Comedy Blogs: Entertainment or Political Communication?

Throughout this class I have taken a liking to humor as a political communication tactic. For my last post I went searching for information about humor in political communication. I ran across a blog called Capitol Punishment: we put the mock in democracy. They not only make fun of the different candidates, but they also raise important issues that we have been talking about in class this year. I feel that humor in political communication is a very useful way of communicating because it raises questions and issues about the candidates in ways that others may feel uncomfortable talking about in a serious setting. It also makes some of the more complicated issues easier for everyone to understand.

One entry that I thought was particularly funny, was called Cook Off. It talked about how the media is not biased towards the "left or right, women or men, blacks or whites" as so many people have claimed. Instead, however, it is focusing on the primaries due to the fact that it makes for good TV ("election soap opera") as well as brings in good revenue via advertisements. The writer of the blog continues on by mocking the soap opera feel of the primaries by claiming that there should be a "First Lady Cook Off (Including Bill Clinton because pronouns like him and he can be gender neutral)." The Writer states "Whichever First Lady candidate whomps up the best home cooking wins a free four-year trip to the White House for her and her hubby. Period." This basically mocks the entire primary race because of the drama that has been going on between Obama and Clinton specifically, however the writer does not leave out McCain. She continues on by stating rules for the competition and finishes with the statement "Whichever of these lovely and talented gals manages to prepare the most scrumptious original recipe will know that her better half will be the leader of the free world and will have access to the CIA, the NSA, the Secret Service and the FBI. From the time they move into the White House, this new First Lady will be watched by the President’s unquestionably loyal monitoring network every living second of every 24-hour day. These First Ladies will be protected and observed and will have not a single private moment or clandestine conversation ever again."

Another entry that sparked my interest was called The Well-Hardened Democrat. It talks about how even though the Republican candidate John McCain is more experienced within politics, he is also "too old" for the job. The writer also claims that "He will make his share of mistakes in the campaign, and no doubt his temper will get him in trouble. The name and legacy of George Bush, Jr. will become a ubiquitous anchor for the retired naval officer. He believed in Bush and his policies and with few exceptions supported them." Thus stating that McCain will just be "another Bush" in office. The writer then continues on to mention the familiar debates and controversies between the Democratic candidates, but doesn't shy away from mentioning that the Republicans have said their fair share of vile things. He finishes his post by stating something similar to what was in the last post - how expensive the elections cost. "Elections that last four years are hazardous to everyone’s health and peace of mind, not to mention obscenely expensive."

Overall, I believe that one of the best things about this blog is the fact that people from all walks of life can read it and relate to the issues at hand. It isn't as complicated as CNN or MSNBC, so the common folk can understand what is going on in politics as well as get a good laugh out of it at the same time.

Cynicism, "Fake News," and the Mass Media-The Good, the Bad, and the Pointless

We have grown into a cynical people over the last few decades haven’t we? This is different from the cynicism inherent in our political system. Look at out entertainment. We’ve moved from traditional news outlets towards programs such at “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” and rightly so. We ask for objectivity in programming and instead we find the live debate shows and “No Spin Zones.” We ask our networks to pit liberals and conservatives against each other, perhaps so we do have to do the tough job of thinking for ourselves. It is rare that we as individuals are asked to separate the wheat from the chaff in political arguments. We usually don’t have the time since spin coverage and analysis are nearly instantaneous in our era of über-connectedness.

That’s why I like Stewart and Colbert. Their programs satisfy a need for an equal-opportunity mockery of our political system, so I appreciif only because politics is something I myself do not take seriously beyond the occasional consideration of gas prices (“I can’t go to the grocery store because my tank is empty, but then it pointless to buy groceries because I won’t have money anyway. Oh, how I love a good paradox.”). “The Daily Show” even for a while had its own debate-type segment entitled “Even Stevphen.” Many of the discussions were, at least on the surface, without purpose. But by acknowledging the ubiquity of this kind of programming and then poking fun at it is a decidedly harch criticism of the mass media, which spends so much of it’s energy elaborating on the gaffes of politicians and discussing the otherwise inane political stunts of those in office and on the campaign trail alike (I don’t care that Barack went bowling or that Hillary took a shot. It seems fit. You ever notice how drinking and sports tend to go together? Call me an idealist, but maybe there is still hope for the Obama/Clinton Dream ticket.)

