Reading for Monday, 3/31

If you get a chance before class on Monday, check out the following: Political Forum, one of many online bulletin boards and this December article about presidential candidates and chat rooms

Tough Times for Obama and Clinton

Article after article seem to be going out in the media today about the candidates other then their political issues. That's right, their personal lives and their mistakes. Two that have been coming up recently would be the ‘misspoken’ near death experience from Hillary, and of course, Obama’s ministers feelings about race. I feel that out of the two, Obama has done a better job controlling the situation then Hillary has. In fact, I feel that Hillary has tried to more dodge the ‘misspoken comment’ then she has actually confronting it. Most of her recent talks have been about Obama’s choice in a minister, and not on what she had said about the sniper fire.

Yes, we all know that Obama’s minister has said some racist stuff, but just because someone you associate with says racist things doesn’t mean that you are in fact racist. You may, and in Obama’s case this is true, down right reject what they are talking about because you feel so strongly that what they say if wrong. With all this bad press from Reverend Wright, you would think that Obama would be struggling. It should be noticed that Obama uses this to his advantage to point out to all American citizens that race is still an issue in this country and that the only way we will be able to conqueror it will be to bring it up and talk about it. Discussing it will only make the problems come out and solutions can be found, that is a lot easier then just ignoring it and brushing it under the rug.

Now for those of you who don’t know what exactly is going on with Hillary and her sniper fire, she said to a few different people that in 1996 when they were arriving in Bosnia she was attacked in sniper firing and had to run from the plane to safety with her head down. There is footage of this actual event recorded on tape and has been released, and is of course all over YouTube. When she was confronted with this, she says that she ‘misspoke’ about the event. In a CNN article she said "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement.” I have to sit here and wonder what else she is saying that is not entirely true, if she speakings millions of words a day. Also what is she saying now that she might take back in the future?

For both candidates I feel they have a lot to over come in the near future with the last of the primaries coming up. For Obama it is going to be a challenge to prove to the voters that he is not a racist person, and that Reverend Wright is not going to infringe his beliefs on the campaign or the white house if Obama gets elected. As for Hillary, her misspoken words may have an affect on her supporters trust in her future words.

Pseudo Monarchs and Hillary’s Announcement

If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and goes on to win the Presidency, the White House will be occupied for the last two decades by Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. See the pattern? Are we establishing a pseudo monarchy in the United States? It is fairly easy to argue that no, we are not because we hold elections every four years and often switch from a Democratic president to a Republican president, inherently our system does not allow for monarchical control. However, there is something to be said for electing members of the same family all in a row. One could argue that the pattern ends here but who’s to say that Jed Bush (Gov. Florida) or Chelsea Clinton are not interested in pursuing the presidency. Are the American people becoming lazy and electing a familiar political name? What about all the rhetoric of “change” so apparent in this election cycle? Is electing Clinton going to be a change?

A look at Clinton’s announcement speech can offer a glimpse into what, if any, real change will be possible with Hillary in the White House. There were many aspects of her announcement speech that do not fit into the conventional outline of announcement speeches. In January 2007, Clinton announced that she would be forming a presidential exploratory committee. The timing of this announcement was on the earlier side, however, everything about this campaign cycle has happened fast and early. I think that this early announcement was an advantage because it created buzz about her and only her. Hillary chose to announce on her website and the clip was filmed in her living room. She was seated on a floral couch in a warmly lit room with framed photos of her family setting on the table behind her. There are two strategic elements present in Hillary’s location choice. One, the online method. Hillary’s use of technology can be interpreted two ways. She either announced via the web because she saw it as a means to reach many people or she wanted to avoid a live announcement where a multitude of things could have gone wrong and journalists would have been able to ask questions right then. Second, Hillary’s location in the home emphasizes that she’s a woman. This is an extremely important element because she has often been criticized for being too harsh and, dare I say, ambitious like a man. Personally, I think Hillary made a great move by announcing online. She was able to be in a comfortable setting, practice as many times as she pleased, and most importantly she used technology (symbol of progress) to her advantage. Her use of technology demonstrates an “in touchness” with the world and the times. It is also a symbol of change. In stead of doing the classic announcement speech as a famous landmark, Hillary thought about how people communicate and the internet plays an increasingly important role in media coverage and political communication among citizens. The photographs of Hillary’s family are her podium supporters. She easily could have had Chelsea and/or Bill sitting with her, but she chose not to and that send a strong message that she is able to stand on her own. This element is also a change from conventional announcement speeches. Hillary covered a wide range of topics from the war in Iraq to healthcare. She did not go into depth on the issues but mentioned the once important to her.

