There are a couple of exceptions but generally artistic people, rock musicians especially, are liberals. They speak out for lefty causes and support Democrats. It’s no big surprise that many believe the stage, where the intended purpose is for them to entertain, can also be a bully pulpit for them to voice their political beliefs.

But does it help and who benefits from hearing Michael Stipe talk about politics? In 2004 MoveOn.org hosted the Vote for Change tour and even drawing huge crowds and boasting acts like Bruce Springsteen and Bright Eyes, John Kerry still lost the election. Is this the ultimate example of preaching to the choir??

One interesting exception is Merle Haggard, who says he thinks the stage is for music. Maybe Haggard is onto something here. Why alienate your fans by bringing up politics? On the other hand, politics plays a very small part in many, many lives and if it was more of a normal topic of conversation maybe more people would vote and less people would be apathetic. It remains to be seen.

Is Sarah Palin qualified? Is Barack Obama qualified? To be president or vice president of the country what is needed, really? What kind of experience?

It seems to me that increasingly identity politics is more and more important to people when they choose who they want to lead them. Arguably, this has always been so. But when a candidate, John McCain, is all of a sudden doing well after adding Sarah Palin to his ticket, one has to look for reasons why. She is not an expert of any kind, except perhaps at parenting (though that’s also in contention, what with her own daughter’s underage pregnancy). She has no experience dealing with foreign leaders. She has only been in public office for a handful of years and was a sportscaster prior to that. So why is Sarah Palin appealing?

She is pro-life and pro-family. So? How does that equate with experience?

She’s a hockey mom.

She’s an ordinary person.

Her personality and beliefs are what’s appealing. Not what she’s done.

Many agree with me. But, interestingly, Michael Arrington, founder of TechCrunch, arguably one of the most successful blogs out there (and one that happens to be about technology!), doesn’t. He actually says he doesn’t “give a damn” if McCain turns on a computer. This totally changes my opinion of Arrington. If he doesn’t think it’s important for the President to understand the Internet, why did he devote his life to a site about technology??

Blogs are generally opinionated commentary. Sometimes a blog provides original reporting but more often than not the writing on someone’s blog is the author’s take or personal viewpoints. Are they credible sources of news? Yes, but only if you understand that the blogger is probably opinionated and not sticking with the general rules of journalism, which are that fairness and balance are required.

(What does it mean to be fair and balanced is a whole other issue, not to be discussed in this post.)

It makes sense that some people think blogs can’t be trusted. But just because big media is mainstream and the norm, why are they trusted? A lot more fibbing and stretching of the truth occurs on Fox News than on many popular, so-called “liberal” blogs.

The problem is that the term “blog” referrs to so much, and online there are no standards that must be abided by. Some popular and highly regarded sites like The Huffington Post and The Politico probably have guidelines for their bloggers but there are many others out there that are merely one person with a microphone. It’s a giant swampland for the user. And it’s easy to see why people don’t trust because they just aren’t sure who they can trust.

Bloggers themselves seem to understand this completely and therefore believe blogs are credible. Arianna Huffington, a liberal blogger and the powerhouse behind the Huffington Post, says that bloggers are often quicker to correct mistakes and because they are not entrenched with the mainstream media they can be more critical.

Saul Hansell, who writes the Bits blog at NYTimes.com, says bloggers for The New York Times are held to the same standards as print reporters. This is a clear example of how different a “blog” run by The New York Times is from a “blog” run by an un-trained journalist from their kitchen. One is held to standards and another isn’t. It’s up to the reader to figure out what is “truthful” and what isn’t. (Of course, there is always the chance that the kitchen blogger is just as truthful, but their job doesn’t depend on it.)

Josh Marshall, founder of Talking Points Memo, won a George Polk award. He was the first blogger to receive the award, evidence of the power and truthfulness of the site. He won the award for reporting on the firing of U.S. Attorneys that eventually led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

What is interesting is that while Marshall did some original reporting on the story, a lot of what he did was synthesize other news reports and link to them. Eventually the mainstream media caught wind of what he was doing and the government had to answer for itself.