What the mass media does is nothing more than a larger, more expensive and drawn out version of the debates of months past (Issues? There are issues? Fascinating.) So shows like “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” demand from their viewers at a half hour of critical thinking. The information is still valid, but because it is in the context of comedy, it is more specifically tailored to exact concerns. The humor lies in the specificity with which the jokes deal with issues, highlighting what is incongruous with the messages politicians are delivery. The best kind of humor is the kind that is based in the truth. If you want another, even more explicit example, I suggest watching a bit of Lewis Black. (Click here, too!) I had the opportunity to see his live show last Thanksgiving in Buffalo.

The cynicism of the people is not unfounded. I think the public does in fact want the truth and will turn to the outlets that seem to provide it to the fullest extent. Exploiting the objectivity principle is questionable because of the partisanship of our media. Comedy shows do not support anyone, and perhaps serve as the best watchdog because of it.

Obama's Pastor Problem

Yesterday morning, as I turned on MSNBC at 9am to catch up on the weekend’s headlines and prepare for class, I was shocked to see Barack Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, holding some kind of press conference type event at the National Press Club, in Washington, DC. I have to admit, I changed channels about seven times until I realized that if I wanted to watch a news network I was going to have to watch him. (Regis and Kelly were discussing the Yankees, no thank you.) The duration of my viewing was approximately five minutes – that is all that I could take of him. Within the first minute, in describing a scholarly event regarding the black church in America, Wright made a joke that’s punch line was that the black church was an “unknown phenomenon”. This got a huge laugh from the crowd, but I did not find it very funny, and I believe that joke along with Wright’s other comments are detracting from the Obama campaign and have the potential to let the nomination fall through his hands.

After I had my five minutes with Rev. Wright, I went about my day. In watching the evening news last night, I was very interested to see what would be said about the morning’s press conference. NBC Nightly News had a clip of Obama stating that, “[Rev. Wright] does not speak for me; he does not speak for the campaign.” As we have discussed in class, and the media has discussed at length, Rev. Wright is a major problem for Obama and is only getting worse. In a New York Times article posted this morning, Alessandra Stanley went into great detail describing Wright as cocky, defiant, declamatory, inflammatory, and as she quotes Chuck Todd (NBC’s political director) in closing her article that Todd summed up Mr. Wright’s apologia by paraphrasing a Carly Simon song, “You’re so vain, I bet you think this campaign is about you.” (If you are interested in this subject, I strongly suggest you read the article by Stanley. It gives the NY Times a very conservative voice and includes the entirety of Rev. Wright’s statements on video: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29watc.html?em&ex=1209614400&en=e038a9e61ddb0909&ei=5087%0A.)

The question to ask now is how will Rev. Wright’s enduring 15-minutes of fame affect the Obama campaign? Right now, this issue is hurting him. As Tim Russert noted on the Today Show this morning, the North Carolina and Indiana primaries are next week and all discussion regarding Barack Obama is about Rev. Wright. Russert suggested that Obama needs to distance himself as much as possible from Wright, which he is doing, and some how turn the focus back to his campaign. In addition, Obama’s camp needs to hope that the media’s attention toward Wright will diminish. Wright is also hurting Obama when asked his opinion on Obama distancing himself. Obama’s credibility – that he is a new candidate, running a different, non-traditional, campaign – decreases when Wright states that he is a politician, and is responding in the typical style of a politician. Even though Rev. Wright is not an official surrogate of the Obama campaign (and I do not recall if he was ever described that way), however, his close connection to Obama and his remarks are leaving quite the impression with the media and the public regarding the Obama campaign.

