Barney Frank, one of the first openly-gay politicians and one of Massachusetts’ most well-known politicians, announced he would not seek re-election.

Frank, who has usually coasted to re-election, has come under fire as chair of the House Banking Committee given the current state of the economy.

Massachusetts Republicans were quick to comment on his decision not to run again:

“It is clear that Congressman Frank was not looking forward to another hard fought campaign after losing his gerrymandered district and spending nearly every penny he had in 2010,” said Massachusetts Republican Party Executive Director Nate Little in a statement. “Republicans were already gearing up for a strong race and Frank’s sudden retirement injects added optimism and excitement into the election.”

Frank has been in office since 1981.

DUBLIN — Scroll back to 2004.

Little Ireland was in its pomp. Delirious on the heady fumes of an emerging property boom, the focus was squarely on party politics and our portly economy. The Fianna Fáil star was its brightest, wowing the world with flash statistics about growth and unemployment. The frenzy to clamber aboard the gravy train was so great that our political servants didn’t even notice that the Irish presidency was up for grabs.

But don’t they know it now?

Yes, now that the money has dried up and Dáil Éireann has become the political equivalent of an Irish famine workhouse, the stately grounds of Áras an Uachtaráin are starting to looking a whole lot more appealing. Hard luck on the Áras though. It did well enough under Mary McAleese — a barrister and professor from Belfast who had a long-standing interest in the presidency and a respectable moral agenda for the duration of its term.

McAleese has done a lot to help engineer peace in Northern Ireland and her role in Queen Elizabeth II’s recent historic visit will be considered one of the finest achievements in the story Irish political and diplomatic affairs. She’s a tough act to follow when you look at it like that and the changing list of likely candidates is far from inspiring. It’s a drab arrangement of spent political journeymen and the battle for nomination has been, at times, so desperate and controversial that the seat of the presidency has already been cheapened by it.

Fine Gael’s Gay Mitchell, a man with all personality and charm of wet cardboard, decided to grace Irish public life again after skipping off to Europe in 2004 to do what? We’re not really sure. Right now it looks to be a two-horse race between Mitchell and Labour’s wispy-haired poet, Michael D. Higgins. It’s not the most exciting shortlist.

The nation seems to be in a state of utter deflation after a ruthless character assassination that saw popular senator David Norris shunted away from the ballot paper. Norris, a human rights veteran, was a sure bet for the Áras and his probable election wouldn’t have hurt our reputation for being a socially progressive country any more than Mary Robinson’s election did back in1990. Alas for Norris, it would appear that to be a gay politician in Ireland is to be a de facto pedophile. Never mind his sparkling record in the senate, his enthusiasm and conviction for a system that many have lost faith in, and his honest criticisms of the neutered function of the Seanad (senate).

No. This man is gay. We must dig deeper. There is surely some speck of dirt, some error in judgement, that we can sink his ship with.

Gay Mitchell described abortion as a ‘holocaust’ and bemoaned the reality of Irish women “sneaking off” to have abortions in the UK. He wrote a letter of clemency for convicted murderer and anti-abortionist Rev. Paul Hill, who is on death row in the US. But David Norris’ plea for leniency for a former partner who’d had consensual sex with a Palestinian minor (statutory rape) was a most grievous offense and for many of his antagonists, this 14-year-old piece of paper was all the proof they needed that he was some kind of sexual predator. It’s a bit of a flimsy argument in a country that, over the years, has become a veritable petri dish for colonies of shady politicians and robed pedophiles.

The wheels came off Norris’ campaign and he was forced to step down eventually. Since then, the election race has descended into anarchy and farce. Instead of looking for people who have the credentials to do the job, various ‘personalities’ have been put forward. Fianna Fáil, pushing hard to restore its blackened reputation after 15 years of economic misconduct, saw in the avuncular broadcaster Gay Byrne—now 77—a handy route back onto the political ladder. Byrne was almost physically inserted into Phoenix Park by politicians and media alike before he eventually took himself out of the equation.

The celebrity vacuum was quickly filled by recently retired sports commentator and former schoolteacher Mícheál Ó Muircheartaigh who, at the time of writing this, was still mulling it over. Michael Sheen—yes, that’s President Bartlett from The West Wing—recently said “thanks but no”. So who’s next? Daniel Day-Lewis? Pierce Brosnan? Is it too soon to ask Saoirse Ronan? Brenda Gleeson gave a speech of presidential quality at College Green some months back. Maybe he should do it? While we’re at it, why don’t we just rename it Celebrity President 2011 and let people vote by phone or text via a 1550 number?

To be President of Ireland is to be the face of the country. The most obvious mission for the next President must be to repair the damage done to our reputation by years of fiscal stupidity, but the scramble for Áras an Uachtaráin is beginning to have a negative effect.

Seven years ago, this public office was overlooked—even belittled—by the country’s salivating politicos and McAleese walked through to her second term uncontested.

But desperate times call for desperate measures and things sure are desperate now. With any luck, the mostly inoffensive Michael D. will take it and the Irish public can just cast this embarrassing circus out of the national psyche and move on.

Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan will go ahead tomorrow, marred by allegations of fraud and tampering against election candidates, and, most recently, by the kidnapping of a candidate and 18 election workers by Taliban members.

Earlier this week printers in Peshawar claimed they were told by Afghan election candidates to produce and laminate fake voter cards for the election. The Afghan Electoral Complaints Commission expressed concern and said the issue should be dealt with, but has yet to take any action.

