I am an Alpha Female

I am an Alpha Female
I am Type-A, intense, serious, in some people's estimations a slightly neurotic work-a-holic -- whatever you call it. I am trying to tone down the intensity for 2009, but honestly, I can only see it increasing when I graduate from college. I know how to chill and relax and have fun, but that time is not when I have an assignment due the next day and you want to argue with me on the phone all night about something silly. I have things to do. And I don't mind bringing my computer, sitting next to you on the couch and doing my work while you watch TV or do whatever you have to do. However, don't expect me to give you 100% attention when I am writing an article that is due in three hours. I told you that I had work to do and the fact that you decided to come over anyway doesn't change the fact that I have work to do. Honestly. {Writing this is reminding me why I am single, lol}.

I don't like Beta males either. I like nice, Alpha males. I like men who know what they want in life and will go after it. I like men who are confident and secure in themselves and I want a man I can rely on. Some women like Beta males, I have learned in 2008, that I am not one of those women.

Why is Rick Warren Praying at Obama's Inauguration Controversial?

Gay leaders are "furious" at President-elect Barack Obama.

Why?

Because Obama had the audacity to ask Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Can you believe that? Can you believe that Obama had the nerve to ask an evangelical pastor to pray at his inauguration?

Warren, who gained worldwide notoriety for authoring the Purpose Driven Life series, is the pastor of Saddleback Church in California and hosted a popular televised forum for John McCain and Obama during the election.

Warren gained the ire of the "LGBT community" for supporting Proposition 8 -- the controversial bill recently passed banning same-sex marriage in California.

Therefore, this Christian pastor is unfit to pray for Obama.

I understand that because Warren lives in California, he had the opportunity to actually vote on the bill and not just rebuke or support it from another state. So, naturally, Obama could've chosen Joel Osteen or TD Jakes (both, by the way, oppose same-sex marriage) to deliver the invocation. I have a feeling that no matter which Christian pastor Obama would have chosen, the LGBT community would have been upset.

Newsflash: the majority of evangelicals don't support same-sex marriage. And it's not like Obama just chose a conservative judge. He chose a Christian pastor to deliver the prayer.

Why is this controversial?

This is one of the reasons why I find it hard not to be immensely annoyed by the "LGBT community" (not to be confused with people that I know who are gay or lesbian). Why do they feel like everything in life has to cater to them? Their outrage at the passage of Proposition 8 is justified. But the world is not going to be stopped and every supporter of Prop 8 ostracized because this small group of people are "outraged". It's ridiculous.

The LGBT community supported Barack Obama's presidency but so did a whole lot of people who don't support same-sex marriage. So, now what?

This one instance is just an illumination of a larger problem with Obama's candidacy and ultimately his presidency. Obama drew support from so many different types of people. Therefore, for the next four (or eight) years, these people are going to come calling for their issues to take precedence. He can't possibly please everyone.

Let's say for instance that Obama caves to the "LGBT outrage" and cancels Rick Warren (this is highly unlikely). The outrage will rise up on the other side. So, no matter what, Obama's decisions are always going to upset someone that supported him for president.

I just wish the "LGBT community" would save their outrage for things that matter -- and a Christian pastor who played a significant part in the presidential election praying at an inauguration is not one of those things.

Free Like You

I wish I could be free like you. I wish I could let it all out. I wish I was as strong as you. I wish I could let my feelings be known to anyone who will listen, to anyone who cares.

I have written about "him" -- filled up diaries, private blogs, written unsent letters, penned countless poems and songs. But these feelings are my secrets that I keep inside. What do I have to hide? What do I have to lose? Nothing? Everything?

In my incessant quest for perfection, something is so incontrollably imperfect. Something is lacking. There is a closed quality to my openness. I give so much, allegedly wear my heart on my sleeve, I am quick to tell you exactly what I think. Could someone with so many words coming out of her mouth, really be hiding this much in her heart?

I wish I could be free like you. I wish I had courage like you. I wish I didn't care. After all, what have I got to lose?

I care about "him" I really do. I could fill books with this saga and become a national best-seller, maybe even become rich off my poor heart.

