President Obama lost last Wednesday night’s debate and it was not close. In front of nearly seventy million people, President Obama who had previously seemed to rise to the occasion fell apart. The President appeared to be nervous at the beginning of the debate, lethargic throughout, and stunningly unprepared. In just an hour and a half, the President allowed his challenger Mitt Romney, whose poll numbers had never been worse entering the debate, to rise from the dead. This is no exaggeration.

That is not to say that the President Obama lost himself the election with a poor debate performance, far from it. President Obama is still undeniably the favorite going in to the final month of the presidential campaign, but the President missed an opportunity to transform his bid for a second term from a statistical likelihood to a near mathematical certainty.

President Obama is not the only one to blame for this debate debacle, the President’s advisors who had previously proven to be far superior to Mr. Romney’s, let the President down this time in a major way (Jim Lehrer the moderator of the debate, also did the President no favors). How could the President’s advisors during debate prep sessions not remind Obama to, rather than spending most of the time sullenly looking down at the podium as he did last Wednesday night, either look at his opponent or at the camera?

President Obama’s strategy during the debate (if one can even call it that) was to let Mitt Romney dig his own grave. President Obama seemed to be content to simply not make any gaffes and look presidential. The President’s advisors must have thought Mitt Romney to be so unlikeable that if given free reign throughout the debate he would invariably make the kinds of remarks that many Americans have found to be disparaging. President Obama’s camp was proven quite wrong if this was their analysis.

Mitt Romney is not Newt Gingrich who given enough time in front of the camera will say something to jeopardize his candidacy. No, Romney when the bright lights come on is much too politically savvy and too well prepared at this stage of the campaign to make those sorts of mistakes.

As far as the next two debates are concerned, President Obama must practice delivering more succinct responses to questions and learn to directly challenge Mr. Romney when he makes outlandish or factually untrue statements. But more importantly the President needs to recognize that while there will be moments where it will be to his benefit to come off as dignified and presidential, there will be others in which he will need to get his hands dirty and confront Mr. Romney with statement’s he has made in the past that conflict with what he is saying in the present.

This debate must prove a wake-up call to President Obama and his team of advisors. His reelection is not inevitable, Mitt Romney come January Twentieth really could be sitting behind that desk in the Oval Office. If President Obama intends to win this November, then now is the time to shake off any complacency that has set in over the last few months.

What can be learned from all of the absences?

It is hard to imagine a Democratic Convention these days without former president Bill Clinton playing a prominent role. Clinton seemed totally in his element when addressing his fellow democratic delegates two weeks ago in Charlotte, North Carolina. The former president’s nearly hour long speech made it clear that he can make a compelling case for President Obama’s reelection. Once seen as a potential distraction to the Obama administration, Clinton is now more popular than ever before, and has become quite the asset to President Obama’s reelection hopes.

The same though cannot be said for most of the former Republican luminaries. Rather unusually (historically speaking), and very conspicuously, The Republicans held their national convention without either of its two living former presidents attending.

Of the two men, former president George H.W Bush’s absence is most easily excused. The elder Bush had been in increasingly poor health in recent months, so it is understandable that he would not feel up to traveling these days. His son’s absence however is another matter.

As the last Republican to be president, it would seem only logical that George W. Bush would speak at the 2012 Republican National Convention. But to the relief of current Republican officeholders nationwide, it appears that George W. Bush has retired from making public appearances.

Even if George W. Bush had volunteered to speak at the convention he would have undoubtedly been told to stay home. George W. Bush is still so universally unpopular that the current Republican nominee for president, Mitt Romney, (following John McCain’s lead in 2008) is loath to even utter Bush’s name publically.

The previous two Republican vice presidential candidates Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin were also conspicuously absent at the Republican convention. When asked why he would not be attending the convention, Cheney replied that he had an important fishing trip planned (I’m not kidding about that!) While Sarah Palin responded that she would be too busy observing Russian troop movements from her kitchen window (ok now I am!).