Former presidential candidate Dr. Abdullah Abdullah told reporters at a press conference that the appropriate measures to combat fraud are not being taken.

Meanwhile, workers were frantically transporting materials around the country earlier today in an effort to prepare for the election tomorrow. Fear in the streets is not as widespread as it was during the 2009 presidential election, though the Taliban has again threatened to attack.

The group has already been blamed for the kidnapping of 19 people, including one election candidate.

About 450,000 policemen and soldiers will guard polling stations, armed, in an effort to dissuade Taliban members from attacking.

Despite allegations of fraud and kidnappings by the Taliban, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the country has the “structure” for a “successful election”, according to Agence-France Presse.

If your country went through an outrageously corrupt election that was exposed by an “impartial” governing body, you’d think as president you’d have the balls to sack the chief of your electoral commission, especially after agreeing to a run-off election with your main opponent.

Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai apparently has no balls. Dr. Abdullah Abdullah called on Karzai to fire the head of the election commission for his inability to ensure a fair democratic election in August’s vote. Karzai rejected the call by Abdullah, obviously, because they are rivals.

But why did it even have to be demanded? Ideally, the man would have been sacked just after the U.N.-backed panel discovered and exposed widespread electoral fraud and ballot box stuffing. The whole Independent Election Commission in Afghanistan should see a major overhaul, but Karzai claims doing this just before a run-off would upset the order of things.

“The changes would not be helpful to the elections and the country,” he said, BBC reports.

Abdullah claims the IEC is full of rampant Karzai supporters. While that may be true, so is the rest of the world. Obama, Sarkozy, Brown, Kerry and even Ban ki-Moon have praised Karzai for accepting a run-off election. For doing basically what is required of a democratic president. That praise is not really necessary and just reinforces the fact that Karzai is a western-backed leader of a nation whose own people consistently questioning his governing ability.

Both leaders have also denounced the possibility of a joint government. I saw that reported as a possibility in some places and I couldn’t believe some saw it as a viable option.

The run-off is set to take place on November 7. I think we can predict the outcome.

Check back tomorrow for the second episode of Blast’s new podcast Your World in Focus, narrated by me. Also, take a listen to the first if you missed it. It’s about this very election.

State officials, high school students and advocates for new voting laws in Massachusetts urged the state Election Laws Committee to consider a bill that would change the landscape of voter registration for teenagers under the age of 18, yesterday at the State House.

As part of the Massachusetts Freedom to Vote Act, the proposed measure would allow a 16 1/2-year-old to pre-register to vote when they apply for a driving permit at the Registry of Motor Vehicles, so that when they turn 18, their registration will automatically kick in.

“This is an easy, no cost, common sense bill” said State Rep. Ellen Story (D-Amherst), at a press conference before the hearing this week.

Story, who is lead sponsor for the bill, said she has had this proposal on her desk for a couple of years, and believes this is the right time to get it passed.

“The legislature is looking for things to do between now and Nov. 18, when we recess, that are good government bills and that don’t cost money” Story said after her testimony to the Committee. “This doesn’t cost anything.”

Story said a person under the age of 18 should have the opportunity to pre-register, because young people at that age are starting to form their own opinions, and she said voting at a young age would lead to a lifetime of responsible voters.

“Voting is addictive” said Story, who said the bill did not make it far last year but has heard no opposition from anyone. “If you start voting, you will never stop.”

In a study by Common Cause, the government watchdog found that only 50 percent of 18-year-olds are registered to vote in the US, and in the 2008 elections only 59 percent of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 were registered to vote.

The bill has already been implemented in 10 states around the country, including Connecticut and Maine.

The new bill would not change the voting age to 16, since 18 is the legal age to vote as stated in the US Constitution, but the bill might make it easier for 18-year-olds to vote.

“I’m a junior, and if I could just register to vote now it would make things that much easier because things are going to be hectic with college,” said said Donovan Birch, a junior at Boston Preparatory Charter Public School, who testified to the committee. “The first half of my year will be applying to college, then getting ready for it, then I have to fulfill all my requirement for my senior year.”

Birch, a member of Young Civic Leaders, a program sponsored by MassVote, a voters’ rights organization, designed to build leaders in the community, said this new bill would make it easier because senior year of high school can be a very busy time.

“Even though I’ll be 18, registering to vote isn’t going to be the first thing on my mind.”

Rep. Michael J. Moran, chair of the Election Laws Committee, was impressed by Birch’s testimony.

“We need more kids like you getting active” said Moran, who jokingly told the group of 10 to 15 high school students that he tried to get them a half-day of school. “I know it can be very boring, but very important stuff goes on in here, and I appreciate you all coming.”

Avi Green, executive director of MassVote, said it was important for the high school students to voice their opinion to the Committee.

“It’s critical” said Green, who, along with MassVote, sponsored the press conference before the hearing. “Everyone’s always saying “ËœThis is good for high school students or that is good for high school students or this is good for youth’ but I think youth can speak for themselves.

“I think Donovan was just as impressive as the adults that I heard, and I really hope that bill passes.”

Green is also an advocate for the other major proposed bills in The Mass Freedom to Vote Act. Including, Election Day registration, which would allow voters to register on the day of elections providing they have proof of residence and ID, and early voting, which would give voters a week in advance to vote in case they were not available on Election Day.

No vote was made on the bill, and Green said he hoped the Committee to act sooner rather than later.