The site “connected the dots and found a pattern of federal prosecutors being forced from office for failing to do the Bush administration’s bidding,” read the Polk citation, reported The New York Times.

Those that think blogs cannot be trusted, not surprisingly, are mainly old-school media types. Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winner and former New York Times reporter, says many bloggers treat facts and opinions the same.

Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/US, says bloggers have “no checks and balances.”

The internet is kind of like a frontier. There are no boundaries and few rules. The power is in the hands of the reader to figure out what thyey believe and what they don’t.

Half think the U.S. Constitution should be amended to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and half do not.

Seems pretty clear to me what it is that this country cares about, and what leads the voting habits of many.

It’s early September, almost Sept. 11, the day that turned the first weeks of school into even more of a drag than expected for all students across the country in 2001. No, but seriously, it’s been 7 years since the terrorist attack and it seems we are still in a mess. Wars all across the globe with no clear end in sight. On the bright side, President Bush will be out of office soon. But who will take his place is far from clear and that means our country may have to accept, to quote Barack Obama, “more of the same.”

Time Magazine reported today that a new independent study, which will be released tomorrow, found that “The United States remains ‘dangerously vulnerable’ to chemical, biological and nuclear attacks seven years after 9/11.” The story also cited a report from Congressional Democrats. That report “found little or no progress across the board on national security initiatives.”

If both the partisan Congressional Democrats and an independent panel, the bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America, which includes leaders of the disbanded 9/11 Commission, say America is still vulnerable, than how can the American public actually believe in John McCain and his “stay the course” message?

There are two issues to be discussed. Is the country safer since 9/11?? No, say the studies. But many others say yes.

And has the War on Terror been effective?

Republicans, along with some Democrats, believe strides have been made to make the country safer. But only conservatives and republicans are sticking with the War on Terror. What a difference a change of phrase can make. Is the country safer is merely a broader question than has the war been effective. It’s more open-ended, leaving politicians room to breathe, or back off their positions in the future.

Interestingly, two major Democrats, the two Senators from New York, the state that suffered the most in 9/11, believe the country is safer. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

With the anniversary right around the corner it will be interesting to see how Obama and McCain make the most of the moment. Obama thinks we are not safer. McCain thinks we are. Not surprising. Both will be in NYC and both have claimed to not politicize the memorial and to not run attack ads. What is more important, for me and many others, is not respect but vision. The candidates should look to the awful day that will always be with us for guidance, and make appropriate proposals for the future.

Joe Lieberman. Who is he? Is he an opportunist? Does he have any loyalty or allegiance? Is he a Republican or a Democrat? Hard to answer. But i came across something really interesting on whereIstand, which has a nifty feature where you can compare one public figure to another. Lieberman agrees with John McCain 70 percent of the time. And he agrees with Barack Obama 70 percent of the time, too. Maybe he is the centrist and independently minded politician he says he is….Let’s take a closer look.

Lieberman and Obama agree on abortion issues and gay rights issues and disagree on foreign policy issues like justified torture, waterboarding, how to deal with Iran and should Iraq be the central front in the war. They also disagree about outsourcing. Lieberman thinks it improves the economy. Some pretty hefty issues….

Lieberman and McCain agree that the National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska should not be drilled for oil. (Though, interestingly, Sarah Palin led the crowd at the Republican Convention chanting, “Drill! Drill! Drill!” Football or politics? I couldn’t tell.) They also agree that global warming can be stopped, that torture as interrogation is justified, and that the Iraq invasion was justified. They disagree on gun control, contraceptive coverage from insurance companies and on making the federal tax cuts permanent. These are also big issues.

But it’s clear that Lieberman is very hawkish on foreign policy and security issues. Those are the causes he is constantly trumpeting, not tax cuts, guns and contraception. And where Lieberman makes the biggest difference is in direct correlation with his biggest issues. For example, he is the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee.

So, even though Lieberman seems to be down the middle statistically, his main power lies with foreign policy, defense and security issues, which are more conservative than even some Republicans.