I see Hillary’s announcement speech as an example of change. Although I do believe that the Bush-Clinton domination of the White House over the last two decades is not for the best, I do not see our country falling into even a pseudo monarchy. If elected Hillary will make changes from both the current president and from her husband’s presidency in order to maintain the prosperity of our United States.

Not-So-Happy Anniversary

March 19th marked the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq. President Bush used this event to tell the world what a success the invasion of Iraq has been despite the loss of nearly 4,000 American lives. He told the world that America is now safer than before the attacks and that the overall situation in Iraq is improving. Despite the President's optimistic talk about victory and success he still maintains that troops must remain in the country indefinitely - and, in truth, the country itself is still suffering.

While President Bush states that some troops are now coming home, the war has already cost more than 400 billion dollars and over 4,000 American and allied troops. The situation in Iraq has improved from the beginning of the war, but that isn't saying too much. There are fewer killings and attacks, but the reason there were so many in 2005 is due to the initial insurgence.

President Bush has told the world that there have been considerable improvements in Iraq. This statement is somewhat misleading given that the unemployment rate in Iraq runs between 25 and 50%. Water and electricity services are still not fully operational in many areas. Also, over two million people have fled Iraq since the war began; yet, fewer than 50,000 have returned. These statistics show that while the President may say that the war in Iraq is making Americans' lives safer, the lives of Iraqis are still embroiled in violence and conflict.

As the presidential election draws closer it will be interesting to see how the candidates deal with the situation in Iraq. Since it is such a large political issue, the stance that each candidate takes on the war will be instrumental in his/her campaign.

Feminism and Hillary: Dead Or Wading?

Hillary Clinton has shown resolve in the past few weeks that Obama could never have, with the Ferraro incident and being called a monster. What I wonder is if this is due to a fact that women just have to deal with more in the political realm.

I say this not just as a Clinton supporter, but someone who values a woman's right to be inventive and insightful in the marketplace. And, yes, do I think it's good that the focus is on the Democratic candidates, but I feel like the pressure has been on Hillary the majority of the time, according to a Pew study, which says that he ha received the most press over time. Sure, the media is trying to respond to these kinds of things, especially with the whole pastor scandal, but it still bothers me that this is considered fine.

No one is considering that Hillary is being attacked because people just don't like women, especially those that want to be in some sort of powerful uber-position, like the presidency of the United States. Maybe it's just me, but I think that has something to do with it, not just relatable qualities.

Spitzer's Scandal and Resignaton

Former New York Attorney General and now former Govenor Eliot Spitzer has been unable to stay out of the headlines for the last week or so. Spitzer along with three other individuals, was charged with operating the Emperors Club VIP, which Nathan Thronburgh with CNN TIME describes as an “international prostitution and money-laundering ring” (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721095,00.html). Until recently, Spitzer was well known and respected for his morality. Spitzer devoted much of his time as Attorney General to organized crime, primarily prostitute rings. He was noted for his great success in cracking several prostitute rings in New York.

In political communication, we have been talking about media and the influence it has on politicians and the public. Clearly, the media has had significant impact on Eliot Spitzer and his family. If there is one thing the media knows how to do well it is exploit politicians for their inappropriate behavior. This is an example of the “Watch Dog Theory” discussed in class. The media are always watching and waiting for a juicy story, especially when it is a person like Spitzer who has always had a clean record. One thing about the media is once a news story is in their hands, they become in control. They control when and how much of a news story is aired. That is why it is important that political personnel’s always be somewhat prepared for a crisis. I think the best thing to do in a situation like Spitzer’s is to do exactly what he did. He admitted to his alleged involvement in the prostitution ring, resigned as Governor and publically expressed regret to his family and the people.