As ballots are counted in Afghanistan, reports have surfaced, despite the media blackout, that at least 27 people, including nine civilians, have been killed across the country in a slew of attacks on voting day, according to Global Post.

Despite the killings, voter turnout only grew as the day went on, and officials extended voting time by one hour to accommodate the crowd.

Hamid Karzai, the front-runner of the 30 presidential candidates, praised the courage of the Afghan people. “The Afghan people defied rockets, bombs and intimidation and came out to vote, that is great” he said.

He also added that 73 attacks were conducted in 15 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. Security forces, according to Afghan officials, stopped five suicide attacks.

Scared to vote

In the morning, all over the country, polling stations stood empty. “Maybe everyone is drinking tea, or sleeping” said Abdul Mubir, manager of a polling centre in Kabul, Global Post reports.

By the afternoon it seems people emerged from their shells. Officials say more citizens began filing in around lunchtime and lines began to form outside official polling stations. By the end, turnout was apparently so strong that voting time had to be extended by one hour. In contrast, Al Jazeera reports that during the last hour of voting, a station being monitored in the capital by correspondent James Bays saw only one voter go in and out.

Despite the fairly small voting population (in comparison to larger countries) the results are not expected for several days. The deadline for the release of preliminary results is Sept. 3.

Exit polls give no indication of which candidate leads, mostly because voters are reluctant to reveal their choices so candidly. Opinions polls however suggest the possibility of a runoff election between Karzai and his main opposition Dr. Abdullah Abdullah.

Fraud

Many are already predicting fraud and fixing. Several voters, who mostly chose to remain unnamed, told reporters they have no faith in the electoral process in their country, a country heavily affected by U.S. presence and the Taliban insurgency.

Many analysts predict a win for the incumbent Karzai. His endorsements from former presidential candidates and the advances he’s made in his campaign in the past weeks have all but ensured victory.

However because Karzai needs 50 per cent of the vote for an outright victory, it is likely he will face a runoff election against Abdullah in the near future.

A few weeks ago it seemed like Afghanistan’s main candidates for president, the incumbent Hamid Karzai and his former foreign minister Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, were locked in a dead heat, running side by side toward that coveted post; to govern a country rocked by economic troubles and war.

But now, just two days before the election, Karzai has emerged as the unquestioned front-runner and will seemingly sprint back into his governing chair, a seat in which he will remain for another five years.

On Monday 10,000 supporters rallied at Ghazi stadium in Kabul, wearing blue caps, waving blue flags, holding signs depicting the Abdullah’s smiling visage. But despite the doctor’s prominence and reputation, despite his reformist ideals and want for change, he will lose.

As much as his campaign’s support parallels that of Iran’s Mir Hossein Mousavi, unlike Mousavi, this candidate has no chance of winning (neither did Mousavi, if you think about it).

Karzai will be back.

Polling day violence

What the people must worry about now, besides being ruled by Karzai for another five years, is what will happen on August 20^th. Violence at the polling stations is almost a certainty, especially now that the Taliban has vowed to disrupt the voting process.

“The election is propaganda from America and its allies,” said the Taliban in a statement, according to Al Jazeera.

On Tuesday, Kabul was hit by a blast that killed seven. It is highly likely that Thursday will see much of the same type of blasts scattered across the highly vulnerable country.

Voter turnout is already expected to be low, according to a local Afghan man interviewed by Al Jazeera. He told the interviewer that he was afraid to go out and vote because of what the Taliban had promised. He knows what they are capable of, he said.

We all know.

Peaceful election

Unfortunately, even from the beginning, these elections looked bleak. None of the candidates offer any real solutions to any of the country’s most dire issues. Also, the Afghanistan itself is not stable enough to hold a proper democratic election for two reasons: because the country is so often bombed by the Taliban that setting up secure, safe polling stations is not a reality, and because the parties involved have a history of engaging in bribery and intimidation tactics to gain desirable results.

According to several news outlets, entire villages have been threatened with violence if their population refuses to vote for a certain candidate.

Of course, internationally we are all hoping for at least one peaceful, democratic election to be completed in the Mid-East in the near future.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the one we should look to to satisfy that want.

The protests of the young and old in Tehran have been more than inspiring. But real political reform isn’t taking place on the streets of Iran,‚ it’s taking place behind the scenes.

A power struggle between Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of the Assembly of Experts, which, theoretically, has the power to remove the Ayatollah from power. That’s the key.

If any reform to Iran’s current Islamic Republic is to happen, it would have to take place with the help of both religious and political leaders.

This past week, religious leaders from the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum called the current government illegitimate. This declaration may signal the beginning a domino effect.

Perhaps other religious leaders with even more political power, such as those on the Assembly of Experts or the Expediency Council, may be inspired to voice their opinions regarding Ahmadinejad’s “victory” and what role Ayatollah Khamenei played in ensuring it.

The Association’s move is highly rebellious. It’s a group of religious clerics opposing election results verified by the Supreme Leader. It’s real opposition.

In 1979, when the people of Iran rebelled and organized a revolution to overthrow the Shah and his monarchy and install the current Islamic Republic under, at that time, Ayatollah Khomeini, this is not what they had in mind. This life full of oppression was not their ideal.

Soon after the revolution, all western media influence was banned. The freedom of the people was severely hampered, and women especially felt the Ayatollah’s strong arm of oppression come crashing down from his pedestal.

According to Jian Ghomeshi, a prominent Iranian-Canadian broadcaster with the CBC, people have been unhappy with their government since that revolution. Though they were victorious in overthrowing the Shah, they failed to secure the freedoms they so sorely desired.