Woe is Me, and My Name is Barack Obama

I have found in recent weeks to be perturbed with the behavior of Senator Barack Obama. It is not an unknown fact that I am a Hillary supporter, however, I do not dislike Barack Obama. I would not even mind if Obama became President, but I feel that he is not as qualified to do the job as Hillary is. The most shocking behavior of Senator Obama lately took place on Tuesday, when he was said to have left Pennsylvania early on in the race because he expected he would lose. Fox News indicates on their site, that the camp claims that by winning both Mississippi and Wyoming that Obama has no reason to doubt his success in the future.  Phil Singer, a member of the Clinton Camp, claims in this same article that: "[N]o candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972[.]" I found this point particularly appealing for two reasons. First, being a Hillary supporter, that is a great statistic to have on our side. It could strengthen undecided voters to realize the probability of truth in Singer's statement. Also, on the flip side, I find it intriguing to see if Barack Obama can defy the odds and win the White House without winning this big state.

Another act of Obama's behavior that has troubled me was his speech in Evansville, Indiana that took place on Tuesday, after he had lost Pennsylvania. An excerpt from the speech can be found here, I would post the quote directly up here, but my analysis should be able to clue you in.  Obama talks about the two going head to head for some months now, and how that is not what type of politics he wants to partake in. This also draws in our class's understanding of incivility. At this speech, Obama comes out and claims that any form of uncivil political bantering is NOT something he wants to be apart of. However, I feel his actions show different feelings about political incivility. 

In this speech, New York Times reports of how quickly Obama switched from targeting the race against beating Hillary to beating that of John McCain. Now, I realize it must be hard to just come out and say "Ya, you're right I lost. I spent two to three times the amount of money of the Hillary campaign, but I still lost." I mean, it can't be an easy feat. However, I believe that the route that Barack took has left much to be desired. I am looking forward to listening to his next speech to see if his mood and outlook had improved. 

Does Obama Still Have a Chance?

After seven long weeks, today Sen. Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary. Many say this was a test for Sen. Obama to see if he had what it took to win in a big state like Pennsylvania. Obama did well with African-Americans and youth voters, but where he didnt do well was with the elderly and blue collar voters. Obama's loss left many in question of his electability. Obama claims that he lost elderly votes because former President Bill Clinton was faithful to that specific audience and the issues that mattered the most to them, so they are sticking to what they know by voting for Hillary.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/primary.analysis/index.html
Obama's campaign explains that Hillary has had an advantage coming into this race since day one because of her husband and it is much easier for people to stick to what they know and what they're comfortable with. Because Sen. Obama is a first time national candidate, many people are unfamiliar with him, therefore more willing to vote for Hillary because of her husband.
Obama's campaign believes that the media will have a positive influence on Obama's chances of winning future states. Due to the fact that this race was covered so carefully by all media, people from all over have been given a chance to know Obama's story, and where he stands politically and morally. The Pennsylvania primary media coverage has given those people unfamiliar with Obama a chance to get to know him and his idea of change and ability to bring the country together. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/primary.analysis/index.html#cnnSTCVideo) In class we have been taking about the media-politics relationship and media influence. I think this positive influence Obama's campaign talks about is a good example of the Hypodermic Effect where the information covered and distributed by the media influences the public.
The next big state primary coming up is Indiana. I think Indiana is going to be considerably tuff for both Clinton and Obama because majority of Indiana has voted for a Republican Government for about the last forty or fifty years. However, I think Obama's chances of winning may be slightly better than Hillary's considering Indiana is a neighboring state of Illinois. Obama has a better chance of getting cities that are close to Illinois like Gary. Also, if what Obama's campaign said about recent media having a positive influence on Obama's image, then his chances should be even better, but we will see in May.

The media worked its way into asking unimportant questions about the candidates? no, never...

This week I presented my political cartoons in class and I had the chace to show my opinion on a few issues. The one that I liked the most, was inspired by the recent debate in Philadelphia, last week.
The candidates were once again brought to a discussion in the form of a debate where they were able to address several issues including their differences, and how they both admire each others vision and goals, but that they would not want to go as running mates.

About 30 minutes into the debate, the moderator began to ask questions that were not pertinent to the choosing of a candidate.. The first question, or comment that needed a response is taht because of her lie about being under enemy fire, there were American people who did not trust her. The moderator even shows a clip of a citizen speaking this opinion.

