At 1:16 a.m., an email was sent from an address that appears to belong to Provost Peter Stearns. The email reads as follows:

To the Mason Community:

Please note that election day has been moved to November 5th. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Peter N. Stearns
Provost

This information is false.  Election Day is always the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It would take an act of Congress for the date of a national election to be moved.

Stearns was not available for comment by deadline.

Posted on November 4th, 2008 by Christian Yingling
Filed under: Mason Votes | No Comments »

By Rashad Mulla

Because of the increased responsibilities of recent presidents, the United States’ first leaders would not recognize today’s presidency, political scholar Joseph Pika said.

Pika, co-author of “Politics of the Presidency,” spoke live via video conference to students from Denver University, Pace University in Manhattan and George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. on Oct. 9. Pika said the president had little executive power when the position was first conceived in 1788. His remarks are part of the distance learning collaboration between C-SPAN, the Cable Center at the University of Denver, and the three universities.

“The expectations of the presidency have surpassed the realistic possibilities of the (job),” said Pika, a political science professor at the University of Delaware. “The president was really tailor-made for this media age.”

George Mason student Taft Nesbitt agreed with Pika and said his assertion was grounded in fact.

“The presidency has definitely evolved and become more powerful,” Nesbitt said. “The position has become much more encompassing than the Founding Fathers ever envisioned it being.”
Pika said the ascent of the president’s political power has been a gradual process, including President George W. Bush’s current term.

“A slow accretion of power keeps going in the president’s direction,” he said. “Now, the presidency requires a miracle worker to be successful.”

Pika said the presidency has gotten so powerful that presidents now can frequently over-promise and under-deliver, concepts Mason guest instructor Steve Farnsworth explained to his students on Oct. 2.

One example was President Bush’s handling of the Iraq War, Pika said. In his book, Pika wrote that Bush projected himself as an effective “wartime president” at the beginning of the war, then lost public support for the war. Now, Pika says wartime presidency has lost its luster.

“The appeal is still there,” Pika said. “But a lot of the shine has worn off.”

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain both frequently over-promise in their campaigns, Farnsworth said on Oct. 2. This development is fully attributable to the added power of the presidency, added Nesbitt. The Founding Fathers did not have the power to make such promises, he said.

“(The presidency) wasn’t supposed to be the all-encompassing, pseudo-monarchy that it is today,” Nesbitt said.

According to Pika, when one of the candidates is elected president in three weeks, he will have one of the toughest jobs in U.S. history.

From: UPI

Posted on November 3rd, 2008 by Aram Zucker-Scharff
Filed under: Mason Learns, Mason Votes, Opinion | No Comments »

By Keeley Peters

Janette Muir, a professor at George Mason University, teaches an enthusiastic group of New Century College students about the ins and outs of political campaigning. She strives to educate her students about pressing election issues and encourages them to educate others by reaching out to undecided voters in the area.

“I came into this class with absolutely no knowledge what-so-ever about the 2008 campaign,” said Sara Hardy, a senior at George Mason from Springfield, Va. Like many others in the class, Hardy claimed, “All I knew was that Obama was the Democratic nominee and McCain was the Republican nominee.”

Students in the political campaign class eagerly await the election on Nov. 4. So far, classes have included discussions regarding primaries, the national conventions and the debates. Muir encourages students to voice their opinions whenever a major event takes place within the campaign.

She even provides a blog space on the Internet as a forum for open discussion.
“I posted on the blog when the Democratic and Republican candidates were announced, after both candidates gave speeches at the conventions and after the first presidential debate on Friday (Sept. 26),” Hardy said.

The blog space on blogger.com has become a medium for constructive criticism, venting and somewhere to post links to articles written on a daily basis about the major party candidates. The class is also informed of major happenings within the campaign with continual updates made by Professor Muir.

Together, each class group must collectively log 60 Experiential Learning hours, which encourages extensive learning outside of the classroom.

“As for learning outside of the classroom, I would like to see healthy, rich conversation on the blog,” Muir said. “I would like to see students engaging new ideas and their reactions to what is happening.

Too often, when given an assignment like blogging weekly or whatever, students resent doing it. I want the blog to be a communication space outside of lecturing.”

In addition, students have taken the initiative to reach out into the community to encourage people to vote and provide information about the candidates.

“The most interesting aspect(s) of the campaign in this particular election is the fact that we have minorities represented, and the role that media has been playing throughout the whole thing,” Muir said.

