I remember the first time that I became aware of the Israel Palestine conflict. I was four years old and talking to my father one night. Whenever we said our prayers, we would always pray for the hostages to come home soon. Of course, these hostages were in Iran at the time, but my father started to tell us about the problems between Israel and Palestine and I always wondered why there was such bitterness between the two.

I actually have friends from both countries and I have spoken to them both individually about the Israel Palestine conflict and what caused it. Both men said that it was the land promised to their ancestors from God. I had always heard that this was the at the crux of the problem, but what soon followed was far more complicated.

My Palestinian friend pointed out the fact that his country’s land was taken from them and given to Israel. I asked if the Israel Palestine conflict could be reconciled if the Israelis just acknowledged this and gave the land back to Palestine. He shook his head and said it has been going on for too long and that the hatred between the two sides is too ingrained in the people from both countries.

I spoke to my Israeli friend, and he pointed out that every country in the region despises Israel, that they are under the constant threat of terrorist attacks, and that all they want is a country of their own where they can live in peace. I asked him if he thinks the Israel Palestine conflict could be resolved if Palestine recognized Israel’s right to have its own country and the two nations shared the land. He shook his head and said pretty much what my Palestinian friend said.

As an American of Irish ancestry, I can sort of see a similar situation within my own ancestral homeland. There is a lot of strife between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, similar to the Israel Palestine conflict, and to an outsider, it appears to be a problem that should be able to be resolved. However, as I have previously stated, both sides may have too much anger, resentment and hatred for that to happen, at least any time soon.

A post from: Great Articles

In American politics today, the government is run, by and large, by Republicans and Democrats. The Republican’s platform is based upon conservative principles. They traditionally are pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-big government, anti-spending, and in favor of low taxes. The Democrat’s platform is based upon more liberal or progressive principles. They are usually described as pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-social programs, and in favor of a strong central government. These ideals and principles, however, have shifted along the spectrum of political ideology decade after decade. While it is typically a safe assumption to associate these ideas with their respective parties, in American politics, there are even subcategories within the two party system, like Blue Dog Democrats or Neo-conservatives.

When considering American Politics, it is interesting to note that, despite their being no laws regarding representation of parties and quotas, the two party system has endured. While the parties have changed names as the years have gone on, the ideals and split of ideals has largely remained the same. Though some third parties have emerged, such as the Green Party and Libertarian party, and though these parties have at times severely influenced elections, they have yet to gain enough substantive ground to be able to truly influence American politics on a daily basis. Perhaps the most significant influence that a third party candidate has had in American politics occurred during the 2000 Presidential election, where Ralph Nader’s pull in Florida arguably pulled votes away from Al Gore, allowing George Bush to win the state and the election overall. However, as far as holding enough sway in Congress to influence legislation goes, we are a long ways away from seeing that happen.

Many people question why third parties are unable to make a significant contribution to American politics. One reason that is usually supported comes in the idea of funding. Republicans and Democrats alike have powerful and wealthy allies. These individuals and companies have the ability to rally large amounts of people, and therefore resources. There is a pervasive belief that because the Republicans and Democrats have been around for so long, supporting or voting for a third party, no matter how good their platform might be, is a waste of your effort. Until this belief is diminished, the de facto two party system will continue to be the bizarre operating system of American politics.

A post from: Great Articles

The Democratic 2008 presidential candidates were actually a pretty strong group. Of course, Barack Obama was actually elected president, and Hillary Clinton was appointed to the position of Secretary of State. The two of them really fought it out until the end of the primary.

One person that some people may not even remember was among the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates, however, was the current vice president, Joe Biden. We so often associate Vice President Biden with President Obama that it is hard to imagine, even two years later, that they were actually opponents during the Democratic primaries.

Then there was Chris Dodd, the Senator from Connecticut, who will forever in my mind be linked with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco. He dropped out of the race shortly after the Iowa caucus.

Dennis Kucinich from the state of Ohio was another of the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates. He seemed to have a fighting chance for a while, but eventually withdrew from the race and supported the Obama-Biden ticket.

There there was Bill Richardson from New Mexico. He is still the governor of the Land of Enchantment and is a very popular one at that. I believe that he dropped out of race shortly before Kucinich withdrew.

What always struck me about the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates was how quickly the three front runners seemed to emerge and how it eventually became a two-horse race with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton near the end. Many of my conservative friends argued that it was the media who had found their two favorite candidates and didn’t give the other ones a chance.

They pointed to the fact that you rarely saw any of the candidates besides Obama, Clinton and Edwards invited to debates or receiving significant air time.

I don’t know how much truth there is to that, but it seems that the Democrats got it right, judging by Obama’s margin of victory in 2008. I would not necessarily call it a landslide, but it was definitely a decisive win for the Democrats.

As a person of moderate political views, I initially saw the crop of Democratic 2008 presidential candidates to be relatively weak. Obama was relatively inexperienced; Clinton could be viewed as divisive and Edwards had some serious personal issues. I stood corrected when Obama took the oath of office.