In the next clip, about ten minutes after Hillary's question, Barack is addressed with a question by the moderator. He is asked about his friendship with a man named William Ayers. http://youtube.com/watch?v=m63NqWos_JU&feature=related.

The problem that I see with these questions that I believe are tied to our class, is that gaffes and casual friendships are spun so much by the media. Citizens who are affected by this are those who give in to the more emotional side of the politics, and not the logical. The media would be of better use to simply stand back and watch what happens as opposed to taking small aspects of a persons life and making them seem as though they were crucial to a Presidential election.

Incivility Strikes Again

We have discussed the impact of incivility extensively in class due to its major effects on political campaigns. As the race for the Democratic nomination heats up, the media has once again decided to focus on incivility between candidates. CNN has stated that the people of Pennsylvania have placed the blame for negative attack ads on Hillary Clinton. Polls have shown that two thirds of Pennsylvania Democrats say Hillary has launched unfair attacks against Obama; while only thirty percent of voters say she hasn't.

I think most people maintain that they do not like to hear that incivility is playing a pivotal role in the advertisements that candidates are endorsing, but that is the truth of the matter. As John Geer writes, "There is a widespread belief that incivility – attacks that go beyond facts and differences and move toward name-calling and derision – is a serious threat to our electoral process." I think that this is only true to an extent.

People in America now know what comes along with any election - there is going to be mudslinging and name-calling. I think that most people have come to realize that, even if they don't like it. I am not a fan of hearing candidates insult each other, especially when it is about personal things the would determine the presidential quality of the person.

I don't think that incivility will end any time soon. The more that the media turns politics into something that is more entertainment driven rather than politically driven I believe we will just see an increase in negative and uncivil behavior in political candidates. This is obviously being supported by both Hillary and Obama's actions in Pennsylvania. Although Hillary is being singled out, it is fair to say that all of the candidates are taking turns using incivility to weaken their opponents' positions. As the presidential election draws closer it will be interesting to see how much farther candidates will go to make themselves look better, while making their opponents look worse.

So, I'm watching the compassion debate the other night, which I found quite fascinating, considering that I was expecting a bit more compassion from the commentators as much as from the candidates (which, of course, did not happen!)

It strikes me, as the Pope comes to the United States for the first time, that voters really care about all this values mumbo-jumbo. The truth is that none of the three candidates, Democrat or Republican, will repeal Roe v. Wade on his or her own, or really deal with any of these "pro-life" issues considering that we are in a war that McCain  could see lasting 100 years!

Both candidates are wearing their faith on their sleeves, much to the detriment of Obama, but, strangely, McCain is not. I honestly don't know what religion he is, and I'm kind of curious to know, just for my own knowledge, but oh well.

It really seems like some moot points were made in the last debate, and I consider myself a fairly religious/spiritual person who cares about values in the larger scheme of things. I wonder if these debates are more for the gratification of a media that enjoys turning politics into a game and an audience that goes along with whatever the media wants them to believe.

An Elite Gaffe May Be Too Great To Be Masked By Humor

Obama seems like he may be loosing Pennsylvania after making a remark that did not sit well with the state’s large population of blue-collar workers, who may now be viewing Obama as a little too highbrow for their liking. The media, along with his opponents have taken hold of the comment Senator Obama made on April 6th at a private fundraiser in San Francisco, and are using it to typify Obama as being an “out of touch elitist.”

An article online at Timesnow.tv quotes: “The Illinois Senator said, “People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them. So, people end up voting on issues like guns.” He was trying to explain his difficulty connecting with working-class voters when he misspoke in San Francisco and said, “the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…and it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion.” The Timesnow article suggests this gaffe may just be the crack to expose an “Obama weakness—the image that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof.”

Chief political correspondent for Politico.com, Mike Allen agrees that this crack will cost Obama when he predicts in a CBS Evening News Report: “This helps out both of his opponents. It lets Senator Clinton off the mat, and basically gives her a club to hit him with, and it helps senator McCain because it makes it easy for him to cast this as a race against a snob.”