Muir hopes that her students will be able to persuade others to educate themselves about party issues, the candidates and the various representations of both presented by the media.

Self-selected class groups have participated in activities that encourage this, including DebateWatch, both high school and elementary level information sharing sessions, the distribution of candidate information on campus and student taped interviews.

While group work is definitely a major aspect of Muir’s class, individual research projects are also required; much of which is inspired by the course text.

Students chose topics for individual research regarding almost every aspect of the campaign: the effects of media on the campaign, the effects of debates on the respective candidates, the effects of personal decisions on a candidate’s campaign and even the presidential image.

After the research is done and the individual papers are constructed, the students participate in a panel-style symposium. Students with similar topics will participate in discussions together.

“The symposium structure models what we do in conferences. We bring in papers that we construct and present them in a thematic panel,” Muir said. “Having an individual presentation for 25 papers gets boring. By presenting in a symposium setting, everyone works together and no one has to repeat something that has already been presented.”

A unique aspect of the course allows students to use unconventional sources for their research like Youtube, “Saturday Night Live” episodes and print resources.

Students observe multiple media sources in class regarding campaigning. Recently, Muir asked students to select a political ad, state the purpose of the ad and determine whether or not it was effective.

“Most of the ads were either meant to bash the opposition or give information for the candidate’s platform, which is helpful in making a decision about who to vote for,” said Diana McGeough, an early education major from Chantilly.

“But sometimes, to more uneducated or less informed voters, these ads could contribute to the downfall of a candidate. It all depends on how much you care and how much time you actually spend trying to find out the truth about the issues.”

Learning how to find out about the issues is perhaps the sole purpose of the class. Muir makes sure that her students are aware of all of the available resources in order to do thorough research both inside of and outside of class.

“I read the (Washington) Post every morning, listen to NPR every day and I read several different blogs,” said Muir. “I also find my colleagues who study political campaigning, like me, to be a great source of information.”

As a result of the constant in-class discussion, it appears that Muir’s students have learned a great deal more than they originally knew.

“The Political Campaign class is helping me as a citizen become more informed on how the political system works,” Hardy said. “Through the class discussions, research and group work I have found this class to be one of the most enlightening classes I have ever been in.”

“It has definitely opened my eyes and understanding about the issues that are consuming our nation,” she said.

Muir said of her students, “They have definitely gained a new sense of awareness in campaigning.”

From: UPI

Posted on November 3rd, 2008 by Aram Zucker-Scharff
Filed under: Mason Learns | No Comments »

By Rashad Mulla

Negative presidential campaign advertisements are effective in forming and changing public opinion, according to Thom Mozloom, founder and owner of The M Network, a professional media planning and branding agency.

Broadcast live via video conference from Washington, D.C., Mozloom spoke to college students from the University of Denver, Pace University in Manhattan and George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. on Sept. 11. Mozloom said negative campaign advertisements, no matter their factual merits, are effective in shaping this election.

“The reason why you keep seeing negative ads or fear tactic ads come out is, quite simply, because they work,” said Mozloom,

George Mason guest instructor Steve Taylor pounced on to the question of truth 20 minutes into the broadcast.

“It’s depressing to learn I was right,” said Taylor, a former White House correspondent for ABC Radio. “It’s a lowest common denominator system. It basically proved lies work.”

Feedback from the George Mason students reflected Taylor’s perception of truth being looked over in campaign advertisements.

“I think truth should be important,” George Mason student Monica Block said during the live taping. “But I think when it comes to a 30-second ad, people aren’t really going to do their research.”

In response to Block’s comment, Mozloom said truth should be in the discussion, but politicians don’t deem it important.

“The politicians who use these spots (aren’t) fact-checking them,” Mozloom said. “There’s no repercussion to it.”

In an example of his assertion, Mozloom said Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s famed celebrity advertisement, in which McCain compared Sen. Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, was meant to counter the Democratic presidential nominee’s trip to Europe.

“That issue was exasperated by the Obama camp’s response,” Mozloom said. “They gave a response to this ad, which, for the life of me, I couldn’t fathom. You want that news cycle to change again as fast as possible.”

Instead, Paris Hilton came out with her own celebrity advertisement, Obama made one of his own, and the media covered the advertisement for three weeks. McCain’s strategy worked, and no semblance of fact was needed, Mozloom said.

