Edwards For Cheaper Drugs

In a Nov. 13 press release, Senator John Edwards blasts Congress for stalling legislation for cheaper generic prescriptions due to lobbying from pharmaceutical companies.

It is an insult to every American that legislation to increase the availability of affordable generic drugs has been stalled in Congress as a result of lobbyists and the pharmaceutical industry.

Yes, I think it is sad that Congress would stall on improving the health of Americans just because of their precious lobbyists influencing them. We all know that money talks in politics and the one with the most money is heard. But there should be a limit on this. When it comes to the health of citizens and the opportunity to make medicines cheaper, money shouldn't be the ultimate factor. Morals, common sense, and sick family members should be.

I am a diabetic, so I use several prescriptions. I've also had other things that required different prescriptions. My dad has had medical conditions requiring prescriptions. No matter which you put it, medicine is expensive. Medical devices are even more expensive. Wal-Mart has done a miracle with their $4 list of medicines, but many aren't on there. It's ridiculous for a bottle of pills to cost over $100. From horror stories I've heard, some can go much, much higher. Because of the number of just diabetics and cancer patients, pharmaceutical companies will always have a future! There's no reason, other than just greed, that they can't lower prices or allow generics.

In his release, Edwards also says he's going to stop the game of the government sacrificing America's health care needs for the money of lobbyists as president. He also said he was going to throw in an incentive to help them stop. I think it would be great. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009 – in six months – I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when the American people don't have health care.

This particular Senate bill that has stalled bans reverse payments, which are payments name brand pharmaceutical companies make to generic brand pharmaceutical companies to delay the introduction of the generic drugs.

Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, sponsored the bill and has done so for the past two years. This is how long the bill has been on the committee. Kohl wanted to help senior citizens buy cheaper drugs, because of the drastic difference of cost with generics.

Generic drugs are 30 to 80 percent cheaper than brand-name drugs, according to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

Did you read that? 30 to 80 percent cheaper! Do you realize how much this could help people?! Patients might just live longer and even comply with their doctor's orders more by being able to get cheaper drugs. I think some patients don't comply with doctors and go against their orders because they can't afford the drugs. This sounds like a no-brainer but I doubt money-hungry Congressmen realize this.

If Congress will get off their butts and approve this legislation, more grandmas and grandpas might just be able to live longer and be able to pass on their stories and wisdom through more generations. Who wouldn't want this to happen?! In my opinion, it sucks how our society, especially the government, is driven by money. Health care should be one area among many that shouldn't be centered around money or power.

I hope John Edwards, or whichever Democrat is in the White House, will end this game.

Obama Cares About Big Media

In the latter part of October, Barack Obama criticized the proposed FCC Media Ownership Plan.

The current rule is that a media corporation can't own a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. This new FCC plan calls for elimination of this rule.

[FCC Commissioner Kevin]Martin says his plan would bolster newspapers, which are beset by sharp declines in circulation and ad revenue. Mergers would permit TV stations and newspapers to share news resources. Martin also says the ban is outmoded in an age of cable TV and the Web.

Democrats fear the elimination of this rule would consolidate media outlets even more and lessen local news coverage by getting rid of independent media outlets.

Obama actually sent Commissioner Martin a letter, asking him to reconsider his Dec. 18 deadline on the actual decision. Obama is concerned that the elimination of these independent media outlets could hurt minorities, which operate several of these outlets.

Minority owned and operated newspapers and radio stations play a critical role in the African American and Latino communities and bring minority issues to the forefront of our national discussion. However, the Commission has failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism, and as a result, it is in no position to justify allowing for increased consolidation of the market. Moreover, 30 days of public review of a specific proposed change is insufficient to assess the effect that change would have on the media marketplace or the rationale on which any such proposal is based.

Martin originally wanted to do complete this plan in 2003, but courts struck it down. Also, this isn't Obama's first correspondence to Kevin Martin.