So it was back to square one, and now 30 years later, a revolution is brewing again. But this time, more work needs to be done behind the scenes. The people will fight, but religious leaders and Hashemi Rafsanjani need to challenge the legitimacy of this government before it gets out of hand.

Watch the short AlJazeera English documentary, “Mousavi and the Masses” below to learn more about Mousavi’s past as Prime Minister during the early years of the Islamic Republic and how his political ideologies have seemingly changed so much since the 1980s.

Click on the link below to see President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dance around answering Christiane Amanpour’s question regarding the safety of his opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi. There are conflicting reports on whether Mousavi is under house arrest.

In the video, Ahmadinejad compares the rioting to misplaced passion by fans of the losing team after a soccer match. Degrading.

Ahmadinejad presser video on CNN

The protests went deep into the night. Journalists and citizens were arrested and beaten, police cars and bikes were set on fire, windows were broken – it was complete chaos, not seen since the 1979 Iran Revolution.

Protesting is not something Iranians normally do, so it’s a good sign of the people fighting for what they believe is rightfully theirs – a democratically-elected and coherent government that will represent the people in the way they want to be represented.

For up-to-the-minute updates on what’s happening in Iran, follow @LilyMazahery, a human rights activist and lawyer getting updates from friends in Iran, @tehranelection, a student living in Tehran, and @Change_for_Iran, a man named Farhad, who is, according to his tweets, taking part in the riots.

Seriously, follow these people. The two Iranians are really risking a lot by updating the world on what’s happening inside their country, since Twitter, Facebook and other sites were banned for a long time yesterday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Iran’s June 12 election with a whopping 62.6 per cent of the vote. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi called the result a “charade” and has demanded a re-run.

“I personally strongly protest the many obvious violations and I’m warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade,” said Mousavi, according to Reuters.

The possibility of a re-run is very slim so Iranians, unfortunately, must come to terms with the reality of four more years under Ahmadinejad, a man whom many have called a “dictator.”

But the people just wont have it. To many of Mousavi’s supporters 62.6 per cent is suspiciously high. After all, before the election the two candidates were apparently locked in a head-to-head battle.

Mousavi’s supporters and supporters of free vote and democracy have taken to the streets in anger. Yelling “down with the dictator” and “freedom freedom freedom” they are vocally expressing their extreme distaste at the prospect of four more years under the tyrannical Ahmadinejad.

The protest has turned violent now, with many angry voters breaking windows, breaking into shops and setting fire to various objects across the crowded city. Police isn’t responding well, they’re using tear gas and batons in an attempt to discourage and stop protesting, which is, despite these attempts, still going strong. Reports of deaths are now coming in.

Click here to see photos of street violence in Iran.

Many of the protesters are urbanites who voted for Mousavi or Karoubi and feel betrayed by their government. A government who they say, perhaps frightened by the prospect of losing power, rigged the election to guarantee victory.

Mousavi said it. The citizens have said it. It’s popular belief among westerners, too.

If the election results are correct, Ahmadinejad apparently won handily in Mousavi’s heartland. That’s hard to believe.

What it means for society

Speculating about a possible election rigging won’t solve the problem however, because Ahmadinejad is now president and is unlikely to relinquish power or allow any sort of re-run. He’s never been one to give into public demands, and this isn’t an exception.

So what does Ahmadinejad’s election mean for Iran? Well, any hope for peaceful social reform is now defunct. The state-owned media will continue to dominate, private and liberal media companies will still be outlawed, and the government will still own the communications system.

The young will continue to be oppressed; freedom of expression will not become a real right for citizens.

Unemployment will stay around 30 per cent, yea, 30 per cent. No joke. Inflation will remain in double digits and the economic problems of the nation will go ignored, just as they have been for a while now.

For the U.S.? This term will serve to increase tensions between the two nations, largely at odds because of Ahmadinejad’s thirst for advancing his country’s nuclear program and his hate for Israel.

Mousavi has the same view on Iran’s nuclear program and Israel, though he claims he wants to advance the program for peaceful purposes.

No one really believes that, though the moderate reformist did say he wanted to increase positive relations between his country and the U.S. and middle-east. However, while he was prime minister in the 1980s, many horrible human rights violations did take place.

Still, he would have been easier to deal with, and most likely better for Iran. But that dream is dead. And for Iran, it’s worse. Their people will continue to be oppressed, humiliated on an international stage and controlled by their government.

Obama wins!‚  This is history!

Various media outlets are projected an Obama victory with 297 electoral college votes and the certainty of more to come!

As a nation, the U.S. will be brought closer by this victory.‚  It’s truly unbelievable, an African-American president with the majority of votes in the U.S.

You offer hope to a generation who had no place to find it before you came along.‚  Thank you.

Congratulations to President Barack Obama from all of us at Blast Magazine.‚  We knew you’d do it!

A win in Ohio has been projected for Obama by NBC.

This is HUGE.‚  Obama is the most epic battleground state in the U.S. and win a here, along with his win in Pennsylvania puts Obama very VERY close to the White House.

According to CBS and Fox News, West Virginia and Arkansas are going McCain’s way.‚  Alabama and Georgia have also been called for McCain by Fox News.

No surprise, McCain headed into tonight with a seven point lead in Arkansas and an 11 point lead in West Virginia.‚  He also had an over 20 point lead in Alabama before today, a very red state.