“The time that was spent talking about (the advertisement) was far greater than the ad run itself and the money they paid for that ad,” Mozloom said.

C-SPAN political director and University of Denver professor Steve Scully asked Mozloom to analyze historical presidential advertisements, including “The Daisy Girl,” a 1964 spot by former president Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign when he was running for election against Republican opponent Barry Goldwater. This ad is one of the “hallmarks of negative advertising,” Scully said.

“It caused such a reaction, that they pulled it,” Mozloom said. “The fact that you and I are talking about this 40 years later has to qualify it as one of the greatest political ads of all time.”

After the presentation, Taylor reiterated the importance of advertising in presidential campaigns.

“There is a close connection between political advertising and political journalism,” Taylor said. “You can judge whether the campaigns are playing it safe or going on the attack. It shows the direction they think they are headed in.”

From: UPI

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by Aram Zucker-Scharff
Filed under: Mason Learns, Mason Votes | No Comments »

By Katherine Libby

In the weeks leading up to the election, the number of presidential television ad campaigns has soared to an unprecedented level, irritating many young voters.

The Associated Press, surveying approximately 1,000 undecided voters, reported that 60 percent said television advertisements did not sway them one way or another. A third of those voters said they were less likely to vote for either candidate after watching the ads.

Diana Friedman, a student at George Mason University, was first introduced to politics by her father when she was 10. Although she is a self-described liberal, her belief in voting for a candidate rather than a party makes her a voter that such campaign ads target.

Unfortunately for presidential hopefuls, however, the media has never affected her beliefs; instead they have just annoyed her.

“I don’t like listening to or watching the overplayed ads that try to influence the public,” said Friedman. “It’s like they are trying to tell me what to do. I know I am capable of making my own informed decisions… so I always just tune it out.”

Friedman’s feeling towards such ads seems to be a common trend among a number of young voters. For recent George Mason graduate Darya Seraj, it’s not just about the frequency of the campaign advertisements, it’s about the content too.

Seraj believes that the ad campaigns can confuse a viewer. “It bothers me that facts are often taken out of context and can seriously mislead viewers,” said Seraj. “The first time I voted was when I was 20 and that’s mainly because I didn’t know who to believe.”

Although Seraj did her research on candidates and their policies, the constant presentation of new facts about one side or the other made her question her beliefs. “I would hear something about a candidate in an ad, I would check to see if it was true. Sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn’t. Ultimately I was left confused and frustrated,” said Seraj.

While it is clear that these television ad campaigns are an important tool for presidential candidates, both Friedman and Seraj said that the more the ads are aired, the more irritated they become and the less likely they are to listen.

From: UPI

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by Aram Zucker-Scharff
Filed under: Mason Learns, Mason Votes | No Comments »

Today, Hillary Clinton spoke at George Mason University’s Fairfax campus. Virginia is a battle ground state and both campuses are fighting hard for the 13 electoral votes it has to offer.

Supporters were out in large numbers standing in lines that extended from the North Plaza to Enterprise and circling outside the northern portion of the Johnson Center. Mason students represented a relatively large portion of the crowd and of the volunteer staff.

For students like Carly Whelan, a junior biology major, this was their first time volunteering for a political campaign. “I like Barack Obama,” said Whelen of her reason for assisting at the Clinton rally.

“We like Hillary Clinton and support Barack Obama,” said Amy Glibort a Mason graduate student while she waited in line to be admitted to the event.

Gregory Thompson, president of Mason’s chapter of Students for Barack Obama introduced Clinton and presented her with a Mason letter jacket.

Clinton offered a message of full support for the Obama campaign in an attempt to heal deep wounds created during the primary season. “If you were there for me, I’m asking you to do everything you can in these closing hours so that we can win Virginia,” said Clinton.

She also responded to Republican Presidential Candidate McCain’s use of her primary speeches in opposition of Obama’s run for the presidency. “My name is Hilary Clinton and I do not approve that message.”

The majority of her speech, however, was a comparison of President George Bush’s administration’s results to that of her husband former President Bill Clinton and democratic ideals in general. “Wouldnt it be wonderful if even at anytime during Bush’s administration he had said the buck stops anywhere,” said Clinton

She promised that a Obama presidency would create jobs, bring troops home, and make health care affordable.

Mason Votes provided live tweets, photos and video feed which is still available. The full audio of the event will be uploaded to this blog soon.