I read what you so openly say and I hear my voice in your words -- things I would never let slip to the public. But I envy you. I envy your candidness. I envy your release. I envy your turmoil that, once expressed, brings peace.

But I am a coward. Held hostage by my own expectations. Maybe that's what is wrong and why I still hold on. I want to let go too.

I wish I could be free like you.

If You Want A Monarchy, Move to England

Caroline Kennedy for Senate?

Huh?

According to the New York Times, "Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of an American political dynasty, has decided to pursue the United States Senate seat being vacated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York."

Again, Caroline Kennedy for Senate? On what merits?

Ohhhhh. She's JFK's daughter and Robert J. Kennedy's (who previously held the seat) niece. Therefore she is clearly the rightful heir of the seat.

Hold on, there is no such thing as "rightful heir" when it comes to politics in the United States of America. Excuse me while I check and make sure I'm in the right country.

I like what I know of Caroline Kennedy. Her support of Barack Obama helped immensely during the primary season. I also have the utmost respect for her family.

But, in an election year that taught young boys and girls that you can grow up to be whomever you want regardless of your last name, should the governor of New York then turn and appoint someone to a coveted seat solely because of her last name? I smell a hypocrite.

Just as I didn't think the fact that Hillary is a "Clinton" made her entitled to the presidency, I don't think the fact that Caroline is a "Kennedy" entitles her to the Senate seat.

I can't believe this is even an issue.

If you want a monarchy, move to England!

I do believe that a Democrat should keep the seat because the people of New York elected a Democrat (Hillary Clinton). I don't necessarily believe that the successor has to be a woman. There are plenty of women in the Senate anyway and I don't think Clinton was elected because she is a woman.

Some have said that Caroline should be appointed to keep the Kennedy legacy alive. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard all year. I understand that members of the Kennedy family were very important people, died brutal and/or unfortunate deaths and the country owes some of it's current success (in race relations and etc) to the family, but come on.

This is 2008. If Caroline Kennedy wants to run for Senate in a few years then sobeit. But she should absolutely not break ranks and be appointed.

The United States Senate doesn't need a princess -- they need a Senator.

Gov Blago

The political scandal of the year goes to....

Drumroll, please....

Rod Blagojevich, the governor of Illinois for trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat like Congress is a Lakers Game and Obama's seat is courtside.

He gets caught, arrested, bails himself out, then goes to work the next day (his birthday).

Seriously, what was this man thinking?

What is any politician who gets caught smack-dab in the middle of a scandal thinking?

I actually like political scandals because they're funny.

Not funny for the constituents who have corrupt people for representatives, but funny in a way.

I mean, you have got to be the most arrogant man in the world to think you were going to get away with something like that.

The media's coverage of it has been incessant (and quite entertaining on it's own) but when you're ready for a laugh, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hardly ever disappoint.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Rod Blagojevich Is a Jagoff

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Rod Blagojevich Is Arrested

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

For the GOP: It's Not Over Yet

In 40 years, I will be annoying my grandchildren with stories about Election 2008. But will I be using the story to explain why I've been voting Democrat my entire life?

Maybe.

Studies have shown partisan politics are decided early in our voting lives.

But I voted for George W. Bush in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008, so I guess the verdict is still out for me -- and for other young voters who did the same thing.

Sixty-six percent of 18-29-year-old voters voted for President-elect Obama. That is 25 percent more than voted for Kerry in 2004. Some say the youth's support for Obama made up all 6 points of Obama's popular vote percentage over John McCain.

The youth is responsible for Obama's historic win.

But can the Democrats keep the youth vote that was instrumental in getting them back into the White House?

GOP can win back the youth
The Democrats have not always been the favorite among young people. Many people in our parent's generation came of age during the Reagan years. They strongly supported the Republican Party then and still do now. In fact, Reagan supporters who went on to consistently vote Democrat later in life are known as "Reagan Democrats".

Young Obama supporters, it seems, are not necessarily Democrats. This election was more about the candidate than the party. As one young supporter wrote to her Florida newspaper last month, "I spent a lot of time reading the issues and plans of both candidates and have decided to become a Republican for Obama." There is potential to turn the current Obama supporters into "Obama Republicans" in the future.

