*Disclaimer: Prepare to be angered by my political views*

We all, at one time or another, have expressed some measure of disappointment in American political practice. Incivility among politicians, negativity in advertisements, all this and more should make us look at our political system with, at the very least, unease.

I am listening/watching to yesterday evening’s democratic debate via YouTube right now. I will admit that I did not watch it when it aired. I will also admit that I toe the line separating the politically apathetic from the rest of the world. I say that because as I listen to the debate, I know that the arguments from both Clinton and Obama fall on my nearly deaf ears and the ears of those like me. Political apathy does not mean undecided, it means uninterested; therefore, out votes do not need to be courted or enticed. A desire to take an active part in our government is what the apathetic lack.

But, we know all of this. We know that it is hard enough to attract the votes of voters who are undecided, let alone indifferent. But let me tell you something about my own personal brand of borderline apathy – I desperately want to care about the politics of these issues. I think people who are disenchanted with political practice want to be involved. Especially those of us who do not want to commit ourselves fully to the arduous task of not caring about policies and practices that effect our daily lives. But somehow, even the politically savvy seem to miss that we are a unique constituency.

The issues themselves are important to me. They are important to a lot of people. I know health care and education reform are important. I know our industries must seriously consider the economic ramifications of outsourcing jobs to developing nations. So, in an effort to care about the process, I logged onto YouTube, hoping to hear something of last night that will give me a clear reason to invest my time and energy into a system based as much on policy making as it is on marketing.

Well, by now the debate has ended and I can deliver my response. I heard a 16-minute argument on whose health care plan is better with little clarification as to why, a discussion of the source and impact of a photograph of Senator Obama in traditional African dress and its potential to be a sort of smear campaign (by Clinton or another party), and a dialogue regarding whether or not it is the same to denounce Louis Farrakhan’s support and anti-Semitic remarks as it is to reject them.

After sixteen minutes, neither Clinton nor Obama’s health care objectives are any clearer to me. But the state of the American political debate is apparent. It must have been so stirring to listen to the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in 1858. With seven debates at three hours apiece, I think I could have been supportive of listening to two candidates going at each other for 21 hours on the obvious problem of extending slavery into the territories because it was an actual issue. A photo of a political candidate immersing himself into another culture is not an issue and if a political candidate consistently denounces the Anti-Semitic stance of any supporter, the point is moot. So, our politics becomes about sensationalism as much as it is about stratagem. I feel as if last night lacked substance, particularly for Clinton who grabbed at every moment to say “look at me, listen to me.” Obama, I think the cooler of the two, emerged as last night’s clear winner, though this is up for debate (as is health care). It was an odd and uncomfortable combination of a Rogerian Argument (“Senator X is a very worthy candidate for the presidency and that is why we are both here Tim, and by the way our health care plans are very similar, so I’ve just confused the borderline apathetic girl even more”) and something else. It wasn’t lacking civility, but neither Clinton nor Obama’s cup overflowed with courtesy, if you ask me.

So, I get discourage with politics, probably because it seems that any candidate will do whatever it takes to get a nomination. The lack of discretion is staggering.

But, really, what do I know? I’m borderline apathetic.

Presidential Candidacy Announcements: Barack vs. Hillary

Despite recent news about updated polls and the democratic debates, I was more interested in looking into the candidacy announcement speeches by both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. I found it particularly interesting that Sen. Clinton chose not to do a formal announcement of her intentions to run for the presidential nomination, especially since Sen. Obama had an extremely elaborate gathering and speech prepared to announce his candidacy.

In Obama’s speech, which can be viewed here, you can pick up on many noticeable strategies of announcement speeches. The question is, how effective were these strategies in comparison to the Hillary approach?

First of all, timing. Obama gave his announcement speech just under a month after Sen. Clinton announced her candidacy with a video post on her website. The time between each announcement was not a huge window, so in my opinion, I don’t feel as if many of the disadvantages (such as resources drying up) for Sen. Obama weighed heavy. That also goes for Clinton and any risk of having the media focus on gaffes or lack of coverage.

The difference in location is what I felt carried a more distinguished role in separating the two candidates. Clinton announced her formation of an “exploratory committee” with a post on her website, while Obama had more of a formal announcement on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Ill.

The significance of the speech content in relation to each location went along with many announcement speech guidelines discussed in class. I thought it was extremely effective how Obama chose the Old State Capitol where Abraham Lincoln gave his “House-Divided” speech. Obama focused on bringing together a house divided today, where republicans and democrats can work together to make a better America. He made references to the North and South coming together as Americans, and how we must continue to unite and be a strong, unified force. The themes of Sen. Obama’s announcement were parallel to his choice of location, and it was extremely apparent within the address he made.