Mason Votes will be providing extensive coverage during the final days of the election process.

Photo by Courtney Erland.

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by Christian Yingling
Filed under: Mason Learns, Top Stories | No Comments »

Mason Votes will be streaming video live from Senator Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) rally for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama at the Fairfax Campus of George Mason University.

Join us at 5:45 p.m. today to see the historic event.

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by Christian Yingling
Filed under: Mason Votes | 1 Comment »

I don’t just mean the Election, but the end of eight years of half-bright leadership and the social movements that allowed a near-incompetent like George W. Bush to become President of the United States. While W. fumbled his way through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, destroying the national surplus, beating the economy like a rented mule, his former opponent Al Gore, love him or hate him, won a Nobel prize. The world’s opinion of the United States, something I experienced first hand from 1996 until 2005, is nothing short of appalling, though how could we expect anything less? George W. Bush, on everything from the environment to human rights, has disgraced the Idea of America. Where once we stood for hope, in a way that Europe just cannot at present, W.’s America stood for arrogance and ignorance. W. peddled Fear, and Fear treated him well. What November 4th will be for me, when I cast my ballot for Barack Obama, is a referendum on Fear, on the warped visage of America under Bush, Jr., and a first step in the right direction after eight years of missteps, stumbles, and outright sprawling.

And, yes, I have heard all the soundbytes about how McCain is not W., but I’ve also watched this race unfold since 2007. John McCain, by his own admission, has voted with W. 90+% of the time. You combine these facts with McCain’s first ‘major decision’ of attaching Sarah Palin to his ticket and I am not sure how you are meant to see any hope for the next four years. Palin is nothing short of frightening, and she exemplifies the motions through which we found ourselves governed by the amateurish Bush administration. Other than calling herself a “Maverick,” Palin has done nothing but use Fear to try and turn the tide of the American public in hers and McCain’s favor: stressing Obama’s very tentative link with William Ayers, stressing Obama’s middle name, and so on. Now even McCain’s own advisers are calling Palin “a diva.” If McCain can’t even keep his own ticket together, how is he meant to bring this country together?

Despite the trash that the McCain-Palin campaign has forced into our living rooms, I am confident in my decision to back Obama. Where McCain gets Dick Cheney’s endorsement in the final days of this election, Obama received Colin Powell’s. As Andrew Sullivan so darkly put it: “There’s a reason Cheney needs McCain elected. He needs to avoid prosecution for war crimes and only a McCain-Palin administration can assure he won’t.”

Obama was endorsed by Powell for a very different reason. Powell has concerns, as many of us do, about “the direction that the [Republican] party taken in recent years.” Powell also has concerns about Governor Palin. And, more important than McCain’s poor handling of his campaign’s response to the economic crisis, his disturbingly poor decision to take on Palin, Powell finds the way that members of the Republican party have used the Islamic faith as a near-slur revolting. While Powell says he does not attribute this disgusting tactic to McCain, I still harbor suspicions about McCain’s strategies and responses with regards to Barack Obama (and wasn’t McCain the man who promised a clean campaign?). McCain finally had to deal with the problem he may not have started, but seemingly had no intentions of dismantling, when an attendant of one his rallies called Obama “an Arab.” Worse still, this woman couldn’t “trust” Obama because she, in her gross ignorance, thought he was an Arab. Another man was “afraid” of Obama. McCain may not be W., but he certainly didn’t seem to mind the GOP playing about with Fear in a desperate attempt to get McCain elected.

This country has become polarized in a sickening way — maybe these problems were under the surface during the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton administration, only coming to the surface after 9/11 and our wars in the Middle Eastern theater. But, this being the case or not, there is one politician who seems dedicated to restoring Americans’ and the world’s faith in America, who seems capable of uniting us in a way that we have not been for a long time, and then there is a politician who, after being destroyed by Karl Rove and W. in 2000, supported the incompetence of W. 90+% of the time for eight years, who chose one of the saddest characters in American politics since Spiro Agnew to run with him, and has given us as many different directions of movement as Al Gore did in 2000. Who is John McCain? He certainly does not act like a Maverick, his decisions to support W. and select Palin are not Maverick decisions, and so who is he asking us to believe he will be as President?

I had nothing but the utmost respect for John McCain, as a war hero, as a man who returned home after years of incarceration to become a public servant… but McCain has shown me no one to respect over the last few months. I hope this does not signal the end of his political career, but, if it does, he has no one but himself to blame.