In class, we have talked about the importance of a candidate’s image and how voters put heavy contemplation on personality when selecting a candidate. Obama knows this and so he has public regretted, but not apologized for his poor choice in words. He addresses the associated press convention in Washington D.C. and opens with a joke, apologizing for keeping the press busy over the weekend with the comments he made. He says “some of you may even be a little but bitter about that,” and tries to use a bit of humor, which does merit a good response from the crowd. Obama uses humor as a soft segue into an apologia for his gaffe. He says, “contrary to what my poor word choice may have implied, I’ve never believed that people’s traditions or faith has anything to do with how much money they have.” But where the kick-off humor helps most is when Obama refuses to back down from his comment: “I will never walk away from the larger point I was trying to make…for the last several decades people in small towns and cities and rural areas all across this country have seen globalization change the rules of the game on them.”

Hillary of course has used Obama’s gaffe to her advantage because it gives her justified cause to attack him as an “elitist” and an “out of touch” snob. She has been advocating that she is a supporter of the second amendment and further cuts down Obama in the CBS Evening News Report and says, “The people of faith I know don’t cling to religion because they are bitter…people embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”—Another subtle jab on Obama’s poor sensitivity to the class / money issue.

Obama cannot sit back and just watch his gaffe explode his chances at winning Pennsylvania and Indiana, so he has made some counter attacks of his own, on top of his attempted apologia, in efforts to lessen the damage. In a youtube clip I found, Obama uses humor yet again as a method for repair. Working the crowd like he is some kind of Chris Rock-esque comedian, Obama says, "I expected this out of McCain, but I must say I’m a little disappointed when I hear the exact same talking point coming out of my democratic colleague, Hillary Clinton. She knows better. (Pause) She knows better. Shame on her. (Pause) Shame on her. She knows better."

At the pauses, it seems like a laugh track is playing. Obama is pacing the stage. He is working the crowd like a pro. Next, he says Hillary is talking like she is “Annie Oakley” and that he would like to see her “out in a duck blind packing a six-shooter.” He says “come on!” in disbelief with a big grin across his face as the clip ends.

Humor seems to be a tool Obama has been using for his image repair. But the question is can a few chuckles fool the working class into believing that he is “on their side” and that he respects their “way of life,” which is supported on lower income levels? Or will his gaffe expose his brightly polished silver spoon?

McCain: The "Warmonger"

Last Friday, at an event in North Dakota, Ed Schultz, a radio talk show host, fired up an Obama-supporting crowd as he shared his thoughts on why Obama is the top contender. His comments included a criticism of Arizona senator, John McCain, and his support of the Iraq war, calling him a “warmonger.” Later on, when it was Obama’s turn to talk, nothing was mentioned of Schultz’s “warmonger” comment. This brought immediate criticism from John McCain, as he believes that Obama should have denounced these comments. According to CNN, McCain said, “I hope that in keeping with the spirit of Sen. Obama, that they condemn, that Sen. Obama will condemn such language since it was a part of his campaign” (CNN).

Yet, let it be noted that A) Obama was not even in the room at the time, did not hear what Schultz said, and therefore was not aware of the controversial statement and B) Ed Schultz is “not an official supporter of the campaign and was asked to speak by theNorth Dakota Democratic Party, not the Obama campaign” (CNN).

The Obama campaign did eventually denounce Schultz’ statement as Jen Psaki, an Obama campaign spokeswoman, said that, “John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged” (CNN). But was this denouncement necessary? Do politicians really have to apologize for every controversial comment made by every person? Even if the comment made was said by an individual who is not a part of the campaign staff? Where do we draw the line?

We’ve seen them be dismissed one by one, Geraldine Ferrara, a speaker for Hillary Clinton, Bill Cunningham, a speaker for McCain. All have been shunned by their respective campaigns because they dared to speak their mind and say something that wasn’t quite “p.c.” Take a look at a USA Today cartoon by Stantis. The cartoonist implies that if the current campaigns continue to denounce speakers for every little comment they make, soon the candidate’s themselves will be denounced and kicked out by their own campaign.