Sen. Clinton’s announcement took on a different mood. Her web post was more personal, and seemed to be more of an address to the individual viewing it than an entire public. She emphasized the idea that she is not just beginning a campaign, but “starting a conversation” with the individual, the American people. She touched upon the ideas that anyone can make a life for themselves and be happy, and mentioned her upbringing in a “middle-class family, in the middle of America.” With these statements, Sen. Clinton is definitely trying to come off as the “woman of the people.” The setting and personal nature of her announcement also gives off this vibe. One last point I’d like to mention that I noticed in her video was the way the camera slightly moved back and forth, almost unnoticeable at first, but if you look in the background you can see family photographs of former President Bill Clinton with daughter Chelsea as well as other family portraits. I believe it is subtle strategies like this that she used to emphasize her goodwill and family-oriented attitude.

So which approach is more effective? To be honest, I did feel the personal relationship of Hillary’s web post, however, I feel as if it weren’t as publicized as Sen. Obama’s address to a large group of cheering people. They both made specific points that related to their ideas and platforms; I guess it just may be a matter of how the individual voter prefers to be addressed.

Make sure that surrogate speakers agree with your "mission"

In a recent speech given my Senator John McCain in Cincinnati, Ohio, the man who was to introduce him was considered to be completely on McCain's "side." Bill Cunningham, A Cincinnati talk radio show host of The Big Show With Bill Cunningham, a Republican at heart found it an honor to be introducing the potential presidential candidate for the republican party. He began his introduction speech speaking about what will happen a year from now if Barack Obama is sitting in the White House, and goes into detail that he will be having several people who are not in favor with many republicans to be with Barack "Hussein" Obama during his presidency. He speaks out in a crude fashion, and doesn't necessarily introduce McCain as much as he introduces the fact that he does not agree with Barack Obama.

The point of having a surrogate speaker is to have someone who is appealing, or to have someone who is in good favor of the public eye introduce or speak about the candidate in a positive light and really not associate bad things with their name. What this introduction turned into was the fact that McCain not only had to denounce the speaker, but take up for Barack. This case of having a surrogate speaker, a radio personality, actually caused more harm than good because of the immediate damage control that McCain had to do when he should have just been able to speak in Cincinnati.

Now candidates have to be worried not only about speeches, appearances and debates, but they have to be worried about those who are supposedly speaking on their behalf. Because Senator McCain had to take up for himself and Obama, the Cunningham is not telling the media that "McCain threw him under a truck" and is forcing McCain to deal with such an irrelevant problem that Cunningham caused.

Surrogate Speakers Can Help And Hurt A Campaign

Candidates running for a national office spreads themselves thinly as they must confront many time issues. They have to travel all over the country in order to appeal to a great number of demographics. A candidate must also prepare for debates, give speeches, and if he or she is running as an incumbent for re-election they still must maintain all of their official duties of the position. With all of these demands it is impossible for a candidate to be doing everything by his or herself. As a means of alleviating some of these pressures candidates will often have surrogate speakers to go out and speak on behalf of them.
In comparison to Obama, one of Hilary’s strongest advantages is her impressive resume. And while she may have a number of large supporters, including the former President out campaigning on her behalf, Obama’s list of supporters is ‘explosive.’ Not only does he have strong support from veteran political figures such as Senator John Kerry, and Senator Edward Kennedy, but a number of celebrities, such as Oprah Winfrey, as well. Surrogate’s may be able to convey the feelings or beliefs of a candidate to certain demographics who may not feel connected to them. The two nominees need surrogates to help bridge the gaps, especially in terms of women, and African-Americans.
In a recent interview, a surrogate speaker for Barack Obama, Texas Senator Kirk Watson, “botched,” a recent interview on MSNBC. He was asked to name a major political accomplishment of Obama’s and he could not. This was extremely disappointing for the Obama campaign to have a surrogate mess up on that sort of question. One of Obama’s biggest obstacles in his campaign is proving that while he is a fairly young and inexperienced politician, he is a capable leader. The Clinton campaign certainly did not let this error slide; Hillary addressed it in a recent interview. While this error was not extremely detrimental to Obama’s campaign, in a race this close no one can afford any mistakes. After watching the video clip, you almost feel embarrassed for Watson as he stumbles for words.
Surrogate speakers are often family members, friends, or other large supporters such as large contributors or celebrities. It is beneficial for a candidate to have surrogates because they can attack or address a situation or another person when the candidate cannot. Surrogates are crucial in terms of raising support and awareness for a candidate. Equally, surrogate speakers can cause problems and damage the campaign if they do their job poorly.

Pointless Communication?