It is quite obvious that Elliot Spitzer’s behavior has affected his political career considering on Monday he announced his resignation to the New York General Assembly. But what spectators question is the impact it had on his family. When he gave his resignation speech his wife stood at his side the entire time. This stunned many people because he cheated on her with a prostitute! How could she stand by his side after he embarrassed himself, his family, and New York? Last Wednesday on the CBS early morning show, three women had a debate about whether Silda Spitzer should stand by her husband . (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml)

This has brought attention to Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton’s past because she stayed married to Bill Clinton after he cheated on her with intern Monica Lewinski. Some people believe that it was beneficial for Hilary to stand by his side because she might not be where she is now without the experience and support. However, many people disagree with her decision and may look down on her for staying by his side. This is controversial because many people believe that a marriage union should not be disconnected, but also believe that adultery is wrong. This moral issue could greatly influence her candidacy and we will see the effects of this issue as the race for presidency unfolds.

Gaffes May Go 'Tit for Tat' but Obama Has Lost His Tower of Foreign Policy Power

A clean campaign that focuses solely on the issues is what both Senators Clinton and Obama claim that they want, and wish to promote the idea of a democratic party united. But the thing is, the Democratic ticket for the 2008 election is being heatedly contested between the two, so this unification cannot happen just yet.  Thus, in the heat of campaigning, both Clinton and Obama have experienced separations from amicability and the issues, as surrogates from each campaign have made some very public and on-the-record blunders. 

 

In politics, I am learning that it seems to go tit for tat on a lot of things, and to keep with the pun, Obama senior foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power’s mistake (tit) of calling Hillary a “monster” has been answered by Clinton surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro’s gaffe (tat) when she made a remark about senator Obama being in the position he is in because he is a black man.  Ferraro, being a part of the Clinton campaign, which has time and again been labeled as the more aggressive and abrasive of the two, has not stepped down or shown any sort of remorse for her words that she claims have been drastically spun out of context by the Obama campaign after the fact, as she explains in a very defensive interview she gave with Diane Sawyer.  During the interview, Ferraro also tries hard to make clear that she was never even part of the Clinton campaign in the first place. 

 

On the flipside, Power, a newcomer to political campaigning, keeps with the “cool” nature associated with the Obama campaign when she publicly announced that she deeply regretted her remarks at a scheduled appearance at the N.Y.U. Center for Global Affairs. As she communicated through a March 16^th New York Times article saying, “if she could get through the talk without weeping…it would be a first since the controversy began,” she put heavy emphasis on her tremendous remorse.

 

We are learning in class that it is important for campaigns to keep things consistent, and the responses from both surrogates seem to be inline with their respective campaigns, which I find curious, because I feel when a mistake is made in these sort of high scrutiny situations, it is best to apologize.  I wonder if it was a strategic move on Ferraro’s part to stand so strongly by her statement for the sake of Hillary’s “hard-hitting” campaign, even though Clinton herself has publicly renounced it.

 

I’m focusing in on this subject, more particularly on Power, because after learning and researching about her, I am just as intrigued by her as the media is.  She is young, only 37, and is described in a July 2007 article from Men’s Vogue entitled “A League of Her Own,” as being “this tall redhead of enormous passion.” The article goes own to credit her as being “that rare Harvard brainiac who can boast both a Pulitzer Prize and a mean jump shot,” and that her nickname from high school basketball, “the tower of power” has followed her well into her career, especially in her work with the Obama campaign.   I later put it together that I have actually studied her 2003 Pulitzer Prize winning, A Problem From Hell, which addresses the issue of genocide, in a political science course I took my freshman year.  It was really an eye-opener and an interesting read. 

 

Power is a journalist turned Harvard professor, and prior to joining the Obama campaign, she taught American foreign policy at the Kennedy School of Government for the past six years.  Richard Holbrooke, a respected colleague of Power and member of the Hilary campaign, praises in the article from Men’s Vogue and says that Power’s “students are swept up in the Romance of her—the responsibility she personifies…Obama is lucky to have her.”