I appreciate the candidates’ efforts to keep things civil and limit how far their supporters can go in criticizing their opponents. But do we really expect the candidate to be responsible for every word that comes out of every potential supporter’s mouth? Hypothetically, let’s say I am a Clinton supporter and have decided to write in the Observer and comment that I don’t like McCain because he’s old and bald. Will it be Clinton’s fault if she doesn’t immediately denounce my comments? No, because she is not responsible for what some writer said in some school paper.

So why is Obama responsible for Schultz’s comments? Or McCain for Cunningham’s? If the candidates are expected to spend their time apologizing for what everyone else has said, when will we actually get to hear what they have to say?

Would It Kill Us to Laugh a Little?

We have been talking about humor recently in class which is interesting because we do not see it a whole lot in politics. We see humor in different forms of media, especially televised. Even the news shows like "Today" or "Good Morning America" make room for a few laughs every now and then. But when it comes to politics there does not seem to be any room for clever jokes. I realize with the myriad of issues being discussed there are few opportunities to have fun, but I do not think a little humor would kill anyone.

Clinton's April Fool's joke was a good example of a candidate having a little fun on the campaign trail. There are three reasons this joke was good. First, she was poking fun at Obama without really attacking him. She was making fun of his bowling skills, not his policies. Second, the joke came at a good time during this election. There has been much speculation as to what is going to happen to the Democratic party since Obama and Clinton are so close in the polls. When she started the press conference she mentioned that she was making a decision for the good of the Democratic party, leading reporters to think that this was a serious statement. Finally, what really made the joke was who it came from. Clinton is not really known for her sense of humor which makes her an unlikely source for a joke. This idea was echoed in Kathleen Parker's article which was passed out in Monday's class. The article basically states that although Clinton is brilliant the one thing that is missing is a sense of humor.

Obama has also shown some humor, though his is more frequent. One such example is when Obama was asked if he thinks Bill Clinton was the first black president. He complimented Clinton's accomplishments as President and gave a serious answer. However, he then threw in a little joke about wanting to see Clinton's dancing skills to really see if he was "a brother". This comment came at a great time because it relieved some of the stress of the debate. It also did not put anyone down. If anything, Obama really complimented Clinton and just threw in a little non-offensive comic relief.

I believe that a little humor on the campaign trail makes the candidates seem more human. We look at these candidates as though they are super human which is not the case. By showing a little humor they are relating to the common person which makes them more likable. A little humor on the campaign trail would not hurt– it is not like the candidates' credibility will be diminished. So, really, if we laughed every now and then would it really hurt?

Humor. Another Downfall for Women?

I would like to discuss the reading we have for class analyzing the humor rhetoric of Ann Richards. I know there are many boundaries women cannot cross in fear of coming off in the wrong way, but I never expected humor to be one of them. Richards does a terrific job captivating the attention of her audience and gaining their respect of a woman. Richards' success comes from her strategic mix of feminine and feminist humor to play the roles of "proper female" and "hard headed politician".
Feminine humor recognizes cultural inequities, but does seek to change them. Feminist humor reverses mainstream cultural beliefs, values, and roles, ridicules mainstream cultural expectations, also ridicules feminist expectations, is about the common female experience, affirms women's strength, reifies in-group/out-group relationships, and is usually anti-male. (pg. 276). Richards demonstrates these traits when she analyzes George Bush: "For eight straight years George Bush hasn't displayed the slightest interest in anything we care about. And now he's after a job he can't get appointed to, he's like Columbus discovering America--he's found childcare, he's found education. Poor George, he can't help it--he was born with a silver foot in his mouth" (pg. 281). In this quote, she touches on the a few things that are important to women, but also mocks Bush as an 'incompetent male'.
Richards speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 is a great example of her skill as a politician and as a persuader to her audience. She grasps the audience in her first sentence. I think It is evident Richards knows the political road for America. Richards uses her intelligence to keep her political position and to fight for America.
I think humor is a vital part of a politicians personality. By implementing some humor into a campaign, a politician can be placed on a "average person" scale and also gives relief to the stuffed shirt image of the average politician. It is a strength of all politicians if used correctly. Humor also bring a lighter note to the harsh reality of politics. Perhaps if politicians were "humanized" and more personal, people wouldn't be so turned off by politics. Ann Richards is a great example of how to defy the boundaries keeping women in traditional roles and how to stand on the political stage.

