
I do not know if any of these candidates will actually deliver on their promises but what I do know is that Senator Obama’s words have already inspired millions to take action.
If only a fraction of his ideas become public policy he will infinitely surpass the sorry excuse for a President we have now.
For a great list and explanation of all the Bush Administration scandals, click
here.
Kenny Hsu: "Spoiling the Party"
As the Clinton camp realizes that time and delegates are no longer in their favor, Hillary has played her cards as most being held at political gunpoint would. Negative ads in Wisconsin reminded the electorate that Senator Obama is indeed an inexperienced, big-eared mouthmatician who doesn’t want you to have health care. A surrogate at a rally kindly labeled his supporters as “Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” She even reminded the nation that change couldn’t be Xeroxed from a friend who happens to be the governor of Massachusetts without proper MLA citations. Oh, and why shouldn’t the Michigan and Florida votes be counted anyways?
But she hasn’t been entirely on the prowl lately. Last week, she insisted that the “hits” she’s taken aren’t comparable to those taken by the average American (Clinton, Bill 1992). Plus, she was kind enough to ease us with her closing words: “Whatever happens, we’re going to be fine” (Edwards, John 2007). We’re going to be fine, huh? Well, with a he-said-she-said attitude quickly infecting the party, Hillary may be spoiling the once inevitable prospect of a Democratic president. She is to the DNC what the New York Times is to Senator McCain. Even so, the Republicans are still rallying around their candidate while Hillary drives the disunity further and further within the Democrats. Yes, Obama may be crushed by the ruthless hands of the GOP if he is nominated, but the Clintons are already giving them a pleasant head start.
Of course, if her prayers are answered and the Obama campaign does implode, Hillary might utilize that essential “experience” to ward off Republican foes. However, voters on her side might find it more comfortable to stay home in November after finding themselves disappointed in a divided, hostile Democratic party. But remember: we’re going to be fine.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bush, Clinton, DNC, FEMA, Florida, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, John McCain, Michigan, national debt, Obama, wiretapping
Published by the 300 Words or Less Editorial Board
on Wednesday, February 27, 2008. 
I agree with Kenny.