This is not the first time I have communicated with the agency on this matter. Senator Kerry and I wrote to you on July 20, 2006, stating that the Commission needed to address and complete a proceeding on issues of minority and small business media ownership before taking up the wider media ownership rules. Our request echoed an amendment adopted by the Senate Commerce Committee in June 2006. And last month, at an FCC hearing on media ownership held in Chicago, I requested that the FCC put out any specific changes that would be voted on in a new notice of proposed rulemaking so that the American people have an opportunity to review it.

This original AP article (linked by the blog post title) was Oct. 22. However, an updated USA Today article appeared on Nov. 13. Apparently Martin is still going for the Dec. 18 deadline for Congress to vote on the plan.

I'm glad Obama is getting involved in an issue like this one. For one, it shows he's interested in real people. He also shows some care for the media, which is always a plus in my book. We say minorities aren't informed, even ignorant, on issues; but yet we take away their media outlets so they don't have as good as chance becoming informed. Big business and the top dollar isn't always the best way to go about things. Heck, independent media outlets might create competition for main media, which could help them improve their journalism they provide to Americans. TV news , for the most part, is not news but entertainment. I don't want to get on this rant.

Hopefully, we'll get a Democratic president and this plan will go out the window. I'm not a 100% Democrat, but more of a moderate. However, I'm tired of war monger, ignorant, red neck Republican presidents. We'll see what happens. For once, I hope Republican congress members will have enough sense to stop this plan.

Possible 2008 Election Stealer?

It seems like the 2008 presidential election is in full swing, more than a year in advance. But will there be an election-stealer that comes next year? Will there be a 3rd party candidate to run?

This story, from News VOA (Voice of America) examines the possibility of a 3rd party candidate coming into play next year.

Evidently, some conservative activists don't like Rudy Giuliani and say a 3rd party candidate will emerge if Giuliani wins the Republican bid. These conservatives disagree with Giuliani's position on abortion, gun control, and gay rights.

Stephen Wayne, a Georgetown University political expert, says a third candidate could hurt Giuliani's campaign.

That candidate will only do well in rural and Republican areas, which will hurt Giuliani," he said. "I think the idea of running an independent candidate was an attempt to stop Giuliani. But I do agree with the general feeling that a third party, Christian right candidate is going to take votes away from Giuliani.

According to the article, the last time a 3rd party candidate had a decent chance of winning the presidential election was the 1850's (Roosevelt's campaign).

Here are some stats about 3rd party candidates.

Look at American history. We have third party candidates that are significant about once every five elections," he noted. "Now we had a very significant independent in 1992, Ross Perot. We had a minor third party candidate who determined the result in 2000, Ralph Nader. He gave the election from Al Gore to George W. Bush. He tilted both Florida and New Hampshire to Bush. All Gore needed was one of those two states to win. So, even minor third party candidates can determine the results of a presidential election.

You know, I don't think 3rd party candidates should run. Another person in the article says that in order to have a chance of winning an election, one must have money or have access to money. Sure, not everyone agrees with Republicans or Democrats. This is why we have primaries: to find the best candidate of each party. Am I opposed to other candidates? Not exactly. I think it would be beneficial if one or two other political parties came into the light as viable competitors to the Republicans and Democrats. I just think current 3rd party candidates takes votes away from the major candidates to make elections turn out like the infamous Gore-Bush election. It's just a waste of time and wins nothing in the end.

There's a reason a 3rd party candidate hasn't had a good chance of winning since 1850.

Some Democrats fear a 3rd party candidate could be current New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. However, Bloomberg supposedly attracts moderates from both parties. Stay mayor Mr. Bloomberg. Don't waste our time by entering the election.

I'll say this in closing. Despite how many candidates enter the election, you have to vote to pick the best. If you don't vote, then you can't, pardon the word, bitch about the candidate and what he or she does.

Drudge: Clinton's Friend or Foe?

This news story comes from the Guardian Unlimited: a British newspaper that many Americans go to for news.

Matt Drudge, from the Drudge Report, apparently has a soft side for Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton.

Suppoesdly, Drudge is the journalist that first leaked the story of Bill Clinton's fling with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

This is just a side note, that doesn't necessarily pertain to this blog's news story. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton will never live the Monica Lewinsky scandal down. Clinton was a good president, especially domestically. It's a shame that one incident, in his private life nevertheless, will ruin all the good stuff he's done. In one regard, I hope Hillary can win the election (one of very few regards) for Bill to prove himself again as First Man. Although, the article said Drudge's story helped her by people giving her sympathy.