Besides, although the majority of young people voted for Obama-Biden, 32 percent still voted for McCain-Palin. And Politico reported that nearly half of all eligible young voters sat this election out completely. If the GOP motivates the youth that voted for McCain and woos the youth that didn't vote, it can still win without the support of the 66 percent of us who supported Obama.

They may even be able to cut into that 66 percent.

Bush and Kerry nearly split the youth vote down the middle in 2004, so there are clearly some young people who are willing to support (and have supported in the past) a Republican candidate. Clearly there is potential for more youth support in the future.

The GOP must first change their ways
However, a large turnout among youth for the Republican Party in 2010 or 2012 is highly unlikely if the party remains loyal to the exclusionary, cynical, hyper-partisan campaigning that they employed during the general election season. It may have worked for some, but clearly the youth didn't like that at all. I doubt the Republicans will resurrect that method, though, after it died a miserable death on Election Night.

To their detriment, this election season the Republicans marketed themselves as the "Grand Old Party" and the Democrats successfully marketed themselves as the party of the future. Coincidentally, the Democrats nominated one of the youngest candidates in history and the Republicans nominated the oldest candidate in history. The Democratic campaign ran a technologically-savvy campaign and the Republican campaign seemed unwilling to even attempt to reach young people with technology. The Democrats focused on the fact that their candidate could bring change as a fresh face to Washington and the Republicans focused on the fact that their candidate was a war hero more than thirty years ago. The entire campaign season looked like new generation versus old generation.

The best thing for the Republicans to do now is to take the next two to four years to reinvent themselves as a relevant, progressive movement that is fit for the 21^st century. They don't have to neglect their core values, but just make them relevant to more than Joe the Plumber and Bob the Builder.

This may seem like a daunting task. Luckily, the Republicans may not have to do anything at all to win our support if Obama takes the next four years to destroy his support among youth the way Bush did in his last four.

How Obama could lose the youth support
How could a president so popular among youth lose our support? It's simple.

All Barack Obama has to do is forget about the promises he made to us.

Education reform, ending the war in Iraq, fixing our economy, working across the aisle to bring true change to Washington -- all these things attracted his large youth backing. We understand that sometimes things don't go according to plan; but if Obama doesn't make an obvious concerted effort, then we will make the obvious concerted effort to oust the Democratic Congress in 2010 and him in 2012.

Unfortunately for the GOP, I don't see that happening. Obama is not oblivious to the support he received.

Though, he isn't the president of Young America, he doesn't think of youth as an "interest group" either. He realizes that Young America today is America tomorrow.

It is up to the GOP to prove that they believe the same thing.

What matters to the youth
A major lesson both parties learned in this election season is that the youth of America are a political force to be reckoned with. If the Democrats want to continue the winning streak they started in 2006 or if the Republicans want to find their way back to a majority in Washington, neither can afford to take the youth vote for granted.

We're not interested in appeals to party loyalty as showcased in the past two elections. One young voter aptly summed it up in his comment underneath a blog about the youth vote: "Young people liked John Kerry because he was not George W. Bush. They like Barack Obama because Barack Obama is cool, Barack Obama understands us and speaks to us and inspires us. That is why I am voting for him on November 4."

Some frown on identity politics, but our generation seems much more likely to support the candidate they like rather than stay loyal to a certain party. Just give us a presidential candidate whom we like, whom likes us and you've got our vote every time. Keep your promises, don't wreck the country by starting two unpopular wars, ignoring hurricane victims and allowing the economy to plummet unchecked, and you might have us for life.

We are the "post-every-movement-imaginable" generation and we will just as soon be post-Obama supporters or make the Republican Party the post-political party if we are taken for granted or counted out.

Don't do it.

Welcome To My Blog

Hi! My name is Alissa. I am a senior in college and I love to write. I am very interested in news and politics. I aspire to be a news analyst or political correspondent one day. I will use this blog to post some of my published columns and unpublished thoughts. Enjoy!