Aside from the vice presidential debate, which were arranged by the Washington University administration, two of the most charged political events in recent campus history have been sponsored by the College Republicans who secured funding from Student Union. Despite the fact that many students disagreed with the speakers, the speeches by Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove attracted significant portions of the student body. Both caused discussion and debate, leading many students to gain a greater under-standing of controversial political decisions.

For their part, the College Democrats have not brought thinkers that have stimulated the same level of dialogue on campus. Though they worked with the Assembly Series to bring in Mo Rocca and helped a significant number of students canvass and volunteer for Obama and other local political campaigns, they have not put on any major event that has stimulated the campus as much as the two sponsored by the College Republicans.

The College Democrats should be working to offer this type of opportunity to students as it has proven to be one of the most effective ways to inform students of political issues. In an opinion-editorial submission defending his decision to approve funding for Karl Rove, Student Union treasurer William Osberghaus wrote, “If the College Democrats would like to bring a large name speaker to campus this semester, I would be fully open to such a possibility. There is only one problem: The College Democrats have yet to appeal for one.” (Student Life, Oct. 31).

Post-election, many students are experiencing a political withdrawal, making this an opportune time to tap into their political sentiments. Both the College Republicans and College Democrats should work to keep students enthused and active. But, there is a specific need for the College Democrats to step up and do their part to keep Washington University students actively connected to current political views. The College Republicans have initiated two major political events during the past year; it’s time for the College Democrats to get to work.

In the year 1619, the first slaves arrived in the United States. In 2008, 389 years later, the United States has come full circle. In saying so, I am not commenting on the results of the elections—which should not be about race—but on the fact that so many people were completely comfortable with the idea of being led by a black president.

To all people, the United States is known as the land of opportunity. As a foreigner, I have not always felt that this common belief was entirely true. In the years that I have been here, I have witnessed an equal amount of good and bad. At times, some events made me extremely grateful that I am here, but others made me skeptical about the wonder of America.

For instance, I have been surrounded by people who came here with the hope to make a good life for themselves. Yet, after 10 years, they have not been able to save any money because they live paycheck to paycheck. On the other hand, I’ve also met those of younger age, who were able to become part of the system and to rise to the top.

The truth is that no system is perfect and neither is the American system. However, the American people have proven that the ideals by which they stand have not become a mere facsimile of that which they once were; the values held dear by people across the world are still present here.

It is sometimes hard to feel part of something when you did not play a direct role. However, even though I only voted in spirit and was not physically able to cast my vote, I was still part of something big, much bigger than a simple election for the next president of the United States.

People all around the world celebrated, not so much because they supported a particular candidate, but because the 2008 elections were a victory for ideals and values that all human beings stand for. And so, regardless of political affiliation, all Americans should be proud of themselves and their country, because they have indeed once again proven that they deserve the title of the greatest country in the world.

To those in situations where they dare not dream, the American people have proven that there is still a place where people are not only allowed to dream, but where their dreams can, and indeed, do come true.

Proving the improbable, the University student body aligned with the American public to make history by electing Barack Obama as the 44^th and first African-American president of the United States on Tuesday.

Putting an end to the longest presidential campaign run in history—it started almost two years ago, Obama won a landslide victory, securing wins in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Missouri’s tally was still undecided as of press time, but was leaning toward the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Obama’s ability to energize young voters was solidified at the polls as 70 percent of voters who, according to the New York Times/CBS poll, said they were voting for the first time, cast their ballots for Obama.

In a considerable increase from 2004, the youth vote, according to CNN, made up 21 percent of the total voters this election cycle.

Reflecting the University’s largely liberal standing student body, data from an exit poll conducted by Student Life showed that 87.22 percent of the student body voted for Obama. Business students were slightly more likely to vote for McCain than the general student body population

“Wash. U. turnout was unbelievable. Close to 100 percent,” Sophie Cohen, president of Students for Barack Obama, said. “I’m very proud of Wash. U. Youth finally showed they do matter a lot. We do have a voice.”

Of the student voters who decided who they would vote for within the last three weeks, 80 percent voted for Obama.

Lining up with the national polls, which suggested that most Americans

placed the economy as their top concern this election, almost a third of University students said that the economy was the largest factor when deciding for whom to vote. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ranked second at almost 15 percent.

Yesterday was a day for the Democrats to remember, as the party also swept the legislative elections, picking up seats in both houses of congress. For the first time since 1995, the Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House.

Democrat Jay Nixon won the Missouri gubernatorial race by a wide margin as well.

The Washington University student body however, did clash with the greater St. Louis public on proposition M. The Student Life exit poll showed that an overwhelming 88.64 percent of students voted to approve proposition M, which would increase MetroLink funding, although the bill ultimately failed in the County.

Although the Democrats outnumber the Republicans on campus, the Republicans have also made their voices heard in their efforts to campaign for Senator John McCain.