Sarah Palin, whose conservative moral values is one of the main reasons John McCain chose her to be his running mate, is officially on the record as supporting abstinence-only education, but it is an opinion that stands in direct contrast to her own kin’s sex life. Excuse me for saying it, but Palin obviously didn’t do a very good job of imparting these values in her own house. As the Daily Kos suggests, Bristol may have done well with some sex education.

The news that her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is 5 months pregnant came as quite a shock. Though liberals and open-minded individuals may have an easier time making sense of teen sex, it’s feasible to imagine that Sarah Palin and many, many other conservatives might be outraged. But Palin isn’t mad at all. In fact, she said in a statement, “We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.”

So, Palin thinks her conservative values should be forced on others but her own daughter, having gone against her mother’s (and God’s?) wishes, is in no way being made into an example.

Female members of the GOP are rallying behind Sarah Palin, saying the media treatment of her is sexist. This is spin beyond control.

Palin is supposedly going to attract a lot of people because of her conservative positions. But the idea to teach abstinence-only sex education may not be one of the positions she’ll thrive on. On whereIstand, only 22 out of 274 people, public figures included, think it should be taught. And the Huffington Post reports that many states are rejecting Federal Funding for abstinence-only education.

John McCain did something totally unexpected, (though not totally surprising), on Friday when he tapped the Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, to be his running mate. It’s amazing how much talk and discussion and potential scandal has surfaced over the Labor Day weekend. Is she a good pick? Will she help McCain? Will she attract females upset about Hillary? Will her teenage daughter’s pregnancy have an impact on the campaign?

There was a hurricane on Monday, too. Not a political and scandalous one but a real one that nearly struck New Orleans. The republicans, obviously feeling a little bit of guilt from their inability to respond adequately after and during and pre Katrina, delayed their convention.

Now that Gustav has come and gone, it’s back to Palin.

Republicans are saying she was a good pick. But is that because they want to maintain party loyalty or because they actually believe it? On whereIstand.com, the opinions of many public figures are aggregated and you can see how people are reacting. David Brooks, conservative columnist for The New York Times, was one of a few lone conservatives who think Palin was a bad choice.

It seems to me that the Republicans are trying so hard to win that they are making bad decisions. They are appealing to the lowest common denominator in people by picking Palin. They think because she is a woman she’ll attract votes. They think because she is a house wife with strong Christian moral values she’ll attract votes. And she probably will. But Palin can’t hold her own in any kind of debate on national or international issues. Joe Biden will destroy her.

And now, with her daughter Bristol pregnant, this whole thing is looking more and more like a soap opera. But I guess that’s American politics?

John McCain turns 72 today. Today is also the day he’s said to be naming his V.P.

If elected in November, he will be the oldest person to ever be inaugurated President of the United States. Is he too old?? In my opinion, yes. Not just because of his age and the ailments you get when you’re older, but because it means the majority of his life, his adolescence, and his formative years, were spent a VERY long time ago. Talk about being out of touch.

There are good arguments on both sides. Out of 105 opinions on whereIstand.com, 70 think McCain’s age will negatively affect his campaign. That’s a large percentage. And, a CNN/Gallup poll taken in July said that McCain’s age may be more of an issue than Obama’s race. We’ll see.

But it seems to me that lately his age is playing less and less of a part in the minds of voters. At one point it was being talked about all the time. People were even discussing of McCain should release his psychiatric records.

So why are the two candidates virtually neck and neck right now?

Barack Obama couldn’t be more of an opposite to McCain. Which is maybe why this election will end up being so close…. Even though most of the American people think we’re headed in the wrong direction and think the Iraq war is now a big mess, they are still willing to vote for McCain, who is staunchly pro-war. They will vote for him because he’s the opposite of Obama. White, old, military. The old guard. It’s sometimes hard to vote for change.

Many don’t seem to mind that McCain is very old. What seems to matter now is that he’s not black. Just like the election, on whereIstand, the opinions are split down the middle on whether Obama’s race will affect his candidacy.