Drudge shows a soft side for Hillary Clinton. He even said on a radio show that Clinton needs to take care of herself, suppesdly she coughed like she was sick.

During the presidential campaign, the Drudge Report, once known as the scourge of Democrats, has betrayed a surprisingly soft side for the woman previously viewed by diehard Republicans as the mother of all that is liberal and permissive in America. When Ms Clinton had a coughing fit during a speech in New Orleans last summer, Drudge reacted with genuine concern, telling listeners to his Miami radio show: "Hillary dear, take care of yourself. We need you," according to New York magazine.

Drudge even reported "needing Hillary" because she is his "bank".

It's interesting how journalists and political critics can dislike, even criticize a political party, but yet have a soft side for one of its candidates. I don't know if I would warm up to someone that tried to ruin my husband's political career, even though he did do wrong. But that's me. I guess this falls under the "it's who you know" saying.

Evidently this soft side feeling is mutual. Clinton uses The Drudge Report to leak information to either "steal the thunder" from other candidates or to help her remain at the top. Here is one example.

Earlier this month, Ms Clinton's staff leaked campaign fundraising data to the website just as her rival for the nomination, Barack Obama, was to deliver a policy speech on Iraq - and a crucial 20 minutes before the official release of the information. The story on Ms Clinton's fundraising prowess dominated the news cycle.

The article says that Clinton is isolated as a candidate because she doesn't use the media as much as other candidates. Suppsedly, she's given only one full press conference since her original declaration of running for president in January, and other candidates do one to even three news conferences a day. Clinton also is said to give very little time for questions and answers, compared to other candidates.

I think she should probably do more. I know she's on top of the other candidates, but people need to know where she stands on stuff. Honestly, I think she's probably just sick of all the questions she may get in regards to Bill and the scandal (my guess is she gets quite a few but I could be wrong). I don't know that I'd isolate myself as a candidate.

Edwards Goes to High School

On Halloween, John Edwards went to Oyster River High School in Durham, North Carolina to let students ask him anything they wanted.

Edwards dressed in blue jeans, sweatshirt, and tennis shoes. I think it's good to dress according to your audience. My guess is that students would have been intimidated if Edwards came in a fancy suit.

The first question was what candidate Edwards would support if he wasn't running for office. I'm going to let the quote tell the answer.

I hate to talk like a politician, but I have not spent a nanosecond thinking about that, because when you're running for president you're so committed to what you want to do as president," he said with a smile during a campaign stop at the school to court young, first-time voters. "It would require some thought, more thought than I've given it.

On one hand, I think it was probably good that he kept the answer to himself. But on the other hand, it would have been interesting to know. However, I imagine he would have received criticism if he revealed who he would vote for. I guess it's good that he hasn't really thought about the answer, this shows he's concentrating on the campaign.

Edwards criticized China for not doing more in the Darfur area. He said the Chinese government has great economic leverage over the Sudanese government and said right now, China is "propping up this genocide right now."

I know not all countries are Christian, or even religious. All countries don't have, and don't want, Western ideologies. Not all countries even have the same values and priorities. But, everyone has a sense of morality and of what's right and wrong. I don't get how countries don't actually do something about the genocide in Darfur. America isn't the world's police or world's charity, not saying we shouldn't help, but there are other countries that could have more impact on Sudan than we do. It's a shame we let politics get in the way of peoples' lives sometimes. I hope the next president tries to actually do something about Darfur and not just use it to look good. Lives are at stake. Maybe some of the world's billionaires ought to band together and send money to Darfur and buy things for the people and actually go over there to help so the money doesn't go to the corrupt government.

Edwards talked about China's building of coal mines and the damage to the environment they are doing. That question then got focused on the building of nuclear power plants. Edwards said even if all construction on the world's nuclear power plants stopped, 95% of the greenhouse gases would still exist. It's interesting how some of the high school students came prepared. Here's an example, with the nuclear question.