McCain went into tonight with a five point lead in Georgia so that’s a good win for him.

Adding all these in, the numbers sit at 103-69 for Obama.

Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have been called for Sen. Barack Obama, by NBC News and other media outlets.

Losing Pennsylvania is a huge negative for the McCain camp, he hoped to carry that state.‚  He has spent a lot of time there recently and his advisors said he’d made a lot of ground.

He really needed it to balance out losing the smaller states.

Blue east coast states have also been called, Maryland, Illinois and Delaware among them.‚  McCain carries Tennessee, Oklahoma and South Carolina, no big surprises.

Check out our state-by-state results in the Terra blog and in the election section for real-time updates.

New England’s lone republican congressman may be in a heap of trouble tonight.

Chris Shays, 63, a veteran Fairfield County Republican is facing down the younger James Himes, 42, a feisty Democrat who may ride the Democratic tidal wave to Washington tonight.

The early buzz coming out of Connecticut is that Shays has the fight of his life on his hands.

Shays served in the Connecticut House from 1974 to 1987. He was elected to the U.S. House in an August 1987 special election.

Himes was born in Peru and arrived in the US at age 10. He’s a Harvard graduate and a Rhodes Scholar. He is a former vice president of Goldman Sachs and now vice president of Enterprise Foundation, a non-profit community affordable housing organization.

Barack Obama will win tonight with at least 53 percent of the popular vote, making him the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 to win a majority.

Here are all of the polls released yesterday, the last day that the major polling firms collected data. Obama’s aggragate average is approaching 52%, but I believe these polls under report the youth vote because of they generally don’t call cell phones, and we will probably see a disproportionate amount of the African-American vote judging by the early vote counts in many states.

We will have to look out for the Bradley Effect, which may or may not be a myth. Even if it’s true, I have a feeling it might be off se by the Reverse Bradley Effect. Paraphrasing Bill Maher, the Reverse Bradley Effect theorizes the pseudo racists are telling their buddies down at the Moose Lodge they’re voting for McCain, but when they get in the voting booth they might start thinking, “Hmm, well my kids teeth are falling out… and Obama is the only one that will give me health care. Maybe I will vote for the black guy.”

As far as the electoral college, Obama should get 338+ electoral votes, putting him well over the 270 needed to win. He will almost definitely flip Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, and Iowa from Red States to Blue, and I think he squeak out Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, as well. Missouri and Indiana will be tough but if either fall for Obama, it will be over by 9 o’clock.

If McCain has any chance, he absolutely needs Pennsylvania. The east coast bellweather state is one of the first to close their polls, so if it is called early for Obama, it will be a good indicater of how the night could turn out. If Obama’s lead is 8 to 10 points and its over shortly after the polls close, then there will be no need to sweat. Barack Obama will be the President Elect. If we are still wondering who won Pennsylvania after a few hours, it might be a long night.

Check out CNN’s interactive map and make you’re own predictions.

The time has come!‚  After almost two years of campaigning and gaffe, Americans finally get to choose the next President of the United States.

Two of the most notable campaigns in history come to an end and one of the most historic elections begins.

Will Obama’s seven-point lead in the polls hold up?‚  Will McCain make an historic comeback?

Make sure to check in with Blast’s election coverage tomorrow night in our new News section.‚  It’ll be full of analysis and commentary you won’t find anywhere else!‚  We’ll also be updating as states are called throughout the night.

So go out and vote America!‚  Do your part!‚  Make history!

Just a day before the election, Sen. Barack Obama’s grandmother, a woman whom he says taught him “accountability and self-reliance,” has died of cancer.

Madelyn Dunham, 86, has been severely ill since recently breaking her hip, according to the CBC.

As the Illinois senator says, “Toot” (his affectionate version of the word “Tutu” which means grandparent in Hawaiian) was the “rock” of his family growing up.‚  She worked long hours with little rest to make sure Obama earned a world-class education and reached his potential. “She poured everything she had into me” he said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention this August.

Obama learned of her death early this morning while campaigning in Jacksonville.

“She was the cornerstone of our family, and a woman of extraordinary accomplishment, strength and humility,” said Obama in a joint statement with his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng.

The presidential candidate also told media he plans to continue campaigning, according to CBC.

In October, Obama took a break from his campaign to visit his ailing “Toot” in Hawaii.‚  He told media he didn’t want to make the same mistake he did with his mother, to whom he didn’t get the opportunity to say goodbye before she died of ovarian cancer in 1995.

Below is an open letter to the national media from Ralph Nader.

Dear Members of the 4th Estate:

Having spoken to numerous reporters and some editors with the national media (as distinguished from the local media) about the blackout or near blackout of the Nader/Gonzalez presidential campaign, striving to challenge the two party, exclusionary duopoly, (debates, ballot obstacles, etc.) I must ask a general question:

What journalistic criteria have you been employing in this presidential year that guides your pronounced non-coverage of the number three campaign that advances majoritarian agendas based on long experience, involvement, and accomplishment. These agendas are either opposed or ignored by McCain and Obama (see www.votenader.org) and are often rooted in the very investigative reports by your reporters?

It is puzzling how editors and publishers who oversee these prize winning stories seem to lose interest in covering Americans who are trying to do something with that information for a better country.

We asked one top editor of a major daily why his paper was not covering us at all and he said, “Because you can’t win.” Besides being a catch-22 that he quickly acknowledged, that is not a supportable newsworthy judgment. News Media have covered many stories outside the electoral arena of people “who can’t win” and such coverage extends to both the import of the struggles and the reasons why “winning is not possible” given the stacked deck against them.