Please go out and vote on November 4th. I don’t care if you are voting for McCain or Barr or Nader, I just want as many of us as possible to vote. It is one of the few things this country asks of us. All the hype aside, I do think this is the most important election of my generation. The results will affect the way this country is run for the foreseeable future, just as Reagan’s administration inspired a change in the Republican party, just as Carter’s failures colored the way the Democratic party was perceived for years afterwards. It you want your voice to have been heard when we look back on all of this, go and vote.

As Stephen Eley said (in a quote Aram Zucker-Scharff sent my way): “Whatever you believe in, get the hell out there to vote, not because I said so, but because your excuses aren’t good enough.”

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by Lars Laing-Peterson
Filed under: Mason Learns, Opinion | No Comments »

I was never passionate about politics until this election. Until this year, I could have cared less about who was President.

And then, one day about six or seven months ago, I happened to pick the elliptical trainer in front of a TV broadcasting MSNBC. Some guy was speaking in front of a crowd, but all I could do was read the subtitles. Afraid of losing my machine to another gym-junkie, I decided to not ask for the channel to be changed and made do.

I watched Barack Obama give a speech back before the election had even started.

Senator Obama was talking to people in credit card debt. He was telling him that he would save them from those predatory lending companies that got them into this problem.

That statement caused me to nearly fall off my machine. What?! This guy was blaming credit card companies for other peoples’ debt? That was ludicrous, and definitely summed up everything that pissed me out about most Americans—an unwillingness to accept responsibility for their own mistakes. People spent what they didn’t have, lived outside their means, fell into massive debt, and then blamed the credit card companies for doing this to them?!

And then here’s this guy, capitalizing on America’s inability to accept responsibility for anything. I instantly thought he was the slimiest politician that I had ever seen (yes, he was one of the only ones I had really ever listened to speak, but I still hold true to my first judgment today). I finished my workout, shaking my head that people would actually believe a snake like that.

And now I sit here, completely horrified at the thought that the same socialist snake (who is bolstered by the same kinds of people who roared their approval at his indignation over the “evil” credit card companies who “forced” them into debt) may very well become President of our entire country.

The idea of his winning makes me literally feel sick. And, I don’t feel any better when I think about how his competition isn’t living up to who he used to be. I have so much respect for Senator John McCain. He is more of a man than Obama could ever wish to be. What he sacrificed for our country throughout his years is inspiring. But, I miss my Straight-Talk express from eight years ago. Lars, my fellow blogger, has expressed this on countless occasions, and only now am I starting to agree completely.

Seeing John McCain approve the bail-out bill made me lose most of my hope. Entangling the government in the private business sector is completely against what the Republican Party believes, and yet he felt he had to reach a compromise. I feel for him. He needs to prove that he’s not the same man as President Bush, and yet he feels like he needs to stay true to his Party. But, this compromise made me sick, especially when we see the most Liberal, left candidate there is doing exactly what he wants and not worrying.

I also feel sick over Palin, and I continue to stand behind her. It’s sickening that the media is doing to her exactly what they did to George Bush—painting her to be an idiot and then replaying those clips over and over until the mindless public believes them. Here’s a woman, a moral woman who is unapologetic about her beliefs and consequently gets ripped to shreds by whoever dislikes her. (Apparently, she’s an idiot. Who cares if she was elected the governor of Alaska and fought for reform? She looked confused a few times during an interview, and that proves she’s an idiot.)

The intense focus on her “negative” qualities is ridiculous, but people absolutely believe it like rapid Pavlovian dogs who obediently react whenever a new Youtube clip is made. It’s disgusting how intensely the media scorns Governor Palin’s daughter because she made the choice to keep her baby. If this had been Obama’s daughter, we never would have heard about it. They would have taken care of the little “problem” as soon as they had found out. (And, the media would have applauded the fact that Obama supports the “women’s right” to kill babies. Obviously, I added the last part, but you can understand how I feel.)

It seems unfair that the media goes in a tizzy when the amount of money spent on Palin’s wardrobe (money she didn’t spend, but someone spent ON her), but pretty much ignores anything even remotely negative about Obama.

Don’t Obama’s collaborations with people like Bill Ayers (an unrepentant domestic terrorist) and Tony Rezko (convicted criminal who exploited minorities) prove that he lacks the judgment to handle the huge crisis he will inevitably face if he takes the office? As also pointed out in the NY Post, it’s not even the fact that he was linked to these men, but don’t the shifting explanations also show the lack of integrity on Obama’s part?