One student took Edwards to task for his opposition to new nuclear power plants, saying 95 percent of nuclear waste can be recycled and provide more alternative energy than other sources.

Edwards' last major topic was education. His plan includes tuition-free national university for teacher training, a universal preschool, and inventive pay for teachers who start "second chance" schools in needy areas. He also wants to radically change the No Child Left Behind Act to where students are measured from the beginning to the end of the year, instead of standardized testing. Here is his college for free plan.

I think the No Child Left Behind Act is junk. I personally don't think it works. Students should actually learn and comprehend things before being moved on to the next year, and more advanced things. So what if a student has to be pushed back a year! That's when the parents need to step in and get help for their kid. It's also a shame what teachers earn. I think their pay should be raised nationally. For all they do, what they make is hardly livable sometimes.

His "College For Everyone" plan, fashioned after a privately funded model in his home state of North Carolina, would allow students who work 10 hours per week to attend state colleges or universities for free the first year, with the cost of other years being lowered after ending the costly intermediary role that Edwards says "big banks" play in the government loan process.

Students need to be encouraged to go to college. Their lives literally get better when they finally have their degree in hand. However, because many people can't afford college, I think there ought to be programs for people to go to college. His plan sounds good, but I hope it doesn't backfire. It almost sounds too good to be true. But, at least Edwards is thinking about it. I hope other candidates are too.

Here's a video of this plan, with interviews of students.



Oyster River High School has invited all 2008 presidential candidates to come in and speak.

Another Clinton Vote Drama

Well, Hillary Clinton is voting again; in the senate.

She voted in favor of the (readers will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to read this PDF version of the amendment) Kyl-Lieberman amendment, concerning Iran. The bill passed the Senate by a 76 to 22 vote. Candidates Biden and Dodd voted against the amendment, while Obama and McCain weren't in attendance to vote.

The amendment also expresses the "Sense of the Senate," that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The key provisions:

It is the sense of the Senate...

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization...

(This quote of the act is from another blog: The Weekly Standard.)

After her Iraq vote and then her backtracking, I'm honestly skeptical of Clinton's votes concerning war. It's like she doesn't think it through and takes in all the available information. She seems "trigger-happy" before the weight of the vote/bill hits her. If she's elected, I hope she isn't as quick to vote.

Clinton sent a mailing to supporters in Iowa to explain her reasoning and to keep them informed. I was unable to find a copy of the mailing online. But, here is her defense of the vote off of her Senate Web site.

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment

Washington, DC – “Earlier today, I voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran's nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah.

“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration's diplomatic inaction in the region.

“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration's polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

“This legislation reaffirms my policy of engagement and refers specifically to the statement of Defense Secretary Gates who said that "diplomatic and economic means" are "by far the preferable approach" for dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

“In February, after troubling reports about the possibility of military action against Iran, I took to the Senate Floor to warn that President Bush needs Congressional Authorization before attacking Iran. Specifically, I said it would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further and explicit Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

“Nothing in this resolution changes that.”

###

However, John Edwards sent out a press release saying that her reason for the vote differs between the Iowa mailings and her conversation with The New York Times.

According to a press release issued by the John Edwards For President campaign on Sunday, Edwards' campaign manager released a statement regarding Senator Clinton's mailing. The statement pointed out that her explanation to Iowa voters was not the same as her campaign's explanation to the New York Times. It indicated that Clinton backers told the Times that the reason for her vote was about changing from campaigning for the nomination to campaigning for the general election. The statement also expressed the belief that there have been "devastating consequences" in Iraq and that the Bush administration appears to be preparing for war with Iran.

In another article from Fox News, Obama is said to have related this vote back to the controversial Iraq vote. Is it me, or does Clinton seem to be wishy-washy? I'm not bashing her, as I don't like to bash any candidates. Enough of that goes on in the church and on TV. But I would like my Commander in Chief to be rock solid in their decision making. I don't want them to do something and then be sorry for it later.