There has been a witting or unwitting political bigotry against third parties and independent candidates, as there was years ago against minority voters. Against the status of such candidates obstructed through ballot access laws by the two parties that dislike competition they present other rigged ways to secure their domination over the electoral landscape, including gerrymandering each other in the majority of Congressional Districts, for example.

This is meant to be a short letter. Journalism scholars, reporters, and other post-election writers of books and articles will be chronicle, no doubt, the quantity and quality of media coverage (see the previous analysis by such scholars as Stephen Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter).

For now, please verify for yourselves your own non-coverage or coverage and inform us what your journalistic criteria standards or policies led you to this definition of your readers, listeners, and viewers rights to know.

Thank you for responding, even though there is obviously no obligation to do so.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

Funnyman Will Ferrell returned to Saturday Night Live during the intro of one of SNL’s special Thursday updates.

We stood beside Tina Fey’s Gov. Sarah Palin, making it the only time the two most highly-rated SNL parodies of all time appeared together. SNL regular Darrell Hammond’s reluctant John McCain later appeared in skit, where Farrell’s GW endorses McCain/Palin.

SNL has generated some of its highest ratings of all time during the 2008 presidential election.

There was also a hilarious Fred Armisen impersonation of CNN’s John King and his super-touchscreen-computerized-election-map

A CNN poll shows 47 percent of Americans are afraid Sen. John McCain, if elected, wouldn’t complete his first term as president in good health.

Nearly 30 of the 47 percent are “very concerned” about McCain’s health and his ability to complete a four-year term as president of the United States, one of the most stressful jobs in the world.

McCain released an extensively long health record earlier this year to try and stymie these types of fears.‚  His physician also released a statement concluding that there is no reason “that would preclude McCain from fulfilling all the duties and obligations.”

There are some doubts about Sen. Barack Obama’s health, too.‚  Obama, a former smoker, has eight percent of those polled “very concerned” and 11 percent “somewhat concerned.”‚  Obama released a one-page medical record showing he is in excellent health.

But wait, McCain has more to worry about.‚  Twenty-seven percent of those polled said age would be one of several key factors when they cast their ballots in November.

McCain has had three bouts with skin cancer.‚  He, like Obama, was a smoker but he quit in 1980.

Obama quit smoking when he started his presidential campaign last year but has admitted he’s smoked a few times since then.

McCain’s health is obviously a concern; he’s 72 and could soon have one of the most trying jobs in the world.

The fears are understandable but this poll is surprising.‚  I for one didn’t think 30 percent of those polled would be “very concerned” about his health.‚  I’m not.

Former Massachusetts Governor, Republican Mitt Romney will suspend his campaign, effectively ending his run for president.

“I must now stand aside, for our party and our country,” Romney said during a speech in Washington Thursday.

The move means Senator John McCain has all but won the nomination.

Romney suffered a string of embarrassing third place defeats in the South, where he was banking on conservative votes on Super Tuesday. Instead, it was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who won nearly all the southern races. Huckabee still trails Romney in the delegate counts, but McCain has a commanding lead over both.

“This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters … many of you right here in this room … have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President,” Romney said. “If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America.”

McCain leads with 707 delegates, to 294 for Romney and 195 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn in the summer.

“I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror,” Romney said.

Romney has been attacked from the start for flip-flopping on a number of key conservative issues.

Going into Super Tuesday, the closest thing we have to a national primary, Romney labeled McCain as a liberal and claimed he was the clear conservative choice in the Republican Party. He was aided by conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, who said he would vote for Hillary Clinton if McCain was the Republican nominee.

The world waits with baited breath to see if he follows through. But a serious question remains as to whether or not McCain can rally the whole party to his cause.

Video courtesy/The Boston Globe

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain, in a tight race, has won the all-or-nothing Republican primary in Florida.

Over the past few weeks, since his victories in both South Carolina and in New Hampshire, McCain has begun to emerge as something of a steamroller. Depending on how he fares on February 5, in what is as close to a national primary as possible, he could likely secure the nomination in a few weeks.

McCain won all 57 of Florida’s delegates after winning 35 percent of the vote. In Florida, McCain received the endorsements of wildly popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist, and Republican Senator Mel Martinez.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney came in second place with 31% of the vote. Romney, despite his second place finishes (with wins in Michigan, Nevada and Wyoming), has enough money to ensure that this campaign carries on and will not likely concede the nomination anytime before the last primary in June.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani finished a disappointing third after throwing all of his resources of the past month into the Florida primary.

Sources say Giuliani will drop out of the race tomorrow at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California and endorse McCain. Despite tensions among the other candidates, the two have always been respectful of one another.

Only Senator Hillary Clinton campaigned in the delegateless Florida primary. She claimed victory at a rally on Tuesday night. The Democratic party stripped Florida of its delegates for holding an early primary.

The nation now turns to February 5, where over 20 states will hold their primaries.

Stick with Blast and our Politics with a Touch of Class blog!

Mitt Romney has won the Michigan Republican Primary.

Stick with our Politics With a Touch of Class blog for details!

From our Washington reporter:

Rumors have it that if Romney doesn’t do well tonight, this could make or break his campaign – the man has millions so I don’t understand but coming out of Iowa and NH with a couple second place wins and a "gold medal" from Wyoming, his support seems to be waning [...]

