Fanatics not exclusive to religious right

The religious right is dangerous, but it is important that Mr. Shooster (“”Religious Right hamstrings GOP’s electoral hopes””) remember the radical left is just as dangerous. There are radicals on both sides of the aisle.

For every Jerry Falwell and James Dobson there is a Michael Moore (see new documentary “”Manufacturing Dissent””) and George Soros. For every “”go in guns blazing”” conservative there is a “”bin Laden isn’t a bad guy”” liberal. For every “”throw the book at him”” right-wing lunatic there is a “”probation for raping a 4-year-old child”” left-wing idiot. But I digress.

You say that the GOP has failed to protect us against terrorism, but we have not been attacked since 9/11. True, the Iraq war is a disaster. However, I am tired of people politicizing the issue. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue! No, we shouldn’t have gone, but dwelling on the past only hinders the process of fixing the future. This is an issue of what do we do now? And God forbid we get attacked again (whoops, I said “”God””); it would hurt Republicans more.

The most outrageous statement you make is that Middle Eastern fanaticism is not as big a threat as the religious right. Statements like that only weaken your argument and credit. It is too early to decide the nominees for 2008. If you think the Billary is going to let this Obama train keep rolling unimpeded, think again. There will be infighting amongst both parties, and once the nominees are set, both parties will back their candidate like they are the best thing America could ask for.

The American people will ask, “”These are the best two we can come up with?”” Each candidate will have a past/controversy, and neither will have all the answers. Obama’s character … what did you say when you found out that he used cocaine? Did you react the same way when Bush disclosed that he too had used the drug? I doubt it. Giuliani has the leadership skills, but does he have the right stance on the issues? Obama provides optimism with every speech, but does he lack substance? Hillary says the right things when cameras are on (see Hillary’s southern accent in Selma), but does she just do what’s popular that day?

The American people are thirsty for leadership, optimism, and desperate for the end of partisan politics. In the absence of true leadership people will follow whoever stands up. The majority of Americans care about the real issues like terrorism, health care, education, social security, taxes, etc., and their views lie somewhere in the middle – along with the truth.

Ryan Poirier UA alumnus

Obama unlikely to win the presidency

The major issue surrounding Barack Obama’s election campaign is that he can’t guarantee the black vote. His background (like my own) is one of immigration. His black father immigrated to the United States from Africa, so he is not inherently African-American. This is a problem for Obama, but is actually advantageous to Hillary Clinton, whose husband’s success in the black community will actually prove advantageous to her.

Since the black population comprises 13 percent of the voting population, if Obama wants to gain a foothold amongst those of his skin color, he needs to appeal to blacks. This doesn’t mean donning a “”ghetto accent”” (i.e. Hillary Clinton’s southern drawl at a Southern speech a few weeks ago), but rather proving his personal allegiance with black concerns and desires – something severely lacking in the United States government.

Personally I believe he needs to approach Southern blacks first, especially those ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, as well as use his Christianity to draw in the Southern Baptist vote. From there he needs to address educational concerns across impoverished communities across the nation. He will also be capable of pulling the Hispanic vote closer to his campaign.

In reality, though, considering all factors of Election 2008, Barack won’t win; he doesn’t have the draw to the majority of the population, which, with the lack of a Democratic incumbent, is imperative for success. He is a great orator, but his speeches have failed to draw financial supporters – another important factor in election success.

His best bet is to combine forces with Hillary Clinton as the vice presidential candidate; that would in essence be the golden ticket because individually, Clinton and Barack will cancel each other out with the extreme nature of their beings. They need to combine their forces and work together after the Democratic National Convention in order to obtain a strong majority vote.

What’s most important, though, is not that Barack is black or that Hillary is a woman, but that they have a definitive plan for the next four years and sway away from the Democratic Party’s insecurities, though most Americans are viewing their campaigns only as pivotal for correcting social injustices in American society. It is important to look at the candidates’ face value only to a certain degree of course; their policies are what will actually affect us the most for years to come (look back at Reagan’s presidency).

Ashley Emerole sophomore majoring in political science and regional development