Republican Monika Monson, a sophomore, said that although she is disappointed that McCain lost, she will stand behind Obama in his presidency.

“I’m going to be gracious in defeat,” Monson said. “I hope [Obama] follows through on all his promises and I wish him luck.”

Student Union Brittany Perez noted the political activism and discourse that reverberated through campus yesterday and called it characteristic of excitement that has flowed from the vice presidential debate here last month.

“On campus a lot of people were really energized. Even though [voting] was early, you could tell people really thought this was there responsibility. There wasn’t even a choice whet they were going to do [vote] or not,” Perez said.

Perez added that that sense of obligation caused students to do more than just vote, saying that they contributed both money and volunteering time to the campaigns.

“People have taken ownership of this election. You can tell from the people that stuck around here and the people that have been getting people out to vote in the last couple of days that they are really invested,” Perez said.

With additional reporting Johann Qua Hiansan.

-Sleep.
After getting up at 5 am to wait in line to vote at 9am, putting off your work to watch the debate and volunteering for different causes, you may want to redevelop your relationship with your bed. It missed you. Besides, your body technically needs more than three hours of sleep to function.

-Catch up on all the TV shows you missed.
Between debates, the daily news and Election Day poll updates, you’ve gotten pretty far behind. You might not even know about Jenny and Nate’s budding romance on Gossip Girl! Oops, did we ruin that for you?

-Clean your room! Avoiding laundry is not an option!
That black hole in the corner of your room is starting to smell, and those dishes should not have things growing on them. So wash off the Barack face you carved into your plate of mashed potatoes, and toss out the Palin-shaped block of cheese. It’s time to make your living situation livable and restore it to its former pre-campaign glory!

-Forward your friends a YouTube video about a sneezing panda or something else equally nonpartisan.
Remember when you watched something other than campaign videos on YouTube? Get back out there and make somebody’s second-class video footage famous! Those hits are not going to make themselves.

-Walk around in your pajamas.
Really, the media isn’t on campus anymore. Trade in those fancy black pants for some sweats and stop kidding yourself.

-Find another legitimate excuse to procrastinate on your homework.
It’s time to make winter break plans. Finalize your resume for internship applications. Shampoo your hair. You must have something else to do.

-Feel free to wear red or blue without promoting an unknown cause.
“Wait, I’m supporting what? But it’s just a blue shirt!”

-Accept apologies from your friends and family of opposite party affiliation. You can be friends for the next four years.

-Post your Election Day pictures on Facebook.
In red states and blue states, your friends around the country want to see how you celebrated the election. And while you’re at it, un-friend all of those politicians. They’re not your real friends anyway.

-Catch up on important news.
What color is Britney’s hair (or lack thereof)? How many new foreign babies has Brangelina adopted? If your schedule is really open, consider running for election as Paris Hilton’s new BFF.

-If you really don’t know what to do with yourself, start campaigning for Oprah in 2012. You know it’s coming.

Now we know that this post-election time is going to be hard. At times, you might feel entirely devoid of purpose. But when the going gets tough, just listen to the wise words of T.I. and Rihanna and live your life.

While I was canvassing for Barack Obama last week, two McCain supporters stopped me on the street, demanded to know how I could vote for a candidate who supports baby killing and angrily dismissed the idea that I, as a mere 19 year old, could possibly be capable of making an informed political decision.

I can respect reasoned opposition to abortion and I certainly do not mind being asked to defend my political views. What I deeply resent about this exchange, however, is the implication that I am naïve and that my support for Barack Obama is unfounded.

I have a bit of an obsession with politics and public policy. The NY Times is my favorite form of procrastination and my last beach read was about the history of al Qaeda. Yes, I know, that’s kinda freakish, but I share this to illustrate that I am reasonably well informed. After spending so much time learning about the candidates and the issues, it is frustrating that people assume I support Obama simply because I do not know any better.

Obama supporters are routinely mocked as mindless celebrity worshipers who, when pressed, cannot offer a single reason for their loyalty. One recent Student Life editorial cartoon depicted an Obama supporter who, when asked why, said “uh…” Another writer claimed, “I have yet to hear any Obama supporter, whether student, pundit or campaign manager, give just one example of a major accomplishment of his.”

Barack Obama has reached across the aisle to pass crucial legislation to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists or rogue nations. He stood up against the Iraq war when it was popular to support it. In Illinois, he passed tax cuts and forged an important compromise on capital punishment reform.

More important than any of his accomplishments, however, is that Obama has a better understanding of the true challenges facing this country and the steps we must take to address them.