Since his arrival on the national scene in the 2004 senate race, Barack Obama has inspired thousands across the nation with his riveting speeches that has been compared to that of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.

It is not surprising that people refer to him as the Obama-rama because of the glow that he projects when speaking to crowds. It’s this inspiration and passion that moves us and inspires us to hope for something better for America — to move us forward to a more diplomatic foreign policy; to a better health care system; to a presidency that brings change that we can believe in.

Over the past eight years, we have suffered from an administration that lacks sympathy for the little guy, that forgets about the middle class and that leaves students and the sick to fend for themselves.

American’s have suffered for too long in a world where banks are foreclosing on homes at an astonishing rate, putting students in an economy with a growing unemployment rate while carrying thousands of dollars of debt and leaving the terminally ill to fight the health care crisis on their own. We have suffered from a president who does not listen to the American people when they say they demand a change in foreign policy.

Barack Obama would bring needed change in the Democratic Party. He would listen to the American people.

His policies exude change and responsible change at that — getting America out of Iraq in a responsible way, ensuring health care to all Americans and bringing tax cuts back to the middle class. He has seen disparity; he has seen Americans shut out by the government.

Barack Obama has what it takes to bring change to this nation. Change desperately needed after eight years with broken domestic and foreign policies. It his inspiration and passion that moves us and inspires us to hope for something better for America. To move us forward to a more diplomatic foreign policy, to bring better health care to American’s and a policy that brings change that we can believe in.

BLAST MAGAZINE endorses Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

News editors/bloggers: Contact us if you wish to use any of the photos in this story.

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — A large crowd formed at 8 a.m. Friday outside of the Pan Am Hanger here in Portsmouth, where Barack Obama was scheduled to appear.

Obama read through his speech to the unstoppable cheers of the crowds in front of him. “The American people began down the road to change,” he said. Entrance polls in Iowa showed that 51 percent of voters seeking “change” caucused for Obama Thursday.

People were there to show support, yes, but also to meet the man.

There were also others that were less certain still wanting to learn what he stood for and if they should back him on his run for the White House.

“I got here at 8:30 … I’m still trying to decide who to vote for,” said “Angelynne,” who was standing on line to greet the senator. She said that she was enjoying the attention the candidates were giving New Hampshire voters. “People in other states have to pay money to see these people, we get begged!”

With a debate scheduled for Saturday, many of the candidates are showing up in New Hampshire to prepare and use the opportunity to get voter support. Even the cold did not deter people from filling the Hanger. The temperature hung in there at four degrees.

Obama started out talking about where he came from and how that influenced who he is. He said that he didn’t always live in Chicago, but he wanted to work at the grass roots level.

“There were a group of churches who had come together to try deal with the devastation of steel plants being closed, and for three and a half years I worked as an organizer, with them to bring job training to the unemployed, economic development to communities that had been torn apart,” he said. “It was the best education I ever had … One of the things that I learned was ordinary people can do extraordinary things when given a chance.”

He said many times throughout the speech how he was trying to bring all of America together. “We are one nation; we are one people; the time for change has come.”

He talked about the different people that came to the caucus where he stood shaking hands — the high school seniors, unsure of how a caucus works; the Democrats; the Independents that believe in him; and even the Republicans, who broke party lines to caucus for the Democrat. He said that he was trying to make “a new working majority, go out and remake America, and then change the World.”

He believes in “Hope over Fear,” “Unity over division,” — that he will be the president that “Will be willing to disagree with you, without being disagreeable.”

“I won’t tell you what you want to hear, I will tell you what you need to hear.” He said he will be the president that doesn’t owe his election to big businesses and special interests.

Hope was an ever-present theme. He acknowledged that the other politicians are criticizing his experience, calling him a “Hope Monger.” They want him to be “Seasoned and Stewed.” They want to "boil all the hope out of me," he said. “Hopes that I saw in the eyes of the people walking into the caucus.”

What does Obama believe hope is? “Hope is that belief that we can work for and fight for that which was denied to us.”

He ended his speech talking about old fashion politics and shook hands with everyone in the crowd that he could.

WASHINGTON — In recent conversations, many of my Democratic friends have begun camping out for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Now, I must say, being in Washington for the past year and half has somewhat, how do you put it, numbed me to politics. Presidential campaigns began rallying their troops nearly two years before the 2008 Election Day with a few candidates throwing their hats in the ring before the end of November 2006.

But among Democrats, I’m finding conversations about the candidates to be the same. People are voting for their candidates for hopeful reasons. Hillary supporters by and large are looking to her to lead us forward based on her experience. Or maybe there’s a hint of nostalgia, having gone astray the past eight years from the good old years with Bill. Hopeful Hillary supporters are hoping that she can bring us back to the good times but forward from the havoc that the “evil Republicans hath wrought on America” over the past couple of years.

People who oppose Senator Clinton cite her lack of passion — her voice, which is often seen as being harsh and cold. Senator Clinton has been criticized vastly for coming off as too harsh however, if she were to show a softer feminine side, would this change the views of people who may have held critiques of her since 1992?

While Obama may not have the advantage of being in the West Wing previously, he does have one thing to give his supporters — hope. For many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, he creates an excitement when he brings a Kennedy-esque youthfulness to the stage, much like he did after his victory in Iowa on Thursday night.

However, even those he manages to rouse excitement in are skeptical about his lack of experience on the Federal level which is something he will have to overcome when being compared to Hillary Clinton.