Bloggers Everywhere Are Discussing...

Websites have become a huge source of information for people all over the world. Organizations, companies, politicians, all create websites in order to get their message out there. One website that is currently gaining a lot of increased attention, and is sure to gain more, is www.recreate68.org. This organization is prepared to recreate the outcome of the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, if they do not get the results that they want. The mayor of the Chicago was aware that there would possibly be a number of disruptions and while he declared that, “law and order will be maintained,” it did not happen. The 2008 Democratic National Convention that will be held in Denver this summer is already making preparations to secure the area in an attempt to keep disturbances down. The disturbances at the 1968 Convention even became violent between police and protesters, why they would glorify that by naming their organization after that event I have no idea. The website does not claim to have those plans; it is more that they are demanding to have their voices heard. However, generally speaking I do not think that violent protests are really ever planned or intended, they just happen. Moreover, the main activists within this organization have created quite a ruckus in their past protests. There is no telling what will happen with this protest if it does in fact get off the ground.

While it has yet to garner a large amount of notice from the major news sources, but is slowly catching on, bloggers have been on top of this developing story. Still, a lot of people may not consider bloggers to be serious and legitimate journalists, but who can claim that their news source and opinions are any less credible? In this case and many others, bloggers are noticing these developments and dissecting stories way before the major news sources. I think that this is helping to increase the amount of legitimacy blogs receive. This story has been covered in well known blog spots such as The Huffington Post all the way down to lesser known individuals who run their blog on their own. The Denver Post commented on the potential protest in June of 2007, and bloggers have been discussing it since, and providing updates especially by those running the blogs and are involved in the group in some capacity. It will be interesting to see how this stories play out and if bloggers are on to something…

Candidate Websites: Who's Doing What with Theirs?

What makes up an effective website? How are candidates able to reach out via the web to individuals who are seeking information on their political experience, plans for the future, and current campaign? I decided to look more into Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama’s websites to do a bit of comparing and contrasting, as well as a personal critique.

Starting with John McCain. His website is extremely professional and well put together. Clearly there is a theme with the star logo and his name is the first big focal point upon entering the site. There is no mistake of who this website represents. There is also an image in toward the top left of him and his wife smiling at what could possibly be a crowd of supporters. His wife is waving, and although she herself is behind McCain, the extended arm allows her to be noticed and stick out in the photo as well, instead of be hidden in the background.

As far as the home page is concerned, you have a variety of options to choose from. The theme of the site focuses on McCain’s service to America. There is an immediate link under the aforementioned photo that allows you to “follow the tour” of what his campaign as named “The Story of John McCain: Service to America Tour.” I would also like to note a subtext under “The Story of John McCain” that reads “The American President Americans have been waiting for.” This immediately reminded me of a speech strategy we talked about in class earlier this semester about the importance of emphasizing language that implies victory (like stating “when I am president…”). I really felt that this simple subtext was a strong conviction that McCain will win the presidency.

Moving onto navigation of the page, you have drop down links to see all options, a place to sign up and donate, as well as links to recent news stories and links to “McCain’s Action Center,” which includes links to places where you are able to join the campaign’s support in one way or another. Overall, McCain’s website is well pulled together and easily navigated through.

Next, I looked at the Clinton website. Again, you have an image of Hillary in front of an audience of supporters looking happy and engaging to the audience. Hillary has a couple differences than McCain that really highlight her internet savvy campaign team. First of all, her first major headline under the main picture of her in front of a crowd specifically states “Help Hillary Win Indiana.” This really shows that her website is being frequently updated and is addressing current events that she is working toward in obtaining a candidacy nomination. Besides frequent updates, she has Hillary TV on the main page, and this is a feature I do not see consistent across the board with the candidates. Her use of video technology is a great tool in the campaigning process. The use of drop down links is, again, a convenient feature that minimizes needless clicking around a website, and her decision to have related Hillary websites and links to recent news and information at the top of the scrolling page is an effective placement of what she would like emphasized to those who visit her site. Like in the McCain site as well, you see the red, white and blue themed colors, and a noticeable patriotic logo connected with her name.