 

Obama was very lucky to have her because she is a strong mind in an area Obama has been criticized to be lacking in experience, know-how, etc.  Power, unfortunately is gone now. She has stepped down from the campaign, and has articulated in a bit of an informal apologia that if Clinton should win the nomination, she will 100 percent back her with “just as much enthusiasm,” and that despite her comment, she thinks very highly of Hillary, who she has found to be “incredibly warm, funny.”  Power goes own to take full responsibility for her gaffe and remarks, “I still cannot even believe the words came out of my mouth.”  She ends the interview with traces of transformative strategy, giving the whole situation a larger context, saying the campaign was getting “tense” and “in the heat of the moment,” she slipped.  Also, she makes clear that she is a newcomer to politics that she is “a bit of a political rookie, a policy person, a scholar,” and new to campaigning. 

 

Regardless, Power is a huge loss to the Obama campaign and she goes to show, as mentioned in the New York Times article, that a person “so naked about her passions” may have trouble surviving in the political world where “tact and coolness usually trump spontaneity.”  

Obama Article by Kristol

Check out this article.

Another Shot in the Foot for Hillary

As an avid Hillary fan, I find that her campaign has repeatedly shot itself in the foot.  There have been many things, big or small, from Hillary herself or a surrogate, that has had monumental damage to her campaign.  Yet another damaging comment was made by Geraldine Ferraro, as Dr. Kramer pointed out in class.  Geraldine Ferraro made an insulting comment along the lines of saying that Barack Obama was only this successful in his campaign because he was African-American, see link here. The full quote from Ferraro was, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept", taken from Yahoo! News.

I think it is another unfortunate incident that Hillary has had to suffer from, at the hands of a surrogate. She isn't having too much like with husband Bill, and now Ferraro. However, according to CNN, Ferraro did today step down from Hillary's financial committee, as per CNN. On this link, there is a transcript of what Ferraro wrote to Hillary, which I will refer to for my next point.

Interestingly enough, Ferraro still fails to take 100% of the burden from her comments. As you could read from the CNN article, she is adamant that the Obama campaign used these words deliberately to shame Hillary's good name. Although I'm sure that his campaign saw these remarks as a gold mine in order to exploit Hillary, I think its unfortunate that Ferraro cannot face up to the atrocity she committed to Hillary's campaign. 

In terms of political communication, I believe it is easy to see how remarks like these can, in fact, be termed incivility.  It is not the type of incivility that is normally associated, say in a debate, but these type of comments go above and beyond the acceptable social norm of negative statements. Since this incivility is rarely accepted by the general public, I am sure this will affect Hillary negatively, even though today she discussed her disagreement in the choice of words by Ferraro.

Obama's Game Plan

Tough, ruthless, hard-headed. These are words that come to mind when we think of politicians. These characteristics are what mainstream America seems to look for in a candidate. Candidates who show they have control by out-talking everyone else in a debate or clawing their way to the top by putting everyone else down, more often than not, tend to end up in the “w” category come election day. We, as voters, want someone in office who will fight and not back down on important issues. Yet, do we really want politicians to be rude, self-serving, and hard-headed? I think not. Yes, the hearty passion and ruthlessness can be fun to watch, but when we look past the entertainment point of view, I think we all could agree that we want someone in office who is able to communicate and work with others to change this country for the better.



In order for political communication to be ideal, according to the Rogerian Argument, politicians must not only articulate their own points of view, but understand and recognize where the opposition is coming from and, in turn, discuss mutual benefits of their collaboration. This civil communication is key to every politician’s success. Yet, in this 2008 presidential race, as well as in all other political contests, ahead of the ability of a candidate to use civil communication is the candidate’s ability to lead. Senator Hillary Clinton and her campaign crew have continually called out Barack Obama and his ability to fight for and lead this country. According to Time Magazine, Clinton charged that “Obama just isn’t man enough to protect the country from its enemies, foreign and domestic…you may like the music, but this guy is nowhere near tough enough for this job.”


It is true that Obama is not viewed as an “I’m the man” and “in-your-face” kind of guy. He takes a different approach in gaining respect and showing leadership. Instead of putting others down, he is more likely to use inspiration and intelligence to bring people together and lift them up for a common cause.


Time Magazine reports that at a debate in Chicago, Obama was told by his advisors to “get down, get dirty, get tough.” Yet one attendee said, “But he wouldn’t do it…Against all punditry, against the advice, against the history…It shows he understood his persona and the qualities that were implicit in it.” Obama told them, “If I gotta kneecap her, I’m not gonna go there.” Some may say this is weakness, to not go all out and hit the extremes to make a point, to win at all costs. Some may prefer a candidate like Hillary Clinton who remarked, “I’m prepared to do anything, including hand John McCain a grenade, to win this thing.” But I think it is a strength of Obama to rise above incivility, not be distracted by petty confrontations, and stay focused on his game plan.