I don't know enough about politics, or Iran, to know whether or not it's a good idea to go fight Iran. I do know nukes are involved, more than likely. What if they decide to use them against us in their own country? That sounds crazy, but you never know about some of these leaders of foreign countries. We don't need another war. We don't need to go push democracy and the "American" way of life on another country that doesn't want it.

Defining Fred Through Immigration

Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson was in Des Moine, Iowa on Oct. 27 for Iowa's annual GOP Ronald Reagan dinner. Before the dinner, Thompson sat down with a Des Moine Register reporter to discuss his immigration plan, which he says defines him among the other candidates.

Immigration is a hot topic in the United States, Iowa is no exception. According to a poll done by the paper, immigration is the fourth most important issue among Iowa Republican caucus goers.

Iowa Republicans rate immigration as a top priority. A Des Moines Register poll in May showed 27 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers considered immigration extremely important, closely behind the war in Iraq. Fighting terrorism and values were the only two issues to rank higher.

The first part of Thompson's plan is to eliminate sanctuary cities, cities that allow illegal immigrants to obtain various government benefits without the fear of being deported. Rudy Giuliani is being criticized for allowing New York to be a sanctuary city during his office as Mayor.

Thompson's plan also included doubling the number of immigration agents, increasing the number of border patrols to 25,000, prosecuting illegal immigrant workers and the companies that employ them, and making English the official language of the United States. These sound like good goals and things that should have been done a long time ago.

However, I'm not so sure about establishing English as the official language of the United States. Do we really need to have an official language? The US is known as the melting pot of the world, with several different cultures and languages. I think it's just a given that English is the primary language here. Sure, I feel immigrants must learn English to stay over here, but I don't think we need to go to the trouble and bureaucracy in establishing an "official" language.

Thomson also criticized other candidates by delivering his plan. His plan calls for zero tolerance for amnesty, which the article says is a shot at John McCain. Thomson was also criticizing Romney, with no current immigration plan, who has been critical of Congress' bipartisan legistlation to allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country. It would be awesome to see a debate about issues without mud slinging or criticizing other candidates. I mean, prove you're the best candidate without any form of degrading the other candidates. But, I guess this is politics.

Looking at Thompson's plan online, he also wants to finish a wall that separates our borders.

Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 as required by 8 USC 1103. Extend the wall beyond that as appropriate and deploy new technologies and additional resources to enhance detection and rapid apprehension along our borders by 2012.

I had no idea a wall was being built on the borders. Yes, we do need to stop illegal immigration and punish those already here. But at first glance, I think a big wall around our border sends out the wrong message. I feel a wall would be telling people we're hostile, cautious, among other things to immigrants (illegal and legal). Do we really need a wall? Plus, no wall of this size will have any aesthetically good looks (not that that's really important). Plus, can't we better spend the money for the wall on better things?

Thompson also wants to finish the implementation of a computer system to track visa entries and exits. He then wants to attach this to the FBI's National Crime Center, NCIC. This sounds like a really good idea. But would there be enough analysts to constantly look at the data and enforce it? Would this cause more red tape?

Thompson also wants to seek the maximum punishment for members of violent immigrant gangs.

Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug-smuggling, gun-smuggling, and alien-smuggling.

I think this is a great idea. I don't know if any previous immigration bills, laws, reforms went after this, but they should have. I've seen neighborhoods where gangs have taken over, and that area goes down drastically. Members of gangs should be found, arrested, convicted, and punished. If they are illegal immigrants, I think they should be deported. Maybe this would get rid of some of the gangs and gang wars.

Thompson's plan seems to be a good one. We'll have to wait and see, and compare them to other candidates' plans.

Gospel Singer Doing More Harm than Good for Obama

According to the article, South Carolina is a big state for Obama to try and win. The state is an early-voting state and over half of the Democratic voters are black. The article says Obama is losing ground to Hillary Clinton.

To combat this and gain voters, Obama launced a tour last week that featured several gospel acts, and himself. One of the gospel acts is causing more harm than good for Obama.

Donnie McClurkin is a gospel singer and an associate minister at Marvin Winan's church, Perfecting Church in Detroit, Michigan for over 10 years before Winans sent him out to begin the Perfecting Faith Church in Albany, New York. McClurkin also battled leukemia and homosexuality. These struggles have helped McClurkin write several Gospel albums.

