The Harvard College Democrats
(shield)
(shield)

17739
DOORS

1732
CALLS

Search Now:
Amazon Logo

Shop on Amazon.com through the Dems, and 5-10% of your purchase price will go to support the Dems! Type in what you're looking for here, and we'll direct you to Amazon.com.

User login

Blogroll

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Dem Apples: The Official Blog of the Harvard College Democrats

Raul Campillo's blog

Sarah Palin....ouch.

Posted on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 7:03pm by Raul Campillo

just watch it, even if you think you have seen it, you probably haven't.


just in case you didn't catch what was said, it was "You just subscribed to Terry's Journal of Pain, and the first issue is free!"

Hillary and the Constitution

Posted on Tue, 11/25/2008 - 5:35pm by Raul Campillo

So I was just watching MSNBC News Today (I shouldn't have been, but I was relaxing for a few minutes, and so I turned the TV on), and they brought up this little tidbit from Article 1, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution:

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

So you have to ask yourself, since 2001, has the Secretary of State gotten a raise? The answer is yes.

So you have to ask yourself, is the President-elect about to nominate someone who was a Senator or Representative since 2001?  The answer is yes.  

So Hillary cannot be appointed Secretary of State.  

So you have to ask yourself, how can they get past this?

UPDATE (5:41pm): I suppose the only way to get around that fully, if the literal word is to be followed, is to show that, in the particular line of the Article, it uses the pronoun "he" instead of "she." Other than that, it does seem pretty clear that she couldn't be legally, though I would like to see her as Secretary of State.

49 hours before my poll would close in CA

Posted on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 10:22pm by Raul Campillo

As I began to start writing my literature review for my thesis, I read a particular line, and it made me stop and realize how, for the past 2 years, I have read the news about 3 times a day (sometimes more) and why politics matters to me, and why it should matter to you.

"...campaigns do matter, even though many voters behave predictably."

This struck me mainly because I am one of those voters who behaves predictably.  I have voted Democratic in three election ('06 midterm, '08 primary, '08 presidential), campaigned for Democratic candidates, and contributed to Democratic candidates.  It would seem that to someone like me, the campaign really doesn't matter because my mind is made up early on. My pursuit of knowledge on the issues, the policies, the candidates, and the predicted effect on me, this country, and this world my vote and support have matter to me, not the campaign itself.  The selling of the message and the packaging of the candidates and parties does not really effect my decision to vote and support.

But the campaign does matter, and while this seems obvious to people who have watched this election closely and still can't understand why about 9% of people say they are still undecided , I ask of you, the reader, why a campaign matters to you?  

The campaign matters to me because it, more than anything else in this country, gives people an active role in their democracy.  All campaigns involve a few things: a candidate, a position that person is trying to obtain, and a reason why they want that position.  And it seems to me that on top of wanting to implement the typical Democratic policies, Barack Obama wants to make the campaign mean more than that.  he has added a fourth thing to to the campaign that I hope remains in campaigns.  The campaign that he has run has been about making people feel like their democracy responds to them, that, actually, when a person expresses something, they are not ignored.  Barack Obama has put voters back into the equation.

We all know that both candidates will get about 45% of the vote come election day, and then the next 10% make the difference.  But the hope and change Barack Obama has brought to a guy like me is that more than my vote and money will matter this election.  When and if Barack Obama is elected, I will feel like I am part of the governance of this country, and part of that is that Barack Obama actually expects something from the citizens of this country.  In other words, more than "shopping" to keep the economy going.

So to sum it up, this campaign did matter to a predictable vote like me, because even though I was going to vote for him any, Barack Obama has made people realize that this country only works if we work at it, that he can't do everything himself as president, that he isn't what we are looking for, but we are what we are looking for.  Even if he loses on Tuesday, we will remember that.

Presidential Relations: You think Bush-Clinton is a dynasty?

Posted on Sat, 07/05/2008 - 7:10pm by Raul Campillo

Ok, so a lot of people used the "do we want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?" argument in the primaries, as if there was some dynasty thing going on.  Well, I think, looking to the Bush family alone, the concept of Bush-Clinton being a dynasty is a joke.

Current President George W. Bush is related to other presidents as well as Pierce, who he is also related to on his father's side via Daniel Brewer. He is also a cousin of Fillmore (via Millards), Lincoln (via Gilmans), Grant (via Lathrops). Hayes (via Smiths, Footes, Parmelees, and Huckinses), Garfield (via Wheelers, Carpenters, Cookes, Warrens, Holbrooks, and Arnolds), Cleveland (via Smiths and Stanleys), Theodore Roosevelt (via Schuylers), Taft (via Holbrooks, Thayers, Haywards, Cookes, Footes, Ravenses, Waterses, and Shermans), Coolidge (via Phillipses, Hortons, Garnseys, Pulsiphers, Ravenses, Richardsons, Moores, Bulkeleys, and Morses), Hoover (via Brookses, Reades, Wheelers, Richardsons, and Shermans), Franklin Roosevelt (via Beekmans, Hutchinsons, Popes, Jenneys, Richardses, Palgraves, Lathrops, and Howlands), Nixon (via Lippincotts, Footes, Traverses, Morses, and Howlands), and Ford (via Vanderburghs, Wheelers, Marvins, Gilmans, and Howlands).

Ewww...Nixon.

Filed under:

264 Pages

Posted on Thu, 04/03/2008 - 5:01pm by Raul Campillo
Today the U.S. Senate passed a resolution honoring the fallen soldiers in Iraq and in Afghanistan. While it has little practical effect, we should recognize the symbolism of such an act, especially the fact that every single soldier had their name put in the resolution. It amounted to 264 pages in length. It is attached.
Syndicate content