A post from: Great Articles

Balanced with this racist core was a surprisingly populist stance on finances and labor. While southern democratic politics meant preventing blacks from getting health care or education, northern democrats like Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy were two of the staunchest proponents of the working man and biggest foes of big business corporatization of public works.

Many historians concerned with democratic politics see Kennedy’s brief term as president as the tipping point when it comes to democratic politics. It was the end of the “party within a party” aspect of the democratic party, where the southern “dixiecrats” would work for social ends that were directly contradictory to what northern democrats were working for.

In the forty seven years since Kennedy was assassinated, most democratic politics have been able to align on certain topics. The democratic party is nearly unanimous in supporting a woman’s right to choose. The democratic party is also against, generally speaking, engaging in preemptive overseas combat of the kind the republican party is so wont to get into.

Another key aspect of democratic politics is a concern for civil liberties. This means that the rights guaranteed in, say, the fourth amendment – the amendment that protects citizens from illegal search and seizure – are paramount in the scope of democratic politics. There is also a growing movement among democratic constituents and politicians to legalize same sex marriage. This is clearly an issue of civil liberties, as same sex consenting adults should be afforded the same rights, privileges and protections as traditional couples.

Over the past two decades, however, there has been some divergence within the democratic party about economic policy. Many democrats favor a keynesian approach, as Roosevelt did. However many are also influenced by modern economists like Larry Summers, who ascribes to what is a thinly veiled “snatch-and-grab” policy in which big business is favored at the expense of the working and middle class.

Of course, those politicians are too clever to admit to that. But the fact is, democratic economic politics, while not as overtly damaging as republican economic politics, have been largely lacking in protection, regulation and common sense.

A post from: Great Articles

But to most younger people, Obama’s election was something of a fait accompli. He was by far the best of the democratic presidential candidates, and the only one who came off as a stable, calm, capable adult throughout. When emotions ruled many of the other democratic presidential candidates, Obama was cool and collected, relying on facts and pragmatism where others tried to sway voters through rhetoric and emotions.

Part of that rhetoric was thinly veiled racism. For those born after, say, 1960, it was a shock to see. Most of us have grown up in a world where racists were instantly persona-non-grata. We remember Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek. We also remember capable, forward thinking Americans like Martin Luther King, Colin Powell and more. Sure, there are still racists among us, but those are fewer and farther between than they have been in previous generations. At the heart of the post-1960 generations is an understanding that all men (and women), no matter race, creed or color, are created equal. And should be given equal libertay to exercise their natural gifts to the best of their abilities in this great country of ours.

So of the democratic presidential candidates, Obama stood out. And once he was singled out by the older generation as “that one”, young people tended to rally to his cause and vote in larger numbers than they did in previous elections.

Now, whether Obama is able to keep that support going through the 2012 election remains to be seen. Our last two presidents, and three of our last four have been two-term presidents, but that seems like a bit of an anomaly when compared to the larger scope of history. After all, since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, William Jefferson Clinton is the only democrat to win two terms.

Will Obama swim against the tide of history? Well, he already did it once when we picked him out of the field of democratic presidential candidates, did it again when he beat John McCain to win the office of the president. It’s my guess he’ll do it a third time in 2012.

A post from: Great Articles

For their success in the 2008 senate race, the democrats have many to thank, starting with presidential candidate (and eventual winner) Barack Obama. Obama was the first national candidate to really understand the power of social networking and the internet as a tool not only for gaining support, but raising money and volunteer hours as well. Obama’s popularity and ability to get young people to connect to his message was felt “down-ticket”, as a majority of Obama voters ended up going straight democrat all the way down the line. That larger turn-out propelled many new senators into their seats.

Also to thank in the 2008 senate race were the republicans themselves, who were struggling to gain any type of momentum or message after eight years of rubber-stamping the nihlistic policies of the Bush/Cheney regime. That public dissatisfaction with the GOP combined with an inordinately large amount of ethics and sex scandals to put democrats in a position to win seats which, just months earlier, were considered untouchable.

One example is now-ex senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who had been serving as a senator for longer than any other person in US history. Stevens was a heavy favorite until it came out that he’d accepted gifts – a new house valued at 250,000 dollars being one of them – from companies that had lobbied him for public contracts. Stevens was indicted just two months before the election, allowing Marc Begich to claim the seat for the democrats.

Also defeated was Minnesota senator Norm Coleman, who lost the closest race of the cycle to former Saturday Night Live performer and writer Al Franken. Coleman made legal challenges to the result that lasted well into the summer of 2009, but in the end the republican governor of Minnesota deemed that the election results were legitimate and certified Franken as the winner.

The final win of the 2008 senate race came from a “race” that wasn’t even being run when republican senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties from Republican to Democrat. Specter is a moderate republican – a dying breed – who felt the party no longer represented his views. Specter’s defection gave democrats the magical “60″ seats, allowing them unprecedented control of the senate floor.

A post from: Great Articles