Still, it is important for a leader to be strong and not be afraid to fight. Michael Duffy of Time Magazine points out that what distinguishes Obama is “how hard he has battled with out appearing to do so…His mild manner belies self-control. The frequent self-mocking conceals a stubborn self-confidence.” Barack Obama displayed his self-confidence after he lost in the 2000 election for state senate. Instead of giving up the fight and lying down, in 2002 he tried another bid, this time for the U.S. Senate and won. In his current campaign, he continues the battle as he challenges his opponents to bring out the truth. For example, he and his staff are “pressing for Clinton to release her tax returns and peel back the secrecy surrounding who has given what to the Clinton Library” (CNN). Obama is attempting to “bring out the contrasts with out becoming a political attack dog.” He refuses to fall into the gap and become “just another grubby politician” (CNN). As the Rogerian Argument advises all politicians to do, Barack Obama treats his opponents as participants in the decision making process. He argues, but in a civil manner. Cass Sunstein, a former colleague, commented that, “His decision-making process requires him to see the other side’s arguments in a sympathetic light so he can say, ‘I disagree, but I understand the opposing view.’”


As the presidential battle goes on, Obama looks to be the head runner as he continues to fight strong. History has shown that many of the politicians who have had success in the past were the ones who were able to distinguish themselves by cutting down others, often in an uncivil manner. Yet, here we are in 2008 and the politician ahead of the game is one who chooses to rise above, in most cases, incivility and focuses on the game plan. Incivility has worked in the past, but maybe civility can work in the future. Maybe Obama really can bring about a change we can count on.

Clinton and Obama: Can we have both?

Well, the Texas and Ohio primaries certainly kept everyone on their toes. Last Tuesday night it was pretty interesting to watch the television and see who the winners would be, especially because the race was so close. On the Republican side, we now have a winner, though I think McCain has been the projected GOP winner for a while now. In his acceptance speech McCain was very excited, thanking supporters and getting everyone excited for the beginning of the next step. Both Obama and Clinton also shared in his excitement as they both made comments about looking forward to opposing him in the Fall.
However, the Democratic primaries provided the real excitement for the night. With Obama on a winning streak, people had high hopes for him to win two big states and thus, take a clear lead ahead of Clinton. For a while, the two candidates were tied at 48% in Texas, but Clinton did manage to pull off a win. Ohio was also very close, too close to call at one point, before Clinton finally won again. I think that one lesson to learned from this primary was to not count anyone out. For a couple weeks now, political analysts on various talk shows have been discussing the possibility that Clinton could very well lose both Texas and Ohio. But when Clinton made her victory speech in Ohio she encouraged supporters by saying "We're going strong" knocking down any any uncertainties people have had about her campaign. She also reminded the crowd she spoke to that even if you are trailing at one point while trying to accomplish any goal it is possible to pick yourself up and continue on successfully.
Now with Clinton and Obama still neck and neck, some are now talking about them running on the same ticket. To some this is a "dream ticket" while others have called it a "fantasy ticket" . What could make their joint ticket appealing is that they could combine their strengths; her experience with his charisma and fresh outlook. There are mixed feelings about this on the campaign trail. Obama recently said at a rally that he is not interested in being Vice President, even though both Bill and Hillary Clinton have mentioned that a Clinton-Obama ticket could be a great idea.
A joint ticket could be fairly interesting. I do like both candidates and have found it hard to choose just one of them. They both seem to have a common ground; they are both fighting for better health care, bettering the economy and getting U.S. troops out of Iraq. However, the ways in which they would go about accomplishing these tasks would be different. Too different, maybe to run together. It would be very difficult for either candidate to settle for being 2nd in command. Whoever you support in this election– democrat, republican or even if you have no interest at all, you have to admit that both Obama and Clinton have campaigned very hard. For one of them to be the Vice President for the other would be a big blow to their ego's. On the other hand, it would be a historical ticket–a black man and a white woman running together would certainly draw attention and entice uncertain voters to look at what they have to say.