Finally, I checked out Obama’s site. Red, white and blue color scheme? Check. Scroll down navigation rollover? Check. Unchanging photo of candidate along with noticeable patriotic logo with name? Check, check. We see reoccurring themes for these websites that give them the quick and easy navigation and obtainment of information. All three sites also have nearly identical navigation links to the same issues. I found it particularly interesting that each site had one of their major thinks connected to a blog. Like we have been discussing in class lately, the blogosphere is becoming a turning point in the process of getting spotlight on certain information and making what we see as news.

One point I would just like to reiterate is the fact that Clinton is the only candidate of the three that utilizes the web videos. McCain has a photo gallery, while Obama has his own form of Barack TV, however the organization of Clinton’s video gallery and the emphasis of it on her website is more prominent.

I didn’t look into minor party candidate’s websites, however, going off of the Nader site we saw in class, there are obvious differences to their composition. The color scheme, the navigation, and overall lack of tech savvy support indicates the disadvantages that come with providing a website that you are unable to help grow with a limited budget and minimal support. Websites are the master media of our mainstream media world, and it is important for the major candidates especially to keep up with their sites and make them as easy as possible for individuals to find and access the information they desire.

Personally, I was the most impressed with Clinton’s site and found it the most attractive at first glance.

McCain building up support already

After winning the Republican nomination further in advance than the Democratic Party, John McCain is wasting no time building up his support already. But is this a good step since McCain doesn’t have the fundraising? Fox News reported that McCain “Has just $7.9 million cash on hand compared to $33.1 million for Hillary Clinton and $38.8 million for Barack Obama, according to Federal Election Commission filings through Feb. 29.” His contributing numbers are failing and with lack of opponent as of right now, why is he spending this money so quickly?

The spending by McCain is being done most recently on a series of television ads. The Washington Times reported that McCain’s first ad is very positive and allows a “reintroducing himself as a leader, tax-cutter and the man who spent years as a POW in the Vietnam War.” The chance to make himself look so positive ahead of time is a strategic method that could be negative in the long run but I think it is worth it in the end. Also, supporters gained from the ads could maybe provide extra funding to make the future ads bigger and better.

Just yesterday McCain released the first Spanish language general election television ad to be aired in New Mexico. CBS news reported that, “McCain ran Spanish language ads over the radio before January's Florida primary and won the Hispanic vote there.” This new strategy is important in recognition and reaching out to those who matter to the American vote and could significantly change the outcome of the election. This could be a smart move for him in winning over an important minority before their chance to make a choice.

CBS news also reported McCain, “Noted concern about the impression some may have that the Republican Party is anti-Hispanic. “We are the party we think, of the Hispanics. Small businesses, less regulation, lower taxes, pro-military and so we’ve got to re-emphasize that message.” McCain made a smart move in not only promoting himself but the Republican Party for future elections. His recognition of the importance of Hispanic residents realizing the Republican Party is something they would be interesting in could be a gift for the future.

             With the election coming up very quickly it is interesting to see McCain take a stand in the general election while both Clinton and Obama are still fighting for the nomination. It is important to get McCain’s message to the public, it is just a concern that his funding is so much lower than both Clinton and Obama. Hopefully with careful budgeting, he will arise to prove that this was in fact a smart move on his campaigns behalf. Without the incivility just yet, McCain looks like a strong candidate where confidence and patriotism are roles he seems to portray to his audience every time.

            The question for me is that does he want to keep this role as a positive person if when the Democratic candidate is nominated challenges him negatively. This could greatly change his image from positive and confidence to not defensive and easy to step on. Fundraising will be an issue for the future but for now, stating his purpose in the election is a good strategy to have. We’ll see if he cannot only keep up with his image, but with his opponent in the race for President 2008.