What is really going to differentiate the winner from the loser in this race to the top of the Democratic ticket is really going to be how the voters value experience over passion. Voters this year seem to agree that we need a candidate who will take us forward but it’s going to be a fight to determine who will be the better candidate to take us there.

We’ve seen more blondes in today’s malls as a result of today’s hottest teeny bopper starlets. Some girls are even going as far as getting their prom dresses made to match those they see at MTV’s VMA’s. Today’s hottest celebrities influence the American culture in the everyday things we do. They influence our choices in fashion, what music we download to our Ipod, what books and magazines we buy — just about everything.

Recently, Oprah Winfrey laid out the red carpet for Democratic Presidential Candidate, Barack Obama. The event was expected to raise $3 million for Obama’s campaign. With guest appearances by Will Smith, Stevie Wonder and Halle Berry, along with Oprah’s announcement that this presidential candidate was her "favorite guy," one would think Obama’s audience increased.

But a survey conducted b y E-Poll Market Research may prove otherwise. The celebrity and brand research firm polled 2,237 voting age Americans. Of those, only 16 percent say a celebrity would influence their vote in the 2008 Presidential Election. In fact, 10 percent of participants said that a celebrity influence would have a negative impact on their vote.

E-Poll asked which celebrities — if any — would be the most influential in deciding which candidate to vote for. The top celebrities did include Oprah Winfrey along with George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Survey results show that democrats could be more swayed by celebrity endorsements than republicans. Although Obama is among the top three democratic presidential candidates, Hilary Clinton is still on top, and her campaign has not included any celebrity endorsements to date.

If candidates are looking for a boost, they should not turn to Rosie O’Donnell, Tom Cruise or Madonna. E-Poll’s survey suggests they would have the least influence and the most negative effects.

Candidates looking to gain votes from those who are still undecided for the 2008 election should not look to celebrities for help. Independents are the least likely to be swayed and only 13 percent say it would be a positive influence.

Overall, the survey results show that celebrity endorsements basically have no effect on young voters’ decisions.
Perhaps Oprah should have saved the red carpet gala until her next birthday.

So far, the media presentation of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton candidacies has been one of opposites—the fresh newcomer versus the Washington elite; progressivism versus Democratic Leadership Council centrism; grassroots campaigning versus the biggest war chest in the game. But looking at the two Democratic frontrunners now shows how money, power and political clout have the ability to erase all such distinctions, making both candidates more similar and less interesting.

The opposites myth would have been much more valid long before the campaign, before Obama was a member of the U.S. Senate, a place where principled people and fearless progressives are not easy to come by. The Senator’s October 2002 speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago, having showcased a passionate condemnation of the march to war in Iraq, shows an Obama willing to take a politically unpopular position, confronting not only power but the consensus.

In the speech, neoconservative war architects Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz are "armchair, weekend warriors" and Karl Rove is a "political hack." Saudi Arabia and Egypt are our "so-called allies" who commit human rights violations. These are strong words, and one can’t help but be disappointed when remembering that this is the same guy who weaseled uncomfortably out of a simple question that arose after controversial comments by Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace: is homosexuality immoral? We had to hear it later through Obama’s spokesperson that he disagreed with Pace’s remark that it was. It appeared that the climate of Washington had claimed yet another progressive victim.

Eight days after Barack Obama delivered his anti-war speech in Chicago, Senator Hillary Clinton gave a speech of her own—on the floor of the U.S. Senate, explaining her vote in favor of the war authorization. In the speech, she says, "I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year’s terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Just as Obama’s speech is a reminder in our vapid and endless election season of how he once acted on principle, Clinton’s speech is a reminder that it was not only the Bush administration that evoked September 11th in their support of a wholly unrelated war in Iraq that acted on instinct—as Obama says, a war of "passion"—rather than facts.

The distrust– and indeed loathing–by the left of Hillary Clinton goes beyond her war vote and subsequent refusal to apologize for it. She also voted twice to authorize the Patriot Act and co-sponsored legislation that would make flag-burning a crime, an unconstitutional law according to Justice Scalia.

Given just the above, it’s quite clear as to who is the better pick for president in 2008. But a lot has changed since 2002.

Now, the former antiwar community organizer and Illinois State Senator is a presidential candidate who supports a slow withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, but not the cutting of funding for the war, which is the only way to really end it.

Hillary Clinton is a former unabashed hawk who has since grown critical of the Bush administration’s handling of the conflict, and supports a troop withdrawal but not fund slashing—the same stance as Barack.

On other issues, neither candidate is willing to say what both most likely believe—that to deny gay Americans the right to marry is discriminatory religious pandering. Both Senators support "universal and affordable health insurance," but neither supports the means to get us there: a single-payer system. Both think that we must deal with Iran diplomatically, but neither are leaving out any options.

Both of their websites are written in the language of campaign management: that banal, humorless, and odd code that sees "strengthening families" and "supporting parents" as key "issues." It’s the language that says a lot but means nothing, and in a political campaign you can always identify the candidates with the littlest chance of winning by how little they take refuge in its blandly safe vernacular.

So this, then, is what voters are left with: two mainstream Democrats bent on talking points but short on specifics, in favor of reform but not revolution, critical of the establishment only to a point.

The last scene of George Orwell’s Animal Farm famously described pigs dining with men and the rest of the animals unable anymore to tell the difference between the two. Looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton now is a little like being outside that window, trying to remember which one is the establishment candidate and which is the outsider.