His views on homosexuality is causing the criticisms in Obama's camp.

Mr. McClurkin, a black preacher who sang at the Republican National Convention in 2004, has gained notoriety for his view that homosexuality is a choice and can be “cured” through prayer, a view ridiculed by gay people.

The article says the critics say that Obama is trying to appeal to black voters at the expense of gay people. I don't think this is true. The LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) group is one of the target groups Obama is trying to reach. However, Obama seems to disagree with McClurkin's views.

Mr. Obama said last night through a spokesman that he “strongly disagrees” with Mr. McClurkin’s views. He did not indicate he would cancel Mr. McClurkin’s appearance, but said, “I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts of our community so that we can confront issues like H.I.V./AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.”

I don't know if including McClurkin in the tour was the wisest idea for Obama. I have read, and believe, Obama is a Christian and wants to reach the evangelicals out there (the article even says this). I also know Obama wants to reach the LGBT community. Homosexuality is such a delicate issue in Christianity, and even politics. I understand Obama wants to get Christians and the LGBT group to work together and erase the homophobia in this country. But why use someone who will inevitably hurt one of the groups you are trying to reach? There are several gospel singers out there that could have been used instead of McClurkin.

I really admire Obama for trying to reinstate politics and faith, as well as trying to reach the gay community and bring them together with opposing groups. Many candidates "attempt" to do this, but it fails in the long run because they just want to do something for their campaign. It takes guts to tackle some of the issues Obama is tackling.

The Advocate is a magazine for the gay community that discusses the news and politics of the community. Obama did an interview of why he thinks he's the best candidate for the LGBT community. Here's the article - too long to put in the blog.

ImpreMedia Helping Inform Young Hispanics

I like this article. It's good to see organizations are seeing the importance of trying to get young people to vote, especially minority young people.

The Hispanic population is growing. Between July 2003 and July 2004, one out of every two people added to the United States is Hispanic. Currently, the Hispanic population makes up 14% of the population, the largest ethnic minority. If this growth rate keeps on pace, the Hispanic population will constitute 24% of the entire US population.

This means that more and more Hispanics are eligible to vote.

The political clout of young Hispanics is already getting attention because some 50,000 Hispanics turn 18 every month in the United States and 87 percent of them are eligible to vote, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Myspace and MTV are hosting 2008 Presidential candidate dialogues for young people to ask candidates about issues the face. ImpreMedia is providing streaming video and translation for the dialogues.

“Our hope is to increase voter participation in the Hispanic community by providing news, analysis and as many different voices and opinions to consider,” he added, noting the growing politic influence that surfaced among Latinos this past year with the immigration debate.

Helping to give young Latinos the information they need to make decisions about the issues expected to bubble up going into the 2008 presidential election is the main reason for the media company’s involvement, Duran said.

John Edwards was the first debate, held on Sept. 27 at the University of New Hampshire. Barack Obama's dialogue will be Oct. 29 at Coe College in Iowa. This is the overall format of the dialogues.

An audience of university students will have the opportunity to ask the Democratic candidate questions about the issues that matter to them most. MTV News correspondents Gideon Yago and Sway Calloway, and WashingtonPost.com political reporter Chris Cillizza, will serve as moderators.

All the dialogues will be on Lavibra.com for users to stream. The article said LaVibra is also a youth oriented Web site. It looks like this project is successful. Over 300,000 people streamed the John Edwards dialogue, which has been on the site since the first of the month.

As a friend of mine says, and this article; if you don't vote then you can't complain about how things are ran in the country. Generally young people, including myself, are politically apathetic. We really need to step up and vote. Our generation seems to be involved with issues more than older people. What better way to help shape issues than vote on people that support the ones we stand for!

Immigration is always an important political issue, which affects the younger and the older. I think this should spur these Hispanic young people to vote. Being in school, we're often removed from politics and other worldly issues. So, it's good to see organizations like MTV, Myspace, and Facebook helping inform us about issues to encourage us to vote. Barack Obama seems to be the candidate people my age and younger seem to support the most.