Despite the fact that many Americans dislike Cheney and Palin, they still would have been positively received at a convention full of ardent Republicans. Both Cheney and Palin are capable of energizing the Republican base. So why were they too missing at the convention?

The lack of past party leadership at the convention was an attempt by the Republicans to make it appear as though they were moving away from their party’s failures of the previous decade. The Republicans hoped that by introducing viewers to a new generation of Republican faces, those same voters might just forget about the string of  embarrassments the  Palin’s, Cheney’s, and Bush’s of the world brought to the party.

But if someone thought that by making sure those polarizing politicians were nowhere to be found that the Republicans were making a clean break from their political past, that someone would be dead wrong.

My next blog post will prove rather conclusively, I think, that while the current Republican leadership is willing to replace those that once represented the party, it is still unwilling to replace the policies that continue to alienate many independent minded Americans.

    Please join us this Saturday, September 15^th as we welcome Governor Jack Markell (and other special guests) to the University of Delaware.  The Governor is coming to campus to formally announce his re-election campaign. This is a truly unique opportunity to get to see some of Delaware’s most distinguished and influential politicians up close. Governor Markell’s Campaign Kickoff will take place at 7:00 pm on the steps of Memorial Hall, facing the South Green. On behalf of all us here at the College Dems, we hope to see you there!

UPDATE: We now have U.S. Senator Carper confirmed for attending the event. So if you want a chance to meet a sitting Senator come out on Saturday for Governor Markell’s Campaign Kickoff!

As the November election rapidly approaches, the Democrats’ prospects for maintaining control of the United States Senate have noticeably brightened. The Democrats have Congressman Todd Akin to thank at least in part for this. His much-maligned remarks have singlehandidly made the Missouri Senate seat currently held by Democrat Claire McCaskill, go from a seat likely to be picked up by Republicans to one likely to remain in Democratic hands.

But the Missouri Senate race is not the only race that has Republicans worried about their chances of regaining control of the Senate. David Catanese of Politico.com does an excellent job examining the other contested Senate races. Check out his article at http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=42B32868-CBD6-4C11-8B79-A33B7630550A.

In 2008, Barack Obama won 365 electoral votes to John McCain’s meager 173. Keeping in mind Obama only needed 270 electoral votes to become president, 365 votes was quite the landslide. This upcoming 2012 presidential election sets up to be a much closer race.

Historically, presidential elections have been determined by just a handful of states. The media tends to refer to these states as battleground or swing states. At the moment, eleven states appear to still be winnable by either side. Those states include Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Though unless something drastic takes place in the next few months, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Nevada all appear to be likely Obama victories.

The latest polls have Obama winning Pennsylvania (by eight to ten points) and Michigan (four to six points) by a comfortable margin. Considering that 1988 was the last year a Republican presidential candidate won either Michigan or Pennsylvania, they seem likely to stay blue this time around. While New Hampshire and Nevada appear to be tighter races, they too seem likely to be Democratic wins. The latest polls have President Obama maintaining a four point lead over Mitt Romney in both New Hampshire and Nevada. President Obama carried both of these states in 2008 as well. Putting these four states in the Democratic column would leave President Obama with 247 votes to Mitt Romney’s 191 votes

In this rather probable scenario, seven states and one hundred electoral votes would determine this presidential election. In 2008, then Senator Obama won all seven of these states. This time around, of those seven states, President Obama only needs Florida or a combination of two or three of the smaller swing states to get to the magic number of 270. Though a Romney victory is not impossible by any means, the electoral math is simply much more challenging for him.

SAVE THE DELAWARE from JFOX on Vimeo.

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED.