One of Obama’s most significant executive “experiences” to date was as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was an educational reform project founded by Bill Ayers (the terrorist). The project was a colossal waste of $160 million dollars, which, under Obama’s leadership, failed to do anything it set out to do.

Obama’s tie to Rezko (the convicted felon) comes out of his legislative “experience”, which was similar to his executive experience in that he continued to waste people’s money. According to the Post, “Obama co-sponsored several pieces of housing legislation favorable to Rezko and other slum-developers, giving them hundreds of millions in subsidies and other tax and regulatory advantages. They in turn funneled money to Obama’s campaigns and let their buildings deteriorate, even turning off the heat on their tenants in the winter.” Obama never bothered to find out how the money was being spent, but he worked every single legislative session to help provide more money for his low-brow “friends”.

I started out this post talking about my apathy for politics before this race. I never cared. And, I’m sure you can ascertain that I do care very much now. But, the other day at dinner, I figured out what it really was that I cared about.

I love my country. I love it with every fiber of my being. I am so proud to be an American, and I am so proud of everything those stars and stripes stand for. I have been since I knew what that flag stood for. (Unlike Michelle Obama, who apparently just became proud of her country.)

America’s not what it used to be. It’s not the same country that those men fought for in the World Wars. When I read about the sacrifices Americans made during those wars—doing without and donating to the war effort and growing their own food, it’s almost laughable to imagine this Give Me More Generation actually sacrificing anything.

I’m not a crier or a super emotional person, but I was so choked up, I couldn’t even get the words out. I hate what we’ve become—a nation of whiners and selfish people who care only about themselves. I heard an interview the other day with a woman who said she always voted Republican because she was absolutely against abortion. But, this election was different. She wanted to get her job back, so she’s voting for Obama. Seriously? You were always against murdering babies, but as soon as your economic security was threatened, you changed sides? Shame on you. Shame on you.

Maybe this race shouldn’t come as a surprise. Someone in my class the other night seemed appalled that I didn’t support free healthcare. “Don’t you think we deserve to be healthy?” Sure. But, I don’t think the government should get any more involved in our personal lives than it already is. I don’t think that we should force the rich among us to pay for the healthcare of the poor.

The basics of our country and economy are going to be on a bad slope if Obama wins. He’s basically discouraging any incentive people have to work hard and make something of themselves. What’s the point of busting your butt to start your own business or going to a job you hate so that you can provide for your family, and then watch the government take your money until you’re at the same level of everyone else? What’s the point? I might as well work retail the rest of my life since, if Obama wins, I’ll just reap all the benefits bought by the money taken from the wealthy.

Again, my frustration is also towards the fact that I feel like McCain is compromising when he shouldn’t, and I’m frustrated that people seem to be purposely ignorant, and I’m sad about what our country is becoming.

But, really, crying at dinner isn’t going to solve anything. I’ve people comment that they will vote for the lesser of two evils, but I don’t agree. As disappointed as I am in McCain, I won’t apply the same label Obama has to him. McCain’s not an evil in my book—he’s just not what I wish he could be.

Whoever you vote for on Tuesday might be the solution. It might be the problem. I guess we’ll see. I’m sorry I sound so emo about it all, but I’ve really just kind of lost heart with everything going on. Either way, it’s been nice blogging with and to you all.  <3

Posted on November 2nd, 2008 by Tierney Kain
Filed under: Mason Learns, Opinion | 1 Comment »

Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY, will be at George Mason University on Sunday, Nov. 2. The event, which begins at 3:30 p.m., will be held at the North Plaza and is open to the public. Her speech, sponsored by Senator Barack Obama’s, D-Illi, presidential campaign will compare Obama to Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., regarding issues such as affordable health care, middle-class taxes, clean energy technology and the creation of new jobs.

Recently, there has been much talk about the possible role Clinton could have in an Obama presidential administration. Cabinet positions such as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State have been alluded to by several media outlets but have yet to be commented on by either Obama or Clinton.

Both Clinton and her husband, former President William Clinton have been campaigning heavily for Obama in the past weeks and, like the rest of his campaign, they have increased their visibility in swing states like Virginia.

Posted on October 31st, 2008 by Christian Yingling
Filed under: Top Stories | No Comments »