I am not naïve enough to believe that John McCain’s platform offers any meaningful change for this country. I am not naïve enough to believe that offshore drilling is the solution to our energy crisis. I am not naïve enough to believe that America has the resources to police the world without support from our allies. I am not naïve enough to believe that eliminating earmarks alone will balance the federal budget or solve our economic crisis, particularly if we combine a $700 billion bailout with an extension of the Bush tax cuts. I am not naïve enough to believe that social issues like abortion are more important than our current economic disaster or our national security needs.

I do not think that Barack Obama is the Messiah, nor do I agree with him on every issue. Yet I support Obama because I like his ideas, not because he has a cool logo.

And while I may be a bit more informed than the average voter, I have heard many unique and compelling reasons from other Obama supporters about why they support their chosen candidate. It does not take a political rocket scientist to realize that eight years of Republican rule have not been good for this country. Whether they are struggling with health care costs or concerned about America’s global reputation, change is simply a convenient label for what Obama supporters seek in a new president. Certainly they are no less informed than the multitude of McCain supporters who believe that Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

I am also not naïve enough to think that hope alone can win an election. If you are an Obama supporter, I urge you to prove that your support goes beyond joining the latest facebook group. Canvass or volunteer on Election Day. And of course, do not forget to vote.

We cannot afford four more years of naiveté.

Eve Samborn, sophomore in Arts and Sciences, elsambor@wustl.edu

On Tuesday’s ballot, Washington University students will need to make several choices besides who to elect into the office of the President and other state and local offices.  Though students live in different districts and will have different initiatives on their ballots, there are some important initiatives large numbers of students will need to vote on. We have considered a few of these initiatives that are important to both the state of Missouri and students. Student Life recommends that students vote the following way:

Yes on Proposition M: Proposition M asks if the County of St. Louis should impose an additional sales tax of one-half of one percent for the purpose of providing funds for transportation. Student Life recommends that students vote to accept this small increase in sales tax because the Metro Link needs more money to continue to operate at its current levels. Without increased funding, the Metro Link will have to cut back on its hours and bus lines. Not only is the Metro Link important to Washington University students and employees who heavily rely on it for transportation, but public transportation is important for any city wishing to progress. Public transportation works to cut oil consumption and pollution by offering an alternative to driving and it also provides transportation to people who cannot afford to drive.

No on Proposition A: Proposition A will amend Missouri law to repeal maximum loss-limits for gambling and prohibit placing loss limits in the future, require identification only to determine and individual’s age (and not whether they are on a dissociated person’s list), restrict the number of casinos to those already in existence and create a new education fund from gambling tax proceeds. While the increased funding may actually lead to a 1% increase in overall funding for education, the Missouri general assembly has final discretion over how money will be allotted; the casinos do not. All three Missouri educators associations, which generally endorse ballot measures relating to education have chosen to remain neutral on this ballot issue because they believe it is not about education, but about expanding the power of casinos. Education is a priority, but it is questionable how Proposition A will affect education. And even if A could increase funding for education, Missouri should work to fund education in ways other than tying it to increasing the power of an industry based on addiction and greed. As Missouri educators have said, this is not about funding education, it’s about casinos.

Proposition B: YES Proposition B looks to establish the Missouri Quality Homecare Council and would ensure greater funding for the recruiting, training and stabilizing of the home health care workforce for the elderly and disabled. While the immediate impact of Proposition B on most students is limited, its potential to improve the quality of health care for the elderly while reducing the overall strain on the health care system will have far-reaching effects. Voting “yes” on proposition B represents a significant step toward rethinking health care for the elderly and ensuring the viability of Missouri’s health care system.

Yes on Proposition C: Proposition C asks whether Missouri law should require investor-owned electric utilities to generate or purchase electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and hydropower such that those sources account for at least 2% of retail sales increasing incrementally to 15% by 2021. While this proposition does not do enough to address the country’s energy problems, it does take a small step forward. This proposal will encourage development and production of renewable resources and help move the state toward renewable resources.

 No on Amendment 1: Amendment one would add a statement to the Missouri constitution that denotes English is the official language of all government meetings. Given that government meetings currently occur in English this amendment seems to have no benefits other than a symbolic affirmation of English. The amendment could alienate non-English speaking immigrants, making Missouri a less attractive home.

With the presidential campaigns intensifying over these past few weeks, it seems appropriate that Karl Rove, the controversial architect of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, will speak at Washington University on Monday, the eve of Election Day.

For a price of $35,000, the College Republicans have invited Rove, considered by some as master of political and media manipulation, to speak at 5 p.m. in Graham Chapel.

“He is usually credited, or blamed, with having introduced destructive elements into the campaign discourse,” Randall Calvert, professor of political science, said.

Rove currently writes for Fox News and Newsweek as a news analyst, as well as being a contributing columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

Before his career in the media, Rove served as a political advisor and strategist for a number of Republican candidates, including Bush’s presidential campaigns and, as far back as 1994 and 1998/, for Bush’s Texas gubernatorial campaigns.