President Obama entered office promising to bring hope and change, and he has started to deliver. Congress has finally, after an intense and ugly legislative battle that highlighted the Republican Party’s resolve to do as little as possible for underprivileged, working-class Americans, and the enormous power of special interests in Washington D.C., passed the bill that will bring health care to over 30 million Americans who lack access to medical insurance. The cost of bringing health care to 30 million Americans over then next 10 years is about $950 billion, far less than the cost of the unnecessary war in Iraq, and marginally more than President Bush’s bailout for the rich bankers on Wall Street.

As President Obama pointed out, this bill will not alleviate all the problems that undermine our national health care system, but it is indeed a decisive step forward towards transforming America and rededicating its government to improving the life of Americans. For eight years when the Bush administration was in-charge, all we did was wage wars and bomb nations as the country grew bigger, poorer, more in debt and weaker in infrastructure.

Something this big, that affects so many – 30 million Americans – did not happen in the last 45 years. To find a comparable historic moment we have to go back to the Social Security reform in 1965 – brought about by another set of a Democratic Congress and President — which through Medicare and Medicaid provides health insurance to over 85 million Americans (nearly one out of three Americans) for less than 8 percent of the GDP.

Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the health care reform bill of 2010, Medicare and Medicaid too were vigorously opposed by the Republican Party. But today, except for some Republican legislators who keep trying to kill Medicare and Medicaid, most people recognize how vital this program is to Americans. Eventually in 20-30 years Republicans too will recognize how vital President Obama’s health care bill is for America.

The passage of the health care bill will have profound impact on many aspects of American life. Besides helping those who cannot afford health care now and those who suffer from pre-existing conditions, the bill will also alter the balance of power between special interests and national interests. For a change national interest has gained precedence over special interests. I think in this time when the economy is weak, and the country has lost a lot of wealth in stock and real estate markets, when job growth remains elusive, it is specially good that national interest has prevailed.

Another major impact of the health care bill will be towards poverty reduction. High health care costs have not only prevented many millions from having the necessary procedures that will make them healthy and more productive, but it has also contributed to a higher level of national anxiety that undermines optimism about the American dream. Even for those who have health insurance but also have a serious problem like a heart condition, the fear of losing a job and then being victimized by insurance agencies for having a pre-existing condition has prevented them from pursuing dreams and entrepreneurial endeavors.

Ironically, both President Obama and the Democratic Party may pay a political price at the polls in November of this year for this. The actual benefits of this legislation will be realized only four years from now. But regardless of whether the Democratic Party cashes in on this major reform initiative or not, this is good for them. It reminds them that they can do things in Washington that approach a political philosophers idea of the public good.

It will also remind those in the public service that short-term political sacrifices are worth making in pursuit of long-term visions. Health care reform was a cherished idea of the Democratic Party and today it has been realized. Congratulations, to President Obama for steadfastly fighting for this vision and to the Democrats for finally standing up and being counted on behalf of something meaningful.

President Obama, whether on the subject of Middle East peace or on health care reform, is steadfastly defending America’s national interest against special interests. Republicans like to talk about America first, while in reality serving special interests, like the recent Republican dominated Supreme Courts decision to repeal campaign finance limits on special interests, but President Obama is indeed pursuing an America first policy.

He has indeed proven to be a Baraka (blessing) for America.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (www.ijtihad.org)..

I am writing to inform you of my resignation as president of the Delaware College Democrats. I’m accepting a fall internship offer in the U.S. Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs in Washington, D.C.

I realize this decision will come as a surprise to many and I want everyone to understand it was not easy. The offer was made in late June, and I have spent much time reflecting on the merits of interning in the State Department. This internship offers the unique opportunity to grasp international drug policy in a way that supplements my undergraduate political science and criminal justice studies.

Please understand that this decision was extraordinarily difficult; I have given much of my college career to College Democrats. From my freshman year, when I was the lone staunch supporter of another skinny guy from Illinois (22 months before the election), to my sophomore year leading SFBO, and my junior year as president, College Democrats has been the source of many terrific memories that have enriched my college career. Thank you.

Paul Ruiz, President, 2008-2009