Since Hillary is trailing Obama by 1354 to 1263 delegates after the Wisconsin and Hawaii primaries, Clinton must step up her game. In recent news, Hillary has made attacks on Obama’s speaking techniques, commenting that “if your whole candidacy is about words, then they should be your own words,” according to www.cnn.com. Unfortunately for Clinton she has had to resort to legit incivility.

Clinton has tried competing with Obama on issues but to stay in the primary election, she must bring mean-spirited communication. The material Clinton brings against Obama of “lifting rhetoric” from Senator Deval Patrick is irrelevant for the public. Obama recognizes his actions and comments on the friendship between himself and Patrick. There is no need to continue the story publicly—using Patrick’s words with his blessing has nothing to do with Obama’s political stance or the way he governs. Hillary is basically grabbing at straws to cut down Obama’s winning streak. I think Clinton has realized she cannot stop Obama’s current streak and he has won over the people.

What Hillary says about Obama’s recent speech on Saturday in Wisconsin; Obama is quoted saying, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter! ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words, just speeches!” These are the words said by Senator Patrick in 2006.

Obama counteracts Clinton by pointing out use of his words in her speeches. According to the Washington Post; Obama noted that “Clinton seemed to borrow lines from him, including his signature rallying cry ‘Fired up! Ready to go!’” I think Obama takes the high road during this mud slinging when he says its no big deal, and according to the Washington Post he also says, “When Senator Clinton says, ‘it’s time to turn the page’ in one of her stump speeches or says she’s ‘fired up and ready to go,’ I don’t think that suggests that she’s not focused on the issues she’s focused on.” This says a lot about the kind of administration Obama would run, and the kind of politician he is. He is concerned with the issues at hand; not with taunts from opponents.

Clinton has also run television ads stating Obama has refused to debate her. Is this what communication in politics has come to? Mindless taunts from irrelevant, invaluable information? If Hillary has run out of options to defeat Obama, she should stick to her issues and confront him with her promises of action—not words that don’t matter to anyone. Hillary has begun using the Rogerian Argument for ideal political communication when she is threatened as an individual and shuts down her motives and starts attacking Obama. According to CNN, “Clinton has argued that while Obama provides rousing speeches, she has the stronger grasp of the issues and the knowledge of how to use the presidency to start making changes from ‘day one’”. I think Clinton should stick to this statement that helps her sound like the better candidate. By making this statement she enforces that his political promises are just words I think she should have developed her argument better and used that—rather than discussing his plagiarism of another speech.

Don't Count Hillary Out Just Yet

With Barack Obama on his tenth consecutive win for the Democratic nomination, rival Hillary Rodham Clinton hit Obama with criticism of a previous speech. In the accusation, Clinton claimed that Obama plagiarized a speech given at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin late Saturday. The plagiarized content was from a former speech given by the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick. After shrugging off the criticism, Clinton’s campaign used YouTube to post the plagiarism so viewers could witness it themselves. Obama replied to these criticisms with a reference to past support for the North American Free Trade Agreement. These attacks are only the start to a vigorous battle for the Democratic Nomination.



Hilary’s new form of campaigning goes against the stereotypical way women generally run for office. Her negative criticism is used directly and almost used to make her gain voters and diminish Obama’s credibility. This criticism seems to not be making much of an impact since Tuesday night Obama won both Hawaii and Wisconsin. Her stress of plagiarism might not be as powerful as she hoped it would be. It is even more interesting that she chooses to use in her negative ads her criticism of Obama not challenging in her in a previous debate. This advertising might have not mattered in Wisconsin, but will probably be more significant in Texas and Ohio. Clinton has also provided working class citizens a commercial featuring many different occupations with the common theme of “She understands. She’s worked the night shift too.” This will also be played for the upcoming primary elections and is also featured on YouTube.


Obama’s speeches have become more and more critical of experience and the political battles that have been fought for the good or bad and regardless if the lawmakers agreed with this or not. His new mass following character that has been developing with the theme quote “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for”. This words make an enthusiastic aura but when realized it was written on his website and was not his words brings questioning to the table. Should we have a president who doesn’t account for other people’s words? This modern day movement of Obama seems to be the new cult.


I don’t think one should count her out of the nomination just yet considering if she wins Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, she will probably win the nomination. The Wall Street Journal reports that Hillary Clinton’s campaign raised “about $15 million online in February’s first 15 days”. Again this criticizes Obama’s record high fundraising from January. This is a statement that should make it clear Hillary is not out of the race just yet.


It will be interesting to see what both candidates decide to use against one another. The negative advertising hasn’t proved as an important characteristic in determining the nomination just yet. Over the next two primaries, I’m sure there will be a major change in the negative advertising as the competition only grows closer and closer. Voting for president is a privilege and responsibility and although both candidates provide an intelligent and inspiring atmosphere, the question is, who will get the job done?