He also served as deputy chief of staff for Bush until he resigned in 2007 in amid controversy—most notably, the ousting of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Now Rove informally advises, and has donated $2,300 to, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign.

Figures in the media have accused Rove of push-polling against McCain’s 2000 Republican presidential primary campaign. The polling suggested that the Arizona senator had fathered an illegitimate black child. In fact, McCain and his wife Cindy had adopted Bridget, a girl from Bangladesh, in 1991.

This year at the Republican National Convention, Rove praised Cindy McCain for adopting Bridget.

According to Calvert, Rove remains a cunning political strategist because he can “get away” with his tactics.

“The phenomenon is that you can engage in various sets of campaign statements of various authenticity and get away with it,” Calvert said. “It worked. It’s not clear to me why it worked, but it worked.”

Although Rove has taken a less visible position this election cycle, his political impact remains apparent, and many media sources have cited McCain’s campaign as Rove’s return to the political sphere.

Steve Schmidt, who worked with Rove on the 2004 Bush campaign and is considered to be his protégé, works as McCain’s senior campaign strategist.

Rove and Schmidt have also been accused of helping to orchestrate the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisements, which criticized 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry’s personal character and his record of service in the Vietnam War.

“I think the 2004 campaign was much dirtier. The Swift Boat campaign against Kerry and his war record was a truly reprehensible moment in American politics,” Calvert said. “It is well known that they [McCain campaign] employed people that were taught by Rove. McCain used the same type of strategy that they used against him.”

Schmidt’s recent strategies have attempted to link Obama with domestic terrorist organization Weather Underground’s founder Bill Ayers, tie Obama’s policies with socialism and accuse Obama of alleged associations with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a non-profit accused of voter fraud.

The McCain campaign has charged that ACORN helped “destroy the fabric of democracy.”

According to Calvert, Rove’s involvement—direct and indirect—in this election cycle, could bear serious implications for the management of future campaigns.

“I think there is some possibility that this election may have a potential impact on whether future campaigns encourage the way Rove runs campaigns,” Calvert said.

College Republicans President Charis Fischer, a senior, who called Rove a “brilliant political mind,” said she spoke to him on the phone about his speech. Fischer said Rove’s speech will present a non-partisan analysis of both campaigns this election cycle.

 “The analysis is going to be similar to what you would hear from him if you watch him on Fox News—it’s going to be relatively objective,” Fischer said. “He is going to talk about what were the good strategies of both candidates, and what would he have done. We are basically stealing him from the major news networks.”

However, Fischer said that during the question-answer session after the speech, he will answer questions more candidly if approached with a partisan question.

Calvert recommended that students attending the event listen to what he has to say, but arrive with a understanding of Rove and his politics.

“I would hope that you go into the knowing speech that there is a guy who has known to say just about anything to get his point across,” Calvert said.

Calvert agreed with Fischer that, as a commentator, Rove does at times present non-partisan analyses.

“He has been somewhat consistent in playing the role of commentator even if it is the role of Fox commentator,” he said. “He could stick to that [in his speech]. If he is trying to stick to a career as a commentator it would be a good idea.”

Last Thursday, our university hosted the 2008 vice presidential debate. Although the debate is unlikely to change the way that people vote, there is always one inevitable question that people ask: who won?

The real winners were the students.

On the most basic level, our school is getting noticed! In fact, even Saturday Night Live showed a clip of Wash. U. While I personally do not buy into the argument that our school’s name recognition, or rather lack thereof, prevents students from getting jobs and internships, it does certainly help students when employers are more familiar with the school.

Throughout the week, we volunteered, appeared on the news, met famous people—and of course we had fun. A friend of mine fits into the last category. He was so anxious to be on the news that he went up to a complete stranger and said, “I heard you were looking to interview students.” The governor of Missouri responded, “No, but we can take a picture.”

As a volunteer, I was assigned to the AB Hospitality Tent in the debate hall, and I was given a difficult task: drink booze, eat steak and welcome famous people to Wash. U. And so began a great night…I moved from table to table, from Senator Liebermann to Governor Richardson, from Katie Couric to Fred Thompson and made sure to enjoy every moment. The night got better by the hour and I even had the confidence to sit down with one of Senator McCain’s staff members who happened to be the prettiest girl in the tent. Then I was rejected and brought back to reality, which was a good thing. Well, at least that’s what I keep telling myself.

Anecdotes aside, the biggest reason for why we are the winners is because we go to a school that is truly committed to its students. Although we may not always like the construction, who can complain about having our own metro station? How about a new student center? And the new hires in the economics department? In many ways, the debate represents a continuation of what Wash. U. has been doing for us year after year: opening doors and investing in our futures. It is a great feeling to be at a school that invests in its students as Wash. U. does—take advantage of it, because four years go by too fast.

Marc Klein
Class of 2009