Some context: Julius Caesar Watts Jr. (born November 18, 1957) is an American politician from Oklahoma who was a college football quarterback for the Oklahoma Sooners and later played professionally in the Canadian Football League. Watts served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 as a Republican, representing Oklahoma's 4th Congressional District. Watts was born and raised in Eufaula, Oklahoma, in a rural impoverished neighborhood. After being one of the first children to attend an integrated elementary school, he became a high school quarterback and gained a football scholarship to the University of Oklahoma.
Watts' 1996 reelection campaign featured state representative Ed Crocker as the Democratic candidate in a negative campaign. Crocker questioned Watts' business dealings because of tax issues for a real estate company of which Watts was the principal owner, and whether he was paying child support for one of his daughters born out of wedlock. Crocker suggested Watts might use drugs or sanction their use because he declined to participate in a voluntary drug screening in the House of Representatives. Watts denied the charge, took the test, and accused Cocker of draft dodging during the Vietnam War and later living at the "center of the West Coast drug culture." Watts was given a featured speaking role at the 1996 Republican National Convention and was re-elected with 58 percent of the vote in the 1996 U.S. House election.  Following the election, Watts switched from the Financial Services Committee to the House Transportation Committee. He was the only African-American Republican in the House and was chosen to deliver the Republican reply to President Bill Clinton's State of the Union address in February 1997, the youngest congressman and first African-American to do so. In his response, Watts focused on providing a positive vision of the Republican Party and advocated deficit and tax reduction and faith-based values. Watts had previously spoken to The Washington Times and created controversy by criticizing "race-hustling poverty pimps" as keeping African-Americans dependent on government. These remarks were viewed as critical of activist Jesse Jackson and Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry, and Jesse Jackson, Jr. demanded a public apology. Watts stated he did not speak about Barry and Jackson but about "some of the leadership in the black community."  In his 1998 reelection campaign against Democrat Ben Odom, Watts faced accusations about debts, unpaid taxes and over actions in a federal bribery investigation in 1991, where he arranged to receive campaign contributions from a lobbyist for telephone companies that were investigated during Watts' membership on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. Odom used portions of a transcript to try to discredit Watts, and the accusations were widely publicized in Oklahoma. Watts argued he had been exonerated from any criminal conduct and that his financial problems were a result of losses for Oklahoma oil and gas businesses during the 1980s. He was re-elected with 62 percent of the vote.  From 1995 until 1997, Watts was only one of two black Republicans in Congress (along with Gary Franks of Connecticut). From 1997 until 2003, Watts was the only black Republican Congressman. There would not be another until the elections of Tim Scott and Allen West in 2011.
What happened major during the reelection?
A: campaign. Crocker questioned Watts' business dealings because of tax issues for a real estate company of which Watts was the principal owner,
Some context: Jean Baudrillard (; French: [Za bodRijaR]; 27 July 1929 - 6 March 2007) was a French sociologist, philosopher, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer. He is best known for his analyses of media, contemporary culture, and technological communication, as well as his formulation of concepts such as simulation and hyperreality. He wrote about diverse subjects, including consumerism, gender relations, economics, social history, art, Western foreign policy, and popular culture.
Baudrillard's provocative 1991 book The Gulf War Did Not Take Place raised his public profile as an academic and political commentator. He argued that the first Gulf War was the inverse of the Clausewitzian formula: not "the continuation of politics by other means", but "the continuation of the absence of politics by other means". Accordingly, Saddam Hussein was not fighting the Coalition, but using the lives of his soldiers as a form of sacrifice to preserve his power (p. 72, 2004 edition). The Coalition fighting the Iraqi military was merely dropping 10,000 tonnes of bombs daily, as if proving to themselves that there was an enemy to fight (p. 61). So, too, were the Western media complicit, presenting the war in real time, by recycling images of war to propagate the notion that the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government were actually fighting, but, such was not the case. Saddam Hussein did not use his military capacity (the Iraqi Air Force). His power was not weakened, evinced by his easy suppression of the 1991 internal uprisings that followed afterwards. Overall, little had changed. Saddam remained undefeated, the "victors" were not victorious, and thus there was no war--i.e., the Gulf War did not occur.  The book was originally a series of articles in the British newspaper The Guardian and the French newspaper Liberation. These were published in three parts: "The Gulf War Will Not Take Place", published during the American military and rhetorical buildup; "The Gulf War Is Not Taking Place", published during military action; and "The Gulf War Did Not Take Place", published afterwards.  Some critics accused Baudrillard of instant revisionism; a denial of the physical action of the conflict (which was related to his denial of reality in general). Consequently, Baudrillard was accused of lazy amoralism, cynical scepticism, and Berkelian idealism. Sympathetic commentators such as William Merrin (in his book Baudrillard and the Media) have argued that Baudrillard was more concerned with the West's technological and political dominance and the globalization of its commercial interests, and what that means for the present possibility of war. Merrin argued that Baudrillard was not denying that something had happened, but merely questioning whether that something was in fact war or a bilateral "atrocity masquerading as a war". Merrin viewed the accusations of amorality as redundant and based on a misreading. In Baudrillard's own words (pp. 71-72):  Saddam liquidates the communists, Moscow flirts even more with him; he gases the Kurds, it is not held against him; he eliminates the religious cadres, the whole of Islam makes peace with him ... Even ... the 100,000 dead will only have been the final decoy that Saddam will have sacrificed, the blood money paid in forfeit according to a calculated equivalence, in order to preserve his power. What is worse is that these dead still serve as an alibi for those who do not want to have been excited for nothing: at least these dead will prove this war was indeed a war and not a shameful and pointless hoax ...
What else did she say regarding the gulf war?
A:
Some critics accused Baudrillard of instant revisionism; a